SARH to go
Yes - instead of keeping military SAR, which no-one ever put a cost on but should have to keep within the terms of a PFI - how else can you show value for money, the taxpayer is going to pay £5 Bn (it doesn't sound much when you say it fast) for less cover (12 hour cover at 3 flights instead of 1) and then have to pay even more to regain the lost ground and re-establish 24 cover.
In many other areas of business this would be called dishonest and fraudulent but somehow this PFI seems exempt.
Strange how none of the subject matter experts are involved with the final decision (which keeps being delayed) yet the IPT heirarchy, who are noticeably biased towards one bidder, are able to decide the winner and loser in this contest - it hardly seems fair and transparent. There is supposed to be a financial robustness about the winning bid but apparently one bidder has not much more than half the financing required.,....
Is the result of this expensive and time consuming process simply going to be a shoe-in for the IPT's favourite or will there actually be some scrutiny applied at some stage?
In many other areas of business this would be called dishonest and fraudulent but somehow this PFI seems exempt.
Strange how none of the subject matter experts are involved with the final decision (which keeps being delayed) yet the IPT heirarchy, who are noticeably biased towards one bidder, are able to decide the winner and loser in this contest - it hardly seems fair and transparent. There is supposed to be a financial robustness about the winning bid but apparently one bidder has not much more than half the financing required.,....
Is the result of this expensive and time consuming process simply going to be a shoe-in for the IPT's favourite or will there actually be some scrutiny applied at some stage?
Rightly or wrongly we live in a world driven more and more by efficiencies and that is something the MoD is not good at.
Apologies if some of my figures are a little outdated, but currently the RN and RAF has around 40 SAR-H platforms (15 Mk5 and 25 Mk3/Mk3a Sea Kings respectively) to cover SAR-H training and 8 of the 12 UK bases.
A post 2012 PFI solution would likely need only around 60% to 65% of this number to cover not just the 8 military, but an additional 4 civil bases and that is the reality that a civil managed modern platform PFI solution brings. (Try saying that quickly without your teeth in.)
Could the military cover the same 8 bases with fewer platforms if the MoD were to procure new platforms? I’ve no doubt they could, but the military would be no match for a civil managed solution when it comes to efficiency.
If the taxpayer is to lose out on value for money, it’s because the Government is unable to finance new build platforms now and has therefore chosen a PFI solution and as I have noted before, this is not of the bidders choosing.
With national debt set to peak at more than £1tn in 2012-2013 and the UK being close to losing its AAA rating, the banks and bidders might well have just cause for concern over the financial robustness of the authority.
Apologies if some of my figures are a little outdated, but currently the RN and RAF has around 40 SAR-H platforms (15 Mk5 and 25 Mk3/Mk3a Sea Kings respectively) to cover SAR-H training and 8 of the 12 UK bases.
A post 2012 PFI solution would likely need only around 60% to 65% of this number to cover not just the 8 military, but an additional 4 civil bases and that is the reality that a civil managed modern platform PFI solution brings. (Try saying that quickly without your teeth in.)
Could the military cover the same 8 bases with fewer platforms if the MoD were to procure new platforms? I’ve no doubt they could, but the military would be no match for a civil managed solution when it comes to efficiency.
If the taxpayer is to lose out on value for money, it’s because the Government is unable to finance new build platforms now and has therefore chosen a PFI solution and as I have noted before, this is not of the bidders choosing.
With national debt set to peak at more than £1tn in 2012-2013 and the UK being close to losing its AAA rating, the banks and bidders might well have just cause for concern over the financial robustness of the authority.
Hilife - your figures are skewed - the RN might have 15 Mk5s but only use 2 per flight (Culdrose and Prestwick) to provide SAR - the others are for MCT and other training.
Similarly the RAF uses 2 aircraft per flight = 12 with 4 providing an OCU, 2 in the Falklands and the remainder in depth servicing (due to the age of the aircraft).
So to provide UK SAR for 8 flights the military only needs 12 RAF and 4 RN aircraft - ie 2 per flight which is pretty much what will be provided post SARH.
SARH will cost £5bn+ 2 new aircraft for each of the exisiting 12 SAR flights even at £50million a throw is only £1.2 bn - add maybe half again to include spares and extras and you have £1.8Bn - is it really going to cost £3.2Bn in fuel and wages to run 12 SAR flts over the next 25 years?
I accept that civilianisation is going to happen since the MoD can't see anything except Afghanistan and don't care about SAR but this process has gone off the rails and is not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Similarly the RAF uses 2 aircraft per flight = 12 with 4 providing an OCU, 2 in the Falklands and the remainder in depth servicing (due to the age of the aircraft).
