SARH to go
Hmmm. Appears that I (and others!) have induced a small amount of thread drift...
Well it fills the void before the ensuing furore that will come in the next few months!
(and that's 200 posts for me
)
Well it fills the void before the ensuing furore that will come in the next few months!
(and that's 200 posts for me
)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting the thread back on track...
Hearing that the goalposts were shifted for the bidders again recently, Falklands is no longer part of the bid, essentially changing the structure of the entire contract, months before bid announcement, still due at the end of the year...
Hearing that the goalposts were shifted for the bidders again recently, Falklands is no longer part of the bid, essentially changing the structure of the entire contract, months before bid announcement, still due at the end of the year...
Understood that final bid submissions were due this month, although not sure when. If this is the case then the 2 bid teams will just have gone into overdrive.....
After a moments thought...
Doesn't this question the entire military commitment/requirement to/for SARH?
After a moments thought...
Doesn't this question the entire military commitment/requirement to/for SARH?
Unfortunately, as long as the IPT keeps capitulating when industry complains about costs we will see a gradual and irrecoverable erosion of the principles set out at the beginning of the process which were supposed to ensure the quality of the service provided post 2012.
This shifting of the goalposts is symptomatic of weak leadership and a desire to keep the process going to the bitter end, no matter what.
Since 2/3 of the funding for SARH is coming from the defence budget, how can this possibly make economic sense when swaging cuts are being proposed on other big projects?
This shifting of the goalposts is symptomatic of weak leadership and a desire to keep the process going to the bitter end, no matter what.
Since 2/3 of the funding for SARH is coming from the defence budget, how can this possibly make economic sense when swaging cuts are being proposed on other big projects?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cynical perhaps, but as a moot point in times of mass turmoil in govt circles, extreme financial pressure and an apparent loss of faith/trust in lords and masters by the populous at large - which is now perceived as the bigger vote winner; investing in the future of homeland security/SAR or investing in the support of UK troops fighting overseas in Afghanistan?
Put another way is joe public more likely to vote the govt back in if they are seen to be looking after the tax payer (& non tax payer!) at home or the boys & girls on the front line?
Put another way is joe public more likely to vote the govt back in if they are seen to be looking after the tax payer (& non tax payer!) at home or the boys & girls on the front line?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FI part of SAR-H bids was always (since Day 1) a seperate costed evolution requested of the Bidders to permit the Customer to ultimately decide the way forward - ie. within SAR-H or by some other means (note too that Cyprus SAR was seperated right from the outset despite the logic for its inclusion) - cost was never just the issue but no doubt will assist the final decision. If it has been decided to withdraw the FI option from the SAR-H final bids - my opinion is that this will improve the UK solution's chances of success rather than weaken it.
As for the IPT capitulating on every Bidder driven cost saving argument - one reply - tosh! The job of the bidders is to try and meet the requirement and accurately cost against it. If some of the important details are worthy of amendment to meet the Customer's likely budget - well its incumbent on any bidder to point out ways of improving things. Certainly the IPT has to remain open to supported arguments by bidders to show that if a way forward is too expensive then cheaper options should be discussed. Thats the whole nature of the EU competitive dialogue process - value for money! Ultimately the IPT and wider Customer community will decide (not the bidders) if something or some aspect of their requirement remains affordable or not against the best and final bids from the competitors and the project budget available.
Finally - its a good point - there is inevitably some voting mileage in a UK centric project such as SAR-H versus overseas military expenditure - that has in part driven the basing policy decison ie keep the present lot whatever the economics/operational usefulness - has the government the backbone to make the right decisions - you decide!!
Cheers
As for the IPT capitulating on every Bidder driven cost saving argument - one reply - tosh! The job of the bidders is to try and meet the requirement and accurately cost against it. If some of the important details are worthy of amendment to meet the Customer's likely budget - well its incumbent on any bidder to point out ways of improving things. Certainly the IPT has to remain open to supported arguments by bidders to show that if a way forward is too expensive then cheaper options should be discussed. Thats the whole nature of the EU competitive dialogue process - value for money! Ultimately the IPT and wider Customer community will decide (not the bidders) if something or some aspect of their requirement remains affordable or not against the best and final bids from the competitors and the project budget available.
Finally - its a good point - there is inevitably some voting mileage in a UK centric project such as SAR-H versus overseas military expenditure - that has in part driven the basing policy decison ie keep the present lot whatever the economics/operational usefulness - has the government the backbone to make the right decisions - you decide!!
