SARH to go
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the Royal Bank of Scotland now 58% belongs to the taxpayer, where does this leave the Soteria bid, a government owned - albeit at arms length - organisation in the bidding for a government contract? 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Step,
It means that the money can go twice round the cycle: wash, rinse, dry, costing the good old taxpayer an additional 10-20% each time. That should give a good boost to the economy!
TD
It means that the money can go twice round the cycle: wash, rinse, dry, costing the good old taxpayer an additional 10-20% each time. That should give a good boost to the economy!
TD
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Step - Wow you are right. I hadn't really thought about it like that. In these uncertain financial times it must really strengthen their bid having their funding underwritten to that degree. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention. Or were you trying to convey a different message 
Crab - The Ministry of Magic discussed the issue of employment of SAR-H during TTW in the FI nearly two years ago and subsequently signed off on the documents pack. Sounds like the string joining the bean cans in Whitehall and Stanley may have snapped again?
Crab - The Ministry of Magic discussed the issue of employment of SAR-H during TTW in the FI nearly two years ago and subsequently signed off on the documents pack. Sounds like the string joining the bean cans in Whitehall and Stanley may have snapped again?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Step - Wow you are right. I hadn't really thought about it like that. In these uncertain financial times it must really strengthen their bid having their funding underwritten to that degree. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention. Or were you trying to convey a different message
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop Press !!!!!!!!
Don't cancel SAR-H, the solution is here:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/345...l-yet-s61.html
Discuss.
HAL
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/345...l-yet-s61.html
Discuss.
HAL
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: West of Greenwich
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL9000 
I have to agree with you. I was thinking the same thing myself. Is it true that you can have three of these new shiney 61's for the price of a 92. Any ideas why Sikorsky are coming onboard with the refits.
I have to agree with you. I was thinking the same thing myself. Is it true that you can have three of these new shiney 61's for the price of a 92. Any ideas why Sikorsky are coming onboard with the refits.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL 9000 - Discuss.
Are you familiar with the introduction to service of the RAF's Mk 3A Sea King? It is not unusual to have teething problems with a new type or variant. I am pretty sure that a re-worked S61/Sea King with new engines/rotors/FCS/avionics/cockpit and all of the integration that would be required would also have its drawbacks. The trouble with that approach is that it would, in the end, be bit like Trigger's broom, so why not just start with a clean sheet/modern design? The NH90 is about Sea King size, bigger than the 139 and smaller than the 101, yet seldom gets a mention. Too expensive or are there other disadvantages?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Bloom,
I know some of the detail of the Mk3A introduction into service and agree that all new aircraft have teething problems. The main attraction of the Carson upgrade would be cost savings; assuming there are significant savings of course when all the details are known.
Does anyone have accurate figures for the cost of the Carson upgrade?
HAL
I know some of the detail of the Mk3A introduction into service and agree that all new aircraft have teething problems. The main attraction of the Carson upgrade would be cost savings; assuming there are significant savings of course when all the details are known.
Does anyone have accurate figures for the cost of the Carson upgrade?
HAL
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I am not mistaken the S61/SK/H3 series were designed to hover over the water, which of course makes them an ideal winching platform.
Modern designs seem to be designed to do as much as possible, but with a leaning towards all weather high speed transit, thereby compromising on the hovering bit.
So in that respect the old airframe would seem to be the way to go.
But flying the thing is only a small part of it (unfortunately). Someone has to pay for it, maintain it and find the spare parts for it. Who is going to put money on being able to find S61 spares in 34 years time?
Modern designs seem to be designed to do as much as possible, but with a leaning towards all weather high speed transit, thereby compromising on the hovering bit.
So in that respect the old airframe would seem to be the way to go.
But flying the thing is only a small part of it (unfortunately). Someone has to pay for it, maintain it and find the spare parts for it. Who is going to put money on being able to find S61 spares in 34 years time?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droopystop,
If the figures of just over a 1000 S61/Sea Kings produced, of which 620 are still in service worldwide, are accurate then I think there will be economies of scale in producing spares for some time to come.
A very valid point made about designing an aircraft to hover rather than shoehorn a commuter bus into a winching role (139 again!).
HAL
If the figures of just over a 1000 S61/Sea Kings produced, of which 620 are still in service worldwide, are accurate then I think there will be economies of scale in producing spares for some time to come.
A very valid point made about designing an aircraft to hover rather than shoehorn a commuter bus into a winching role (139 again!).
HAL
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
love the old but love the new too....
It would be appropriate to recall the dramas we had in the early days of the S61/Sea King which included shedding rotor blades, dumping gearbox oil and slipping free-wheels to mention just a few. Give the 139 a break, it's a sweet machine and one day the Mk2 will be a real beast.
I have nothing but admiration for the AW team who took helo design in a direction that was much derided by some experts (Nick!!) but has proven to be a world beater and is still selling like hot cakes.
Will the French copycat version be a competitor? Well, if they have learnt the lessons of the 139 Mk 1 then maybe but I suspect that Eurocopter being Eurocopter greatly value the right to make their own design F*****k ups.
Wait for the EC175 Mk 2 if you don't want 4 years of tearing your hair out, who knows, maybe the 139 Mk2 will be out then and you wont have to bother with all that Chablis and Camembert but can sup fine Pinot Grigio from Alto Adige and sprinkle Parmigiano on your Risotto Porcini, mmmmmmmmmmmm.
Big G
I have nothing but admiration for the AW team who took helo design in a direction that was much derided by some experts (Nick!!) but has proven to be a world beater and is still selling like hot cakes.
