SARH to go
Yes, I am on shift today but I have been doing some flying in our proper long range SAR aircraft!
The article highlights that the MCA will believe what they are told by operators or contractors wanting to pull the wool over their eyes. Not that any of the esteemed bidders for the 3 to 5 Bn SAR H contract would do such a thing
Contractorisation seeks to make profit by reducing manpower and training hours since these are the only 2 variables in SAR - the cost of the machines and infrastructure is broadly the same - which do you think is best for the British public and those other nationalities who choose to travel through our SRR - cheapest or best trained?
The article highlights that the MCA will believe what they are told by operators or contractors wanting to pull the wool over their eyes. Not that any of the esteemed bidders for the 3 to 5 Bn SAR H contract would do such a thing
Contractorisation seeks to make profit by reducing manpower and training hours since these are the only 2 variables in SAR - the cost of the machines and infrastructure is broadly the same - which do you think is best for the British public and those other nationalities who choose to travel through our SRR - cheapest or best trained?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the following in a sport commentator’s sort of way. (Or meatloaf)
Welcome late comers to the SARH snout in the MOD trough stakes, leading by a long way is the S92 with the AW101 in a sorry second and last place, but what’s this, the S92 is slowing up with only a short way to go, the AW101 is catching fast, does the S92 have the range to finish the job or has the 101 just got longer legs. Some of my co presenters smell a rat but I think something fishier is going on (Perhaps Crab)
. It’s neck and neck as they reach the line…………… and the winner is…………………………..
Yeah, I know the routine, Hat Coat etc.
R1a
Welcome late comers to the SARH snout in the MOD trough stakes, leading by a long way is the S92 with the AW101 in a sorry second and last place, but what’s this, the S92 is slowing up with only a short way to go, the AW101 is catching fast, does the S92 have the range to finish the job or has the 101 just got longer legs. Some of my co presenters smell a rat but I think something fishier is going on (Perhaps Crab)
. It’s neck and neck as they reach the line…………… and the winner is…………………………..Yeah, I know the routine, Hat Coat etc.
R1a
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW139
Footage of the AW139 based at portland in action.
Meridian - News - In-depth news and features for South Coast, Hampshire, Dorset, Kent, Isle of Wight, Wiltshire and Thames Valley
Meridian - News - In-depth news and features for South Coast, Hampshire, Dorset, Kent, Isle of Wight, Wiltshire and Thames Valley
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the mil SAR boys are enjoying a well deserved gloat now the cat is out of the bag ref the new short-range SAR service provided by the MCA (Please don't repeat all that tripe about interim SAR being the fault of some lowly sqn ldr). My object of derision is the MCA higher management by the way, not the crews who have been hamstrung with the new aircraft.
This story deserves much greater publicity because the UK public, taxpayer and, most importantly, the government need to know about this. With regard to SAR-H, if you think this is bad, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Don't forget, after SAR-H comes in the military won't be there to dig the contractor out of it once all the excuses for a service that falls short of that promised start.
Interesting to see some Crab baiting as soon as the story was posted. The stick that chap has received over the years for having the courage to tell the truth, even after some toe-rag revealed his identity, has been disgusting at times. Looks like he has been proved right.
This story deserves much greater publicity because the UK public, taxpayer and, most importantly, the government need to know about this. With regard to SAR-H, if you think this is bad, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Don't forget, after SAR-H comes in the military won't be there to dig the contractor out of it once all the excuses for a service that falls short of that promised start.
Interesting to see some Crab baiting as soon as the story was posted. The stick that chap has received over the years for having the courage to tell the truth, even after some toe-rag revealed his identity, has been disgusting at times. Looks like he has been proved right.
Just like Sikorsky said the S92 met (and exceeded) all the criteria and AW said the about the 139. Self-praise is no recommendation
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common guys! Why the retorical questions. You are in the uK and I am sure Aberdeen is a part of that???? Pick up a phone-surely there is enough 225 and S92 hours being flown to make a decision on fact and not just what the manufacturer claim. What about jigsaw??? How is the L2 doing? If it is doing as advertised, that is a plus for the 225? Forum is dead quiet on the 225 performance so is that a good thing or bad? Phone.