Cheers
Tallsar - then why is the IPT always ready to 'take things at risk' when having to make decisions - especially since they will not take any 'risk' directly themselves, that will be the pink bodies on the front-line.
I know there has to be some give and take in the process but industry seems to be very adept at bamboozling civil servants into submission.
I am sure the habit is learned from dealing with a lot of military senior officers who would rather 'manage the risk' and ignore the problem rather than have to make a decision for which they might be accountable at sometime in the future (see the military airworthiness thread).
I know there has to be some give and take in the process but industry seems to be very adept at bamboozling civil servants into submission.
I am sure the habit is learned from dealing with a lot of military senior officers who would rather 'manage the risk' and ignore the problem rather than have to make a decision for which they might be accountable at sometime in the future (see the military airworthiness thread).
I still don't understand how it can be more cost effective for two organisations to train, maintain, people & equipment, to the highest standards.
Military personnel require training so the cost of the SAR service is offset as a training exercise, with more realism and decisions than any training exercise, I would have thought that either the time in air will go down for mil or cost per flight up, due to the private SAR now flying the extra hours with on costs of people and infrastructure etc.
Military personnel require training so the cost of the SAR service is offset as a training exercise, with more realism and decisions than any training exercise, I would have thought that either the time in air will go down for mil or cost per flight up, due to the private SAR now flying the extra hours with on costs of people and infrastructure etc.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab
I'm not sure why you think the "taking things at risk" issue has much depth to it as far as the SAR-H bid is concerned....you might elaborate
In my experience, -yes the majority of the risk for the performance and delivery of SAR-H will fall to the chosen contractor - that's what its all about after all....but that said I can assure you that it will be in the nature of the solution that some risk will remain firmly managed in the hands of the Customer (read IPT if you wish here).
As for bamboozling - I can assure you that the SAR-H IPT, including its MoD servcie members (who represent those front line pink bodies of course!) and HMCG representaives are not easily bamboozled especially after their experience with the Interim process (and remember SAR-H is a much bigger and longer term project than the Interim which was not a PFI either. Even if any of the bidders were so minded to do some bamboozling - a foolish move in such a competion where if nothing else the costs of any bamboozlement will soon show up on their balance sheet - assuming it got through the extensive scrutinies in the first place. You know yourself I think how extensive the customer analysis team is for the bids, and how the Treasury and both Departments' PFI units will go into enormous depth before the contract is signed off...in fact there is a real risk that such scrutiny will cause extensive delays as in other similar sized recent PFIs such as FSTA (the only broadly equivalent PFI to SAR-H). In fact in this sort of PFI, the bidders' banks are also very much to the fore in ensuring no nonesense survives to reach the customer - its their money after all that is on the line here. No one wants to replicate Metronet - where the whole thing went bankrupt not long after contract and left HMG carrying the debt.
I think you already know my views on where we should have been with a future UK SAR Force - but PFI is where we are and lets hope it delivers - its unlikely we will see an alternative in these cash strapped days.
I'm not sure why you think the "taking things at risk" issue has much depth to it as far as the SAR-H bid is concerned....you might elaborate
In my experience, -yes the majority of the risk for the performance and delivery of SAR-H will fall to the chosen contractor - that's what its all about after all....but that said I can assure you that it will be in the nature of the solution that some risk will remain firmly managed in the hands of the Customer (read IPT if you wish here).
As for bamboozling - I can assure you that the SAR-H IPT, including its MoD servcie members (who represent those front line pink bodies of course!) and HMCG representaives are not easily bamboozled especially after their experience with the Interim process (and remember SAR-H is a much bigger and longer term project than the Interim which was not a PFI either. Even if any of the bidders were so minded to do some bamboozling - a foolish move in such a competion where if nothing else the costs of any bamboozlement will soon show up on their balance sheet - assuming it got through the extensive scrutinies in the first place. You know yourself I think how extensive the customer analysis team is for the bids, and how the Treasury and both Departments' PFI units will go into enormous depth before the contract is signed off...in fact there is a real risk that such scrutiny will cause extensive delays as in other similar sized recent PFIs such as FSTA (the only broadly equivalent PFI to SAR-H). In fact in this sort of PFI, the bidders' banks are also very much to the fore in ensuring no nonesense survives to reach the customer - its their money after all that is on the line here. No one wants to replicate Metronet - where the whole thing went bankrupt not long after contract and left HMG carrying the debt.