Will the French copycat version be a competitor? Well, if they have learnt the lessons of the 139 Mk 1 then maybe but I suspect that Eurocopter being Eurocopter greatly value the right to make their own design F*****k ups.
Wait for the EC175 Mk 2 if you don't want 4 years of tearing your hair out, who knows, maybe the 139 Mk2 will be out then and you wont have to bother with all that Chablis and Camembert but can sup fine Pinot Grigio from Alto Adige and sprinkle Parmigiano on your Risotto Porcini, mmmmmmmmmmmm.
Big G
My take on a couple of points raised.
RBS may well be part of a consortia, but financing a bid this large would likely be spread over a multitude of financial institutions - not just one - thereby reducing risk.
I’d also have thought that the majority of the 3-5Bn mentioned will be swallowed up on 25 years of wages, pensions and benefits, not the platforms.
The S-61 has an iconic reputation, so with some 600+ still in service the Carson blade makes sense for many operators, but I suspect that many military and civil customers alike would feel a whole lot better about installing a blade that had the backing and support of the platform OEM.
In my lifetime, UK Mil SAR has always operated on a ‘Hand-Me-Down’ basis (Whirlwind, Wessex and now the Sea King’s (MK3a’aside but still an old design back in 1996). This bid offers UK SAR an opportunity to acquire not only NEW delivery platforms built with the very latest designs and technologies and most importantly for the crews and passengers, safety features, so why in heavens would you consider going forward with a 50-year old design that is becoming increasingly difficult to support now, let alone in 20 years?
Regarding cabin size and in spite of my last comment the S-61 is King, but OEM’s design their platform size on market requirements and if the civil airworthiness authorities mandate restrictions on the number of PAX that an operator can carry before additional cabin crew requirements kick in, then that’s not the fault of the OEM for not building a bigger cabin with costly excess space.
NH90? I think not.
• There are currently some 5 production lines for the NH90 worldwide, yet only 20 to 30 or so have been delivered to date and all these were well behind schedule, so not likely to be ready for a 2012 ISD in any UK SAR role.
• Problems with the naval variant are leaving many to look elsewhere for a maritime solution.
• Unproven in Troop Transportation Role let alone in a UK Civ/Mil SAR role.
• Currently no civil variant
• Simply put, an unproven high risk solution
RBS may well be part of a consortia, but financing a bid this large would likely be spread over a multitude of financial institutions - not just one - thereby reducing risk.
I’d also have thought that the majority of the 3-5Bn mentioned will be swallowed up on 25 years of wages, pensions and benefits, not the platforms.
The S-61 has an iconic reputation, so with some 600+ still in service the Carson blade makes sense for many operators, but I suspect that many military and civil customers alike would feel a whole lot better about installing a blade that had the backing and support of the platform OEM.
In my lifetime, UK Mil SAR has always operated on a ‘Hand-Me-Down’ basis (Whirlwind, Wessex and now the Sea King’s (MK3a’aside but still an old design back in 1996). This bid offers UK SAR an opportunity to acquire not only NEW delivery platforms built with the very latest designs and technologies and most importantly for the crews and passengers, safety features, so why in heavens would you consider going forward with a 50-year old design that is becoming increasingly difficult to support now, let alone in 20 years?
Regarding cabin size and in spite of my last comment the S-61 is King, but OEM’s design their platform size on market requirements and if the civil airworthiness authorities mandate restrictions on the number of PAX that an operator can carry before additional cabin crew requirements kick in, then that’s not the fault of the OEM for not building a bigger cabin with costly excess space.
NH90? I think not.
• There are currently some 5 production lines for the NH90 worldwide, yet only 20 to 30 or so have been delivered to date and all these were well behind schedule, so not likely to be ready for a 2012 ISD in any UK SAR role.
• Problems with the naval variant are leaving many to look elsewhere for a maritime solution.
• Unproven in Troop Transportation Role let alone in a UK Civ/Mil SAR role.
• Currently no civil variant
• Simply put, an unproven high risk solution
Since AW is the Design Authority for the mil Sea Kings and the current service provider of the engineering for mil SKs under SKIOS 2 - they would have a vested interest in a Sea King/Carson upgrade, even though they would probably prefer to fit their own BERP technology blades.
The alternative, given that their SARH bid has been withdrawn and SKIOS would end in 2017 (the OSD for SKs), would be to completely lose any foothold in the future of SAR unless the 139 is chosen for the contract. Seems to me they would be foolish not to at least offer this solution which could act as a stop-gap measure until the clowns in power recover the economy from meltdown.
The alternative, given that their SARH bid has been withdrawn and SKIOS would end in 2017 (the OSD for SKs), would be to completely lose any foothold in the future of SAR unless the 139 is chosen for the contract. Seems to me they would be foolish not to at least offer this solution which could act as a stop-gap measure until the clowns in power recover the economy from meltdown.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3-D
I thought you knew that rose-tinted spectacles are compulsory equipment for anyone in the helicopter industry. If I take them off ..... ah. ah ah..... I quickly put them back on again.
Optimism comes as essential equipment these days and when I think where all the other machines in the game went after their birth I am sure that future tweaking will make the 139 totally acceptable and the 149 an even better option in that role............ back to the box........ has anybody seen my spare pair of specs???????????
Big G.
Optimism comes as essential equipment these days and when I think where all the other machines in the game went after their birth I am sure that future tweaking will make the 139 totally acceptable and the 149 an even better option in that role............ back to the box........ has anybody seen my spare pair of specs???????????
Big G.