SARH to go

[Clever Richard]

Mr Bloom,

Try submitting a Freedom of Information request. If your concern is genuine, and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, then it is a legitimate question to ask given the importance and cost of the SAR-H project. Also, it definitely qualifies as being in the public interest.

CD

[[email protected]]

Leopold - I can certainly say with confidence that all the Service SMEs are 100% credible and also that they have brought the quality of the bids a long way in the last couple of years. Many pertinent and probing technical questions were asked by them about claimed capability and training and the bidders have had to raise their game significantly.

It isn't a surprise that they might have been asked to sign a contractual waiver and I'm also not surprised that some might have told people to ram it - these guys have been working very hard to improve the future of UK SAR and the MoD doesn't want them so why shouldn't they work for the winning bidder? None of them will allow that to skew how they view and rate the bids because, unlike our politicians and many businessmen, they have integrity.

[L2driver]

Uk Sar

From AINonline today

<H1 class=head_cblk_18px>Conclusion in sight for UK’s SAR competition

By: Bernard Fitzsimons
June 1, 2009
Rotorcraft


Selection of a preferred bidder could emerge before the end of this year in the UK’s search-and-rescue helicopter (SAR-H) procurement process, which aims to replace the country’s existing mix of military and contractor-operated helicopters with new machines operated by a single commercial consortium under a private finance initiative (PFI) contract.

The two groups still vying for the contract recently revealed their choice
of platform. The AirKnight teaming of Lockheed Martin, VT Group and British International Helicopters is proposing the Eurocopter EC 225, while the rival Soteria consortium of CHC Helicopter, Thales UK and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has opted for the Sikorsky S-92.

A third team, UK Air Rescue, formed initially by Bristow Helicopters, Serco and FB Heliservices and joined subsequently by AgustaWestland, withdrew last year, citing unspecified commercial reasons for bowing out. It had been expected to offer the AW101, probably in combination with a smaller type, but the other bidders’ selection of a single helicopter suggests the option of a mixed fleet might have been ruled out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and Ministry of Defence, which are managing the SAR-H program.

The winning bidder’s machines will replace the 30 search-and-rescue Sea Kings operated by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from eight bases. Helicopters at
four other locations are operated under a five-year interim contract by CHC, which currently deploys S-92s at the northern Scottish bases of Sumburgh and Stornoway and AW139s at two bases on the south coast of England. The SAR-H contract is due to start in 2012 and run for up to 30 years at a cost of at least £3 billion ($4.5 billion).

Revealing his team’s choice of platform, Soteria bid director David Rae said it was “absolutely confident that the S-92 is the right aircraft for this new era in UK SAR services.” The type is specifically configured for SAR operations, he said: “It has already established an excellent track record and possesses the power, speed and technological capabilities to deliver SAR services in the most testing of conditions.”

CHC says its S-92s have proved extremely successful in what it describes as “the most challenging environment that the UK has to offer.” They have been called out more than 300 times and recorded availability levels of better than 98 percent.

AirKnight bid director Tom Gordon pointed to the EC 225’s ability to carry 12 or more casualties and fly more than 500 miles unrefueled, and the provision of doors either side of the cabin to make casualty recovery easier. “It has an outstanding safety and service record, was initially designed for the demands of search-and-rescue missions, and is extremely reliable,” he said.

An AirKnight spokesman said the two teams are engaged in an ongoing “competitive dialogue” with the MCA/MoD. A new technical tender is due to be submitted this month, followed by a best and final financial proposal later in the summer, with selection of the preferred bidder possible before the end of the year.

</H1>

[leopold bloom]

The A Team

Crab, thanks for the info glad to hear the A team are still on the case.

[carlhooper]

ground clearance issues??

Just to add a quick question..? Will the 92's be cleared to land on un-prepared sites? They've had problems in the mountains recently. What will change if they get preferred bidder? I thinkit's a ground clearance + nvg limitation.

[Lioncopter]

Eh what specifically have been the problems with the s-92's in the mountians?

[Bucaneer Bill]

Presumably those that are not included in the sixty six will be available to join their light and dark blue brethren in expeditionary adventures? I don't know how the figure of sixty six was derived, but I understand that the idea is that miltary SAR skills will be maintained for use in the front line? What sort or turn around do you anticipate between SARF and expeditionary duties?