I think you already know my views on where we should have been with a future UK SAR Force - but PFI is where we are and lets hope it delivers - its unlikely we will see an alternative in these cash strapped days.
Tallsar - if everyone is whiter than white in this process, why was it left to the subject matter experts who were drafted in from the mil to highlight a raft of fabrications and half-truths regarding claimed aircraft performance and fit? The IPT would not have noticed and when some of the shortfalls were highlighted - they were content to take said shortfalls at risk without understanding them until a very robust case was made.
Both bidders are in the business of making money - the financial crisis we find ourselves in now shows quite clearly the risks that people will take to make profit and the financial institutions are the worst of the lot, I suspect that their 'scrutiny' is reserved for the bottom line only.
I am sure a lot was learned from the interim process - but clearly not enough to prevent CHC from continuing to be part of it despite their failure to provide aircraft at the right spec and a very poor history of industrial relations with their crews.
I very much doubt that what we end up with post 2012 will be anything to crow about - it will be another millstone around the Govts and MoDs necks when unforeseen circumstances require more taxpayers cash whilst the shareholders are receiving their healthy returns and the senior management enjoy bonuses and share options.
Both bidders are in the business of making money - the financial crisis we find ourselves in now shows quite clearly the risks that people will take to make profit and the financial institutions are the worst of the lot, I suspect that their 'scrutiny' is reserved for the bottom line only.
I am sure a lot was learned from the interim process - but clearly not enough to prevent CHC from continuing to be part of it despite their failure to provide aircraft at the right spec and a very poor history of industrial relations with their crews.
I very much doubt that what we end up with post 2012 will be anything to crow about - it will be another millstone around the Govts and MoDs necks when unforeseen circumstances require more taxpayers cash whilst the shareholders are receiving their healthy returns and the senior management enjoy bonuses and share options.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Pink bodies'? 'Whiter than white'? Be very careful Crab or your local PC PC will be knocking at your door - probably having driven (I almost wrote walked) past a bank robby, 2 muggings, a WW11 veteran being beaten up and a white van full of illegal immigrants looking for the Benefits Office.
Bet you'd be hard pushed to think of one taxpayer funded project that didn't end up costing many times more than the original budget - by which time the decision maker is enjoying a second career as company director and the contractor is laughing all the way to the bank.
when unforeseen circumstances require more taxpayers cash whilst the shareholders are receiving their healthy returns and the senior management enjoy bonuses and share options.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys - I suppose if the premise of any of this discussion is predetermined by a prejudical viewpoint of any sort, it is always diffcult to convince otherwise or make headway with fact(s).
Crab - Despite the very large resources and expertise put in to such bids (by both remaining bidders) the whole purpose of customer scrutiny is to clarify and identify ambiguities - remembering too that the Customer's own (extensive) requirements document can be ambiguous too - so the whole purpose of the process is to bottom out the facts even if most are very clear. Remember too that the interaction of technical, commercial and financial requirements can lead to compromise outputs to ensure the overall requirements are met - this is not just a contract about a highly specified aircraft. Yes it is only right that the Customer scrutiny team identifies any issues within any bidder's response - but I take real issue with your prejudicial viewpoint that the bidders go out of their may to potentially mislead or hide things. This is simply a typical frontline prejudiced viewpoint that would not stand up to any independent scrutiny - certainly not as far the SAR-H project is concerned. For this stage of the process (as in any major project) an IPT may take some issues "at risk" as you say, to ensure the free flow of the bidding process and progress within sensible timescales to get to the contract negotiation stage. What matters here is whether these issues are resolved before the signing of the contract and committment by all signatories thereafter. In the SAR-H bid process such a process will occur after award of preferred bidder early next year. This is when those "at risk" issues must be resolved to all parties satisfaction - if you assume that all will merely be taken on board by the customer and the requirement therefore effectively abandoned - you are doing a real diservice to a hard working (and under resourced) IPT and their many frontline reps. The long negotiation over FSTA contract is a clear example of this.