Sorry, maybe my logic doesn't work!!!!
Sorry, maybe my logic doesn't work!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't repeat all that tripe about interim SAR being the fault of some lowly sqn ldr.
This story deserves much greater publicity because the UK public, taxpayer and, most importantly, the government need to know about this.
With regard to SAR-H, if you think this is bad, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'. Don't forget, after SAR-H comes in the military won't be there to dig the contractor out of it once all the excuses for a service that falls short of that promised start.
Interesting to see some Crab baiting as soon as the story was posted. The stick that chap has received over the years for having the courage to tell the truth, even after some toe-rag revealed his identity, has been disgusting at times. Looks like he has been proved right.
Maybe, all the anti civy rants and SAR-H RAF propoganda is more about RAF pilots having to leave the service to remain where they are rather than SAR-H itself.
Still not formulated your own argument then Lost at Sea?
Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder.
When one bidder assumes the customer will accept more of the same basic service he has provided for many years and another bidder comes along with new shiny toys and the promise of better performance and capability - guess who MCA chose?
The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.
Gordon Brown has wasted so much public money the MoD's cock-ups look like very small beer in comparison.
How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.
The systemic incompetence isn't at the front line, it is at the higher levels in MoD-land where countless Air Rank Officers vie for knighthoods and try to hold together a system that doesn't work (because the politicians have knackered it) long enough to hand over to the next sucker on the greasy pole.
All the 'anti-civvy rants', as you call them, are because I believe UK military SAR to be the best for the UK, a civilian company would never pay for what we can provide because they would never make any profit out of it.
Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder.
When one bidder assumes the customer will accept more of the same basic service he has provided for many years and another bidder comes along with new shiny toys and the promise of better performance and capability - guess who MCA chose?
The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.
Gordon Brown has wasted so much public money the MoD's cock-ups look like very small beer in comparison.
How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.
The systemic incompetence isn't at the front line, it is at the higher levels in MoD-land where countless Air Rank Officers vie for knighthoods and try to hold together a system that doesn't work (because the politicians have knackered it) long enough to hand over to the next sucker on the greasy pole.
All the 'anti-civvy rants', as you call them, are because I believe UK military SAR to be the best for the UK, a civilian company would never pay for what we can provide because they would never make any profit out of it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost at Sea,
How can you be so sure of the content and form of mil advice provided to the interim contract? Were you involved? Was the MCA under an obligation to implement all advice or was it at liberty to pick and choose? I am also slightly confused why the MCA would need mil advice anyway. This is, after all, the organisation that claims expertise in all things SAR and that many on this board are happy to endorse. So given the MCA's obvious pedigree it is slightly baffling that they asked the mil to advise them. I can see why the claim about duff mil advice is being touted now, it is a lame excuse for being caught out as not quite having the expertise previously claimed.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork next (and who within the RAF/MoD is to blame).
More power to the Crab!
How can you be so sure of the content and form of mil advice provided to the interim contract? Were you involved? Was the MCA under an obligation to implement all advice or was it at liberty to pick and choose? I am also slightly confused why the MCA would need mil advice anyway. This is, after all, the organisation that claims expertise in all things SAR and that many on this board are happy to endorse. So given the MCA's obvious pedigree it is slightly baffling that they asked the mil to advise them. I can see why the claim about duff mil advice is being touted now, it is a lame excuse for being caught out as not quite having the expertise previously claimed.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork next (and who within the RAF/MoD is to blame).
More power to the Crab!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab said:
"Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder".
Surely confirming that the aircraft were fit for the job involves validating the performance, range, payload etc? If the RAF ("lowly squadron leader") did give technical advice then her competence is questionable!
Regards,
a taxpayer
"Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder".
Surely confirming that the aircraft were fit for the job involves validating the performance, range, payload etc? If the RAF ("lowly squadron leader") did give technical advice then her competence is questionable!