[detgnome]

Bill - I suggest a trawl through the previous 49 pages will provide a great deal more information on the brigading of mil personnel within SARH

[L2driver]

Maybe I am thick, but what does this mean:

Presumably those that are not included in the sixty six will be available to join their light and dark blue brethren??

I have flown in the North Sea for 30 years, not in the UK mind you, but I have no idea what you are talking about and I have read previous posts in this thread.
light and dark blue brethren?? SARF??

Why don't we stick to language that we can all understand?

[212man]

L2,
SARF - Search And Rescue Force
Light Blue - Royal Air Force
Dark Blue - Royal Navy

I'm assuming you know what Brethren means

[[email protected]]

Bill - the 66 was a figure plucked from the sky as a suggested minimum for the number of mil pers in the SARF post 2012 that would be needed to man the Falklands and provide some (theoretical) transfer of skills from SAR to SH. Unfortunately the minimum, due to some crap staff work and poor decision making, suddenly became the maximum and no-one has had the balls to change it. All the bidders wanted more mil in the mix because it made things easier but once SARH had chosen its path there was no turning back.

There will be very few of the present SARF who will join their bretheren on expeditionary ops because most of them will be required to leave and transfer to SARH or remain in the mil within SARH or the whole system won't get off the ground.

I think most will opt for the transfer option just because of the shabby way we are being treated by the MoD - forced down to 4 crews per flight (because some 2/3 stars didn't understand how our shifts worked and thought they could spread the pain of undermanning) just as the EU working time directive shows that to run 24/7 SAR you need over 5 crews (and that's without including any extra duties/tasks/dets).

The fact is that the military have about 64 pilots 32 winch/radops and 32 winchmen currently employed in front-line SAR (8 flights, 6 RAF, 2 RN at 4 crews per flt) - that's 128 total.

Post 2012 the SARF will need 12 flts x 5 crews (minimum) which is 120 pilots, 60 radop/winchops and 60 winchmen = 240.

Take away the present CG crews (4 flts x 5 crews = 40 pilots, 16 radop/winchops and 16 winchmen) leaves you 80 pilots, 44 radops/winchops and 44 winchmen short.

The 66 mil pers remaining will probably be about 4 flts worth - similar in number to the present CG contingent so you will still be short of about 4 flts worth of trained personnel. There is only one place that experience and skill level can come from and that is from the present mil SARF.

[Tigwas]

Crab

You're a little on the lean side. Don't forget that the Mil crews have to cover FI and there is a Training and Standards organisation. The total number of crews to be recruited will therefore be far more than you state. In addition there will be an extra crew or two to cover risk (any shortfall in Mil manning has to be covered by the contractor - so sickness, training failures etc will leave a hole and the penalty regime is tough) In order to attract that number of crews the bidders will have to have deep pockets and pay similar rates to North Sea.

Tigwas

[[email protected]]

Tigwas - I was being deliberately optimistic in my figures so that no one could claim I was making mountains out of molehills but all your points are eminently valid and, to my mind at least, half the mil crews should be written out of the manning equation just to allow for the Falklands roster.

There are some plans to put some military posts (possibly standards and trg) outside the 66 pers fence but I can't see Mod wearing that somehow since manning are notably reluctant to create pics for jobs and there will have to be lots of staffwork to justify extra posts outwith the contract.

In theory it is the civilians presently on the CG contract who will see the most change since they will be required to do night overland (using NVG) SAR and complete training levels similar to the present military crews in all disciplines.

I am still at a loss to see how mixed flights will work with differing terms and conditions of employment, leave, allowances etc whilst trying to maintain a military ethos with those still serving. It still seems a better answer to blob up all the mil guys in one place and run the FI from that.

[pasptoo]

Crab,

There will be very few of the present SARF who will join their bretheren on expeditionary ops because most of them will be required to leave and transfer to SARH or remain in the mil within SARH or the whole system won't get off the ground.

Why not? Don’t the RN return to frontline after a tour in SAR? I’m sure there are plenty of exMil SAR crews, front and back seat, willing to do the job again, leaving those on retirement plans to stay with their chosen force!