Unfortunately it is not (and never would have been) possible to fund and deliver what each of us as active or ex SAR practioners would have desired and defined as our ideal SAR-H or UK SAR replacement programme. Life just ain't like that - so compromises against the budget will always have to be made. You personally may not like the result in some important details (as no doubt will I) but its the only game in town at present and what will result will in overall terms be a real improvement over the present amalgam of the 3 UK service providers - whichever side wins will result in a common fleet of brand new modern and capable aircraft which will effectively replace the increasingly decaying Sea King et al and be a real step forward. While the solution for me will not be a step forward enough and a missed opportunity to deliver a different style of solution - it will be a real improvement nonetheless.
As a guy who has now worked in the mil and industry - I have a great deal of admiration for the expertise on all sides imperfect and institutionally crazy as it might be occasionally (on all sides of the project family!!) - and I have to say, that certainly in this particular programme, the suggestion that a long term PFI can produce large bonuses and huge profits for the chosen contractor is just simply a prejudiced and cynical joke - henc emy previous comment re Metronet. Any long term PFI is about major risk being placed on a contractor for the sake of long term service provision, financial stability and budgeting for a customer who has now gained access to resources that the they would otherwise not be able to afford (for whatever reason - and there are several in UK SAR's case as previous threads have discussed). Essentially a simplistic view of this PFI concept is that a contractor rejects short term larger profit as might be the case in a major aircraft production contract with no servcie delivery, for their own acceptance of a much lower annual profit margin but the confidence that as long as they manage the contract well (and thats a big if!!) and have budgeted correctly in the first place (with no hidden gotchas - which could soon undermine any profit!) they will maintain that profit for the immense length of the contract - the risk in signing up for 30 years to major programme like SAR-H with all its potential gotchas over that time should not be underestimated!! So to suggest that contractors are only seeking large profits and bonuses is simplistic trash - it would not survive the scrutineers! To ensure this cannot happen means signifcant Customer rules and financial scrutiny that is more extensive in many ways than that applied to the technical requirements - so be in no doubt people - imperfect as it might be from individual perspectives - SAR-H will not be a financial walk over for anyone.
Crab - Despite the very large resources and expertise put in to such bids (by both remaining bidders) the whole purpose of customer scrutiny is to clarify and identify ambiguities - remembering too that the Customer's own (extensive) requirements document can be ambiguous too - so the whole purpose of the process is to bottom out the facts even if most are very clear. Remember too that the interaction of technical, commercial and financial requirements can lead to compromise outputs to ensure the overall requirements are met - this is not just a contract about a highly specified aircraft. Yes it is only right that the Customer scrutiny team identifies any issues within any bidder's response - but I take real issue with your prejudicial viewpoint that the bidders go out of their may to potentially mislead or hide things. This is simply a typical frontline prejudiced viewpoint that would not stand up to any independent scrutiny - certainly not as far the SAR-H project is concerned. For this stage of the process (as in any major project) an IPT may take some issues "at risk" as you say, to ensure the free flow of the bidding process and progress within sensible timescales to get to the contract negotiation stage. What matters here is whether these issues are resolved before the signing of the contract and committment by all signatories thereafter. In the SAR-H bid process such a process will occur after award of preferred bidder early next year. This is when those "at risk" issues must be resolved to all parties satisfaction - if you assume that all will merely be taken on board by the customer and the requirement therefore effectively abandoned - you are doing a real diservice to a hard working (and under resourced) IPT and their many frontline reps. The long negotiation over FSTA contract is a clear example of this.
Unfortunately it is not (and never would have been) possible to fund and deliver what each of us as active or ex SAR practioners would have desired and defined as our ideal SAR-H or UK SAR replacement programme. Life just ain't like that - so compromises against the budget will always have to be made. You personally may not like the result in some important details (as no doubt will I) but its the only game in town at present and what will result will in overall terms be a real improvement over the present amalgam of the 3 UK service providers - whichever side wins will result in a common fleet of brand new modern and capable aircraft which will effectively replace the increasingly decaying Sea King et al and be a real step forward. While the solution for me will not be a step forward enough and a missed opportunity to deliver a different style of solution - it will be a real improvement nonetheless.