So to provide UK SAR for 8 flights the military only needs 12 RAF and 4 RN aircraft - ie 2 per flight which is pretty much what will be provided post SARH.
SARH will cost £5bn+ 2 new aircraft for each of the exisiting 12 SAR flights even at £50million a throw is only £1.2 bn - add maybe half again to include spares and extras and you have £1.8Bn - is it really going to cost £3.2Bn in fuel and wages to run 12 SAR flts over the next 25 years?
I accept that civilianisation is going to happen since the MoD can't see anything except Afghanistan and don't care about SAR but this process has gone off the rails and is not good value for money for the taxpayer.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: not here
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget to add in the land rental deals - £300k to £400k per mil base each year and £1.2 m for pwk.
Through life Training school costs, new sims etc all required due to rapid turnover of mil crews
. . .
It must be nice working with a small picture.
Through life Training school costs, new sims etc all required due to rapid turnover of mil crews
. . .
It must be nice working with a small picture.
Onevan - since the MoD are paying 70% of the cost of SARH do you really think that £80mil in rent (8 flts x 25 years) is actually going to change hands?
There is a sim building ready for a new occupant at Valley and all the infrastructure, minus the aircraft, required for through life training - including most of the personnel who just need to change uniforms.
The rapid turnover of mil crews simply won't happen, those that are in milSAR post 2012 are likely to be the old and bold who have no desire to thrust for a career or go to Afghanistan. There is no point in sending new lads and lasses into a predominantly civilian environment and role just for a tour and then have to pay to retrain them on Chinook/Merlin.
Since it looks like the aircraft will be civilian registered, all the mil pilots will need licences which adds to the cost and would tempt first tourists to get theirs and leave.
The RN might do things differently since it is likely that Culdrose will be one of the military-heavy flights along with Valley and Lossiemouth.
The IPT have already offered up cost savings (12 hour ops at Boulmer and Chiv) to try and preserve the bidders profit margins - what will be next?
There is a sim building ready for a new occupant at Valley and all the infrastructure, minus the aircraft, required for through life training - including most of the personnel who just need to change uniforms.
The rapid turnover of mil crews simply won't happen, those that are in milSAR post 2012 are likely to be the old and bold who have no desire to thrust for a career or go to Afghanistan. There is no point in sending new lads and lasses into a predominantly civilian environment and role just for a tour and then have to pay to retrain them on Chinook/Merlin.
Since it looks like the aircraft will be civilian registered, all the mil pilots will need licences which adds to the cost and would tempt first tourists to get theirs and leave.
The RN might do things differently since it is likely that Culdrose will be one of the military-heavy flights along with Valley and Lossiemouth.
The IPT have already offered up cost savings (12 hour ops at Boulmer and Chiv) to try and preserve the bidders profit margins - what will be next?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: not here
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
I am not close enough to know what the IPT think or what they are willing to give up. I was stunned to see that they went down the road of reducing cover at night around the Uk. They dictate, the companies bid - if its too expensive don't buy it or get the button pushers to trump up more cash, after all its the banks behind the bidders that need the interest.
As for your points
1. defence estates have set the prices so I expect they want their cash.
2. The offer of Valley buildings and sim space was resinded due to the fact the RAF were not in a position to vacate the buildings
3. The IPT have stated that mil pers will do a max of 3 yr tour and they are not allowed to be licenced. They have also stated that there will be no abinitio crews so the mil pers will do SAR as a respite from the joys of foreign travel.
Once preferred bidder is announced I expect that the dialogue will be more fruitful in acheiving a more capable system for the british public rather than trying to keep individual camps sacred cows happy.
I am not close enough to know what the IPT think or what they are willing to give up. I was stunned to see that they went down the road of reducing cover at night around the Uk. They dictate, the companies bid - if its too expensive don't buy it or get the button pushers to trump up more cash, after all its the banks behind the bidders that need the interest.
As for your points
1. defence estates have set the prices so I expect they want their cash.
2. The offer of Valley buildings and sim space was resinded due to the fact the RAF were not in a position to vacate the buildings
3. The IPT have stated that mil pers will do a max of 3 yr tour and they are not allowed to be licenced. They have also stated that there will be no abinitio crews so the mil pers will do SAR as a respite from the joys of foreign travel.
Once preferred bidder is announced I expect that the dialogue will be more fruitful in acheiving a more capable system for the british public rather than trying to keep individual camps sacred cows happy.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: scotland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bin The Mil Option
QUOTE:
The rapid turnover of mil crews simply won't happen, those that are in milSAR post 2012 are likely to be the old and bold who have no desire to thrust for a career or go to Afghanistan. There is no point in sending new lads and lasses into a predominantly civilian environment and role just for a tour and then have to pay to retrain them on Chinook/Merlin.