There is only one place that experience and skill level can come from and that is from the present mil SARF.

I’m sure that the foreign elements of CG SAR may have something to say about this, so in short SARF is one place crews may be recruited from, as well as other militaries and SAR organisations.

In theory it is the civilians presently on the CG contract who will see the most change since they will be required to do night overland (using NVG) SAR and complete training levels similar to the present military crews in all disciplines.

Yet again you seem to be professing about stuff you know little about or at least don’t listen to others posts. Aren’t CG crews made up of a mix of civilian, ex RAF, ex RN, other military crews including QHIs and NVGIs ??? My understanding is that in the order of 30% are previous NVG users both frontline and SAR. Training levels require to be sensible and fit for purpose, SAR NVG is not "black light magic" but a useful tool. Great idea to do 2hrs day and 2hrs night every shift! Lets not get blinkered into “RAFway or the Highway” Surely ALL parties have something to learn from each other? Don’t the CG conduct overland SAR dependant on weather conditions, light levels etc. Mmmmmm - that would seem very similar to flying on NVG???? Goggles don’t turn night into day – they just make it green!

You would seem to have some good reasoned discussions then let it all down with poor overall perception outwith the air force. You give the impression that RAF is an acronym for SAR ???? Aren’t you mostly failed jet guys? Shame that my first post has to be tainted. However, I am happy to be enlightened and proved wrong.

PAS.

[Spanish Waltzer]

breathe crab...breathe

[Clever Richard]

Pasptoo,

I think you will find that the SAR-H bidders would prefer to recruit from the current UK mil SAR personnel be they RN or RAF to make up the numbers. Its a simple case of being cheaper and lower risk and that they are all in current flying practice across the full range of SAR skills, particularly NVG. Cheaper because they will just be converting to a newer type and lower risk because they have already been filtered by a very rigorous training system.

Civilian UK SAR contractors have not recruited from abroad in the past and I can't see them doing it for SAR-H unless they absolutely have to.

CD

[[email protected]]

pasptoo - the SARH contract is to create a service that is no less capable than exists within the mainly military UK SAR force at present. That means you need people who are current in UK SAROPS if you are not to face a huge training burden converting those who may not have English as a first language, may never have flown in UK before, may have never used NVG before or may be so long out of the SAR saddle that they almost need complete re-training.

I know there are lots of those who believe that because they did one SAR tour, once upon a time, that they are immediately qualified to jump into SARH demanding parity with those who have a current capability in modern, multi-agency ops. Being ex-mil, ex NVGI or ex-anything is not the same as being current and competent in role. Operational sharpness is like IF in that it is a perishable skill that you only realise has degraded when you try it out in anger - then you realise you are only as good as your next sortie, not your last.

Like it or not, the main shareholder in current UK SAR is the RAF and since most, if not all, of the SMEs (subject matter experts) in SARH have been RAF and both the remaining bidders have employed ex- RAF SAR people in key positions - the shape of SARH will be broadly based on what the RAF does now.

The RN will have a 1/3 share of the 66 mil pers in the military arm of SARH I am led to believe - whether or not they will continue to use SAR as a rest tour for 'front-line' crews I don't know.

This is where a fundamental attitude gap exists within SAR for RAF and RN, we don't regard it as a 'rest-tour' or a way of escaping going to sea, we regard it as front-line and many crews, especially the rear-crew, spend their whole lives within the SAR environment having a full career path open to them.

So when an RN pilot who has done 1 SAR tour claims to be an experienced SAR pilot compared to an RAF pilot who has 7 or 8 tours in different locations around the UK we are often not comparing like with like. I am not denigrating the quality of RN aviators, just pointing out different philosophies regarding SAR in the military.

The CG do limited overland night SAR but are constrained by weather - jobs like the Gloucester floods and many night mountain jobs are beyond their current capability and it is experience in these environments on NVG which is peculiar to the RAF/RN SAR crews.

It is the need for these experience levels post 2012 which will mean that simply putting bums on seats will not be enough - to avoid a capability and credibility gap in UK SAR post 2012, there is only one place the experience can come from.