As a guy who has now worked in the mil and industry - I have a great deal of admiration for the expertise on all sides imperfect and institutionally crazy as it might be occasionally (on all sides of the project family!!) - and I have to say, that certainly in this particular programme, the suggestion that a long term PFI can produce large bonuses and huge profits for the chosen contractor is just simply a prejudiced and cynical joke - henc emy previous comment re Metronet. Any long term PFI is about major risk being placed on a contractor for the sake of long term service provision, financial stability and budgeting for a customer who has now gained access to resources that the they would otherwise not be able to afford (for whatever reason - and there are several in UK SAR's case as previous threads have discussed). Essentially a simplistic view of this PFI concept is that a contractor rejects short term larger profit as might be the case in a major aircraft production contract with no servcie delivery, for their own acceptance of a much lower annual profit margin but the confidence that as long as they manage the contract well (and thats a big if!!) and have budgeted correctly in the first place (with no hidden gotchas - which could soon undermine any profit!) they will maintain that profit for the immense length of the contract - the risk in signing up for 30 years to major programme like SAR-H with all its potential gotchas over that time should not be underestimated!! So to suggest that contractors are only seeking large profits and bonuses is simplistic trash - it would not survive the scrutineers! To ensure this cannot happen means signifcant Customer rules and financial scrutiny that is more extensive in many ways than that applied to the technical requirements - so be in no doubt people - imperfect as it might be from individual perspectives - SAR-H will not be a financial walk over for anyone.
Last edited by Tallsar; 25th Sep 2009 at 09:06.
Tallsar - I have never made a secret of the fact I am fundamentally opposed to PFIs in general and the SARH process in particular -
and it is this type of risk taking that has got us into the financial mess we are in now.
We all now know that when major institutions fail, the Govt will (and has to) pick up the tab - against a background like that, where is the incentive for the contractor to perform well?
Cornwall established a much lauded PFI for their schools where the contractor promised to maintain the present schools and build new ones - jam today and jam tomorrow - except that what they produced was substandard and has just failed - who suffers? oh yes the taxpayer again.
Can we really afford to do this to SAR? Whilst the management of both the remaining bidders may be promising the earth and offering every guarantee under the sun in order to get the money, we heard the same thing from the utilities companies and the train companies.
The people calling the tune are the financial backers and they always want more profit from their investments - see what First Reserve are doing to CHC.
As to the misleading - the bidders ticked all the boxes of the SARH requirement to meet the bids capability requirements, all claiming to meet the spec. But when all the said claims were scrutinised, many areas were found to be wanting and some were missing altogether (the devil is always in the detail). If the SMEs hadn't been so diligent and professional, how much of a capability gap would have made it to the front line? Either there was some smoke and mirrors and subterfuge to dodge round the capability requirements or the bidders were incompetent in researching their own bids - which was it? Either way it is unsatisfactory!
I don't suppose for an instant anyone has the balls for it but this process should be halted now before it is too late. When politicians are actually talking openly about saving 5Bn by reducing the number of SSNs in Trident replacement, how can we justify 5Bn on SARH when all we really need are new helicopters which would cost a whole lot less than that?
Any long term PFI is about major risk being placed on a contractor for the sake of long term service provision, financial stability and budgeting for a customer who has now gained access to resources that the they would otherwise not be able to afford
We all now know that when major institutions fail, the Govt will (and has to) pick up the tab - against a background like that, where is the incentive for the contractor to perform well?
Cornwall established a much lauded PFI for their schools where the contractor promised to maintain the present schools and build new ones - jam today and jam tomorrow - except that what they produced was substandard and has just failed - who suffers? oh yes the taxpayer again.
Can we really afford to do this to SAR? Whilst the management of both the remaining bidders may be promising the earth and offering every guarantee under the sun in order to get the money, we heard the same thing from the utilities companies and the train companies.
The people calling the tune are the financial backers and they always want more profit from their investments - see what First Reserve are doing to CHC.
As to the misleading - the bidders ticked all the boxes of the SARH requirement to meet the bids capability requirements, all claiming to meet the spec. But when all the said claims were scrutinised, many areas were found to be wanting and some were missing altogether (the devil is always in the detail). If the SMEs hadn't been so diligent and professional, how much of a capability gap would have made it to the front line? Either there was some smoke and mirrors and subterfuge to dodge round the capability requirements or the bidders were incompetent in researching their own bids - which was it? Either way it is unsatisfactory!
I don't suppose for an instant anyone has the balls for it but this process should be halted now before it is too late. When politicians are actually talking openly about saving 5Bn by reducing the number of SSNs in Trident replacement, how can we justify 5Bn on SARH when all we really need are new helicopters which would cost a whole lot less than that?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again Crab - fancy some more SAR-H ping pong? Of course you do! ;-). I muse as to whether anyone else is bothering to read this - so be it....