Regards,
a taxpayer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running in,
Can I ask you the same questions I asked lost at sea ref the mil advice to the interim bid? If you don't know the answers then how can you be in a position to blame this 'lowly sqn ldr' who now appears to be gaining myhtical status?
Lots of supposition regarding this particular point and unless any of the accusations directed at the mil can be proved then you are left with the conclusion that it was the MCA that screwed up.
Can I ask you the same questions I asked lost at sea ref the mil advice to the interim bid? If you don't know the answers then how can you be in a position to blame this 'lowly sqn ldr' who now appears to be gaining myhtical status?
Lots of supposition regarding this particular point and unless any of the accusations directed at the mil can be proved then you are left with the conclusion that it was the MCA that screwed up.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All Over
Age: 61
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL,
What's interesting is that the MCA ran an excellent SAR service for 20 years and then the RAF got involved......
Crab,
It's nice that you can dismiss an RAF £3 BILLION pound wastage of public money so flippantly. If everyone else in the service has such scant regard for the taxpayers money then its little wonder they don't want the RAF to run SAR!
If it takes a team of subject matter experts to work out the range of an aircraft then who in the RAF gave the MCA the technical advice in the first place, a cook?
If an aircraft can't do a job because its in the hangar in bits or because it doesn't have the range then its exactly the same. Neither aircraft can do the job!! How'd you like that argument? Nah, you'll probably ignore it and call me 'mental' again! (and it's not my aircraft
)!!!!!
And I have loads of arguments but in true spin doctor fashion you choose to ignore them!
What's interesting is that the MCA ran an excellent SAR service for 20 years and then the RAF got involved......
Crab,
It's nice that you can dismiss an RAF £3 BILLION pound wastage of public money so flippantly. If everyone else in the service has such scant regard for the taxpayers money then its little wonder they don't want the RAF to run SAR!
The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.
How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.
)!!!!!And I have loads of arguments but in true spin doctor fashion you choose to ignore them!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Press & Journal quoted earlier (I know, a Highly Reliable Source), the range problem is due to non-fitment of long-range tanks. Now if the contract was based on having l-r tanks as specified items, and they subsequently aren't fitted, that's hardly a technical analysis issue - is it?
Sven
Sven
Crab,
Why do you think the military is better for the UK SAR coverage without any knowledge of the civilian side? To be specific, the pilot's skills are the same with the possibility that the civilian pilots have a few more hours having been probably trained by the military before crossing the fence. It goes without saying that the civil winch operators and crewmen have the same bravery and skills as the military. The dedication of the crews will therefore be the same. So, it comes down to the aircraft as the SAR control is from the same site. Before the recent change in the SAR contract are you saying that the Sea King is superior to the S61N? Or, are you saying that because the RAF has a few more bases from which SAR aircraft can be deployed when, say Stornaway, is clagged in they can supply an aircraft from another base? The profit you mention will all depend on the agreed contract, no business will knowingly operate at a loss so it will come down to the difference between what the MoD now spends on SAR and what a civilian company can do the same job for. I think that the difference in the costs of both sides will be shown by the less engineers required by the civil side, thus saving a lot of money.
Why do you think the military is better for the UK SAR coverage without any knowledge of the civilian side? To be specific, the pilot's skills are the same with the possibility that the civilian pilots have a few more hours having been probably trained by the military before crossing the fence. It goes without saying that the civil winch operators and crewmen have the same bravery and skills as the military. The dedication of the crews will therefore be the same. So, it comes down to the aircraft as the SAR control is from the same site. Before the recent change in the SAR contract are you saying that the Sea King is superior to the S61N? Or, are you saying that because the RAF has a few more bases from which SAR aircraft can be deployed when, say Stornaway, is clagged in they can supply an aircraft from another base? The profit you mention will all depend on the agreed contract, no business will knowingly operate at a loss so it will come down to the difference between what the MoD now spends on SAR and what a civilian company can do the same job for. I think that the difference in the costs of both sides will be shown by the less engineers required by the civil side, thus saving a lot of money.
Last edited by Oldlae; 3rd Jul 2008 at 08:16.