Let's be clear that we are not just talking front-enders here - the biggest shortfall is going to come in the winchop/winchman area where the need for experienced operators who are paramedic qualified will strip the military completely, especially of trainers/QCIs - most of those posts are already occupied in the current CG setup by ex-RAF SAR winchmen - which should say something to you about quality.

I hope that you might come to realise that I do know something about UK SAR - I am used to being insulted - that happens when people don't understand or don't like what you are saying to them - it doesn't make me wrong.

[Geoffersincornwall]

My new car.............

Crab
I recently bought a replacement for my Jag but I couldn't afford to retain the standards I had grown used to and had to settle for a Peugeot. Why? Because the financial situation, rising costs and higher taxes, meant I had to lower my expectations.

Everything you have said, true as it may be, centres on the huge assumption that we can afford the luxury represented by the current SARFORCE. Assume for one moment that we have run out of cash and we have to re-trech and do things to a lower standard than we currently achieve.

There are many nations who meet their treaty obligations with SAR Units with much lower levels of expertise and capability. Maybe the price we will pay when the cut-backs come - and come they will - will be a cut-price service.

Now here's the test. If I was your boss and I told you to do it for less where would you cut the costs? Your target is a 50% reduction in the cost of providing a national service. Will you halve the number of units or cut back on the capability?

By the way you will get a one-off grant to hire a PR company to 'snow' the public into thinking that nothing has really changed.

I hope I don't sound too cynical for I am deadly serious. If you truly know your business give me a plan that costs half what it does now.

G.

[pasptoo]

Crab,

I was not questioning your knowledge of RAF SAR nor the up coming bids, mearly making comment as to your content in recent posts– which I think you have missed my points.

Yes, I agree that NVG ops and OC are perishable like IF if not used, that could also be used in the number of call outs a unit can expect – no? (Chivoner, Lossie, Gannet 300+, Wattisham, Lecon, Sumburgh 100+) I’m sure everyone has thrown away at least one job? (much to their professional annoyance.)

As for currency, I can only assume that the transition from Sea King to the new type will take several months for PVR/TX date, type ratings and IRs etc, before returning to operational SAR as a civilian, that will surely be a shortfall of OC.

With the new aircraft, and perceived problems associated with the S92, will most not need re-training, current practice or not? I believe that the RN was non-NVG until about 5-6 years ago for SAR ops – they seem to cope reasonably well with “limited experience”. Prior to that it was white light overland – not something I’d relish.

I understand that RN SAR pilots until recently were multi tour guys/girls with a solid aviation background at both sea and shore before going into the more “dedicated” SAR jobs. Small ship flights would be on SAR standby as soon as the ship left the harbour wall until it got back. No “seconds” just “first standby” 24/7!

From basic flight school I was told there was more than one way to skin a cat! Everyone can learn from everyone else, don’t close the training office door! I assume from your “user name” you have done an exchange tour? Did you learn how they did their business differently, did you try to persuade them the RAF way or did you both learn from each other? I would like to think the later would make everyone a richer more rounded person.

I agree that most winchmen/radops/winchops/aircrewmen/obs (paramedics) will require to come from a preset path, however the drivers could come from many areas providing they have the requisite skills. You could train some paramedics to be winchmen? Air Knight guys will be somewhat down the line from military SAR currency if they are successful, does that make them any less capable?

My points were that most SARF members would not necessarily be “required to leave” to join SARH, it would up to the individuals and their future plans/pension/promotion prospects. Why not go to the dessert, you signed up to defend the realm. (OK so that bit does suck, but that’s what you get paid for). As I have said there is more than one SAR pool to drink from. Finally NVG, I’m sure there will be sufficient training in place prior to going live in 2012 (or whenever) for those “civilians without” and “ex mil with past” NVG time.

Your post(s) is(are), after all, your views, I do not intend to insult and do understand the maze that is becoming SARH, merely commenting on your substance.

PAS

[pasptoo]

Keep it Factual.........

CD

Civilian UK SAR contractors have not recruited from abroad in the past and I can't see them doing it for SAR-H unless they absolutely have to.

I've heard that some Germans, and French may disagree with your post?



PAS