You raise some valid points as usual....I am not going to try and dispute with you on the merits of PFIs - fundamentally as an individual I full agree with you that it should not have been the way forward for SAR-H - but there it is and here we are. Can it be stopped - of course it could be ...but where's the early cash coming from and gven all the other priorites the new Government will have - I doubt any change will be worth the furore -- but stranger things can happen....eg both bidders withdraw?
As for your more detailed points - I think we talk in slightly parallel universes as far as the scrutiny by the SMEs is concerned. Be in no doubt that at least one of the bidders (and no doubt both) has spent a great deal of time attempting to meet the requreiments honestly and as best it can be done given that major changes to what is available "off the shelf", at best add very signifcant cost deltas to a bid ( maybe what the customer may not be prepared to pay for), or are simply just not available even if affordable, within the delivery constraints required (which are very tight!!). Priorites have to be decidied - and I would suggest both the customer and the bidders have been vexxing themselves on the priority issues in this regard such as on the precise radar spec. I would ask you try and accept that there is no hoodwinking going on but only the natural process that requires all sides in the dialogues to really understand where we are all going with this programme. Like it or not also, there are many differences in intepretation between professionals from different backgrounds - even dare I say it, if they have served in RAF SAR....I return to the radar performance issue as a case in point. And thats before you consider what is in the practical art of the possible as far as airworthiness and clearance to operate matters are concerned for any change in capabaility.
Your point about other PFIs failing is indeed a major issue of concern as I alluded to also over Metronet and I will only say that the IPT made it clear from the outset to all bidders that financial stability was the most signifcant priority to underpin any successful bid. Everyone I believe has learned from experience as far as other failed PFIs are concerned - and lets face it for many a large PFI of this sort (as opposed to the sort that merely invovles bricks and mortar or more simple service provison) is still in newish territory. Extraordinary scrutiny is being done to minimise the risk of similar failures in SAR-H and emulate the successes (such as MSHATF & HMS Clyde) - though no process can be offer a 100% guarantee - but then even if it was a fully government run programme the financial risks direct to the treasury can still be immense if things go wrong - and then it would be the MoD budget that would carry the can! It takes an attitude of faith and trust in the process -- something I can understand many in HM Forces in general have little of these days as far as new procurements of any sort or style are concerned - so fighting that scepticism and cynicism is almost impossible (particualry as I share some of it too!!)
I repeat - we are where we are ....if the PFI continues then its not long before the new UK SAR helo force will be emerging from its crysalis -- and I wish all those directly involved and affected good luck and a fair wind -- they are going to need it!
Cheers
You raise some valid points as usual....I am not going to try and dispute with you on the merits of PFIs - fundamentally as an individual I full agree with you that it should not have been the way forward for SAR-H - but there it is and here we are. Can it be stopped - of course it could be ...but where's the early cash coming from and gven all the other priorites the new Government will have - I doubt any change will be worth the furore -- but stranger things can happen....eg both bidders withdraw?
As for your more detailed points - I think we talk in slightly parallel universes as far as the scrutiny by the SMEs is concerned. Be in no doubt that at least one of the bidders (and no doubt both) has spent a great deal of time attempting to meet the requreiments honestly and as best it can be done given that major changes to what is available "off the shelf", at best add very signifcant cost deltas to a bid ( maybe what the customer may not be prepared to pay for), or are simply just not available even if affordable, within the delivery constraints required (which are very tight!!). Priorites have to be decidied - and I would suggest both the customer and the bidders have been vexxing themselves on the priority issues in this regard such as on the precise radar spec. I would ask you try and accept that there is no hoodwinking going on but only the natural process that requires all sides in the dialogues to really understand where we are all going with this programme. Like it or not also, there are many differences in intepretation between professionals from different backgrounds - even dare I say it, if they have served in RAF SAR....I return to the radar performance issue as a case in point. And thats before you consider what is in the practical art of the possible as far as airworthiness and clearance to operate matters are concerned for any change in capabaility.
Your point about other PFIs failing is indeed a major issue of concern as I alluded to also over Metronet and I will only say that the IPT made it clear from the outset to all bidders that financial stability was the most signifcant priority to underpin any successful bid. Everyone I believe has learned from experience as far as other failed PFIs are concerned - and lets face it for many a large PFI of this sort (as opposed to the sort that merely invovles bricks and mortar or more simple service provison) is still in newish territory. Extraordinary scrutiny is being done to minimise the risk of similar failures in SAR-H and emulate the successes (such as MSHATF & HMS Clyde) - though no process can be offer a 100% guarantee - but then even if it was a fully government run programme the financial risks direct to the treasury can still be immense if things go wrong - and then it would be the MoD budget that would carry the can! It takes an attitude of faith and trust in the process -- something I can understand many in HM Forces in general have little of these days as far as new procurements of any sort or style are concerned - so fighting that scepticism and cynicism is almost impossible (particualry as I share some of it too!!)
I repeat - we are where we are ....if the PFI continues then its not long before the new UK SAR helo force will be emerging from its crysalis -- and I wish all those directly involved and affected good luck and a fair wind -- they are going to need it!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 24th Sep 2009 at 13:45.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A nice thought for some...but some others might believe that a SK SAR force with Carson baldes - and no doubt a few other "minor" improvements - might prove a greater annual budgetary problem than the budget profile for SAR-H. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the MoD over the next few months.......
Tallsar - yes it will be interesting to see those who have tried to get rid of SAR from the military realise that MoD will be footing 2/3 of the bill by 2017 once all the mil flights have been taken over and that the PFI might knock some of the more 'core' projects into touch.
And, as you say, the budgetry profile of SARH might also work in its favour since the full cost isn't felt for several years which is a very long time in both politics and long-term costings juggling.
Jack, Carson blades aren't the answer to the poor Mk 3 fleet, everything about the aircraft is knackered and putting on new blades to increase the flight envelope just puts more stress on the rest of the very old airframe and avionics. If a more serious review was considered, like removing the folding head and tail, completely replacing the avionics and cockpit with modern, digital equipment (EFIS, moving map etc) and then doing the full Carson mod with the bifilar absorbers and lifting frames - then we might see an aircraft capable of continuing SAR for 10 to 15 years and deferring the time when new procurement is absolutely necessary.
It ain't going to happen because the concept of spend to save is alien to the bean counters.
We are now in a position where Govt spending is the only thing keeping the economy going and defence spending means jobs. Just a shame that the 2 bidders are sourcing their aircraft from Eurocopter and Sikorsky and neither will be built in UK. That's not to say I want the Merlin but I'm sure the Sea King modifications could be done under license at AW.
And, as you say, the budgetry profile of SARH might also work in its favour since the full cost isn't felt for several years which is a very long time in both politics and long-term costings juggling.
Jack, Carson blades aren't the answer to the poor Mk 3 fleet, everything about the aircraft is knackered and putting on new blades to increase the flight envelope just puts more stress on the rest of the very old airframe and avionics. If a more serious review was considered, like removing the folding head and tail, completely replacing the avionics and cockpit with modern, digital equipment (EFIS, moving map etc) and then doing the full Carson mod with the bifilar absorbers and lifting frames - then we might see an aircraft capable of continuing SAR for 10 to 15 years and deferring the time when new procurement is absolutely necessary.
It ain't going to happen because the concept of spend to save is alien to the bean counters.
We are now in a position where Govt spending is the only thing keeping the economy going and defence spending means jobs. Just a shame that the 2 bidders are sourcing their aircraft from Eurocopter and Sikorsky and neither will be built in UK. That's not to say I want the Merlin but I'm sure the Sea King modifications could be done under license at AW.
I agree, as you said yourself Crab, because Brown loves to borrow off-balance sheet via these PFI's there is no chance they will go back on their decisions.
Future generations will have to pick up the tap (again) and as proven in plenty of other PFI initiatives probably get a lesser quality service.
Politicians you got to love them.... NOT!
Future generations will have to pick up the tap (again) and as proven in plenty of other PFI initiatives probably get a lesser quality service.
Politicians you got to love them.... NOT!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there's a gem of a thought Crab!...a ministerial directive to substitute a SAR AW101 instead of either competitors' highly researched value for money platform solutions......"providing high tech employment in the UK in a recession" and avoiding all that "lack of UK helicopters" press coverage (and half the work and all the profits to an Italian owned firm we must not forget).........has it happened before? ---well not quite but something similar ---those of us who were there remember the 1995 SH procurement decision only too well!! - Who wanted 101 then?....So who knows????? Of course if it did it most liklely will lead to a delay in ISD for the SAR-H as the winning bidder grappled with the detailed issues of using the 101 rather than their chosen platform, and given the costs of 101, a bigger bill for the taxpayer at the end of the day - just as with the 1995 decison.....anyone taking bets?