I truly believe that no-one (except those civil servants up in La La land) can think that the mil aircrew option can work, I mean think about it;
Chap leaves SH and in a 36 month period he has to do a SAR course and then convert onto the chosen bidders type. Before the end of that period he has to get his leave in because JHC will want him back and, though I’m not quite sure how this will work, he may also have to do his SH type refresher as well. That leaves him precious little time to do any SAR. You can’t even call it a rest tour because he will be spending a significant proportion of it in the Falklands.
Oh, and another thing, if we are talking winchmen they won’t ever be Paramedics because they won’t have had the time to do the course. Which means that if the bidders concentrate their mil winchmen on a few specific bases, those bases will never have a significant number of Paramedics...ever!!
I could go on but it’s all too depressing.
The rapid turnover of mil crews simply won't happen, those that are in milSAR post 2012 are likely to be the old and bold who have no desire to thrust for a career or go to Afghanistan. There is no point in sending new lads and lasses into a predominantly civilian environment and role just for a tour and then have to pay to retrain them on Chinook/Merlin.
I truly believe that no-one (except those civil servants up in La La land) can think that the mil aircrew option can work, I mean think about it;
Chap leaves SH and in a 36 month period he has to do a SAR course and then convert onto the chosen bidders type. Before the end of that period he has to get his leave in because JHC will want him back and, though I’m not quite sure how this will work, he may also have to do his SH type refresher as well. That leaves him precious little time to do any SAR. You can’t even call it a rest tour because he will be spending a significant proportion of it in the Falklands.
Oh, and another thing, if we are talking winchmen they won’t ever be Paramedics because they won’t have had the time to do the course. Which means that if the bidders concentrate their mil winchmen on a few specific bases, those bases will never have a significant number of Paramedics...ever!!
I could go on but it’s all too depressing.
Last edited by lost horizon; 19th Nov 2009 at 11:48.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future SAR
I think that everyone on this forum can accept that all of the organisations involved have something to offer. It would be rather unrealistic to assume that either the civil or military side have a monopoly of the best ideas. Whichever path had been chosen, civil or military, the costs involved would be enormous. The military would need to replace the Sea King, would it be able to do this more economically than a civil organisation?
SARH looks like it will happen. If it does not many millions will have been wasted. If it does it should offer the chance to blend the best qualities of the military and civil operations. To exploit that chance will require those involved to engage with an open mind and a willingness to accept change. The key to success will be the people.
There will be many difficulties and challenges. SARH will be a national solution, this will be a first and should be a great opportunity. Lets have some optomism.
SARH looks like it will happen. If it does not many millions will have been wasted. If it does it should offer the chance to blend the best qualities of the military and civil operations. To exploit that chance will require those involved to engage with an open mind and a willingness to accept change. The key to success will be the people.
There will be many difficulties and challenges. SARH will be a national solution, this will be a first and should be a great opportunity. Lets have some optomism.
onevan - you probably know more about the estate issue than me but since the hot rumour is that the aircraft will be civil registered, how will mil pilots be able to fly it without licences?
Artificial Horizon - I agree that this is a good opportunity and we will have a national solution but, and it is a big but, it should not be run for profit. There is in fact a completely different ethos between the two bidders with one looking at it purely from a business and profit standpoint and the other who seems truly committed to the improvement of UKSAR. I am not the blind optimist who thinks it will all be OK and the good guys will win - I am the worried realist concerned that a sitting tenant is less likely to be moved out because the existing relationship is too cosy and the goalposts keep being moved to facilitate that.
You have to ask though, if the SARH initial concept was no lesser service and we are already compromising on that in terms of cover, where else will corners be cut? The temptation with the SARH IPT must be to push on and close the deal but have they lost sight of the big picture that this process was supposed to be value for money and, in theory, a better SAR solution that what existed before. Shiny new aircraft alone won't be anything like enough.
Artificial Horizon - I agree that this is a good opportunity and we will have a national solution but, and it is a big but, it should not be run for profit. There is in fact a completely different ethos between the two bidders with one looking at it purely from a business and profit standpoint and the other who seems truly committed to the improvement of UKSAR. I am not the blind optimist who thinks it will all be OK and the good guys will win - I am the worried realist concerned that a sitting tenant is less likely to be moved out because the existing relationship is too cosy and the goalposts keep being moved to facilitate that.
You have to ask though, if the SARH initial concept was no lesser service and we are already compromising on that in terms of cover, where else will corners be cut? The temptation with the SARH IPT must be to push on and close the deal but have they lost sight of the big picture that this process was supposed to be value for money and, in theory, a better SAR solution that what existed before. Shiny new aircraft alone won't be anything like enough.
I would have thought the biggest cost drivers are likely to be manpower costs (wages, benefits and training) and 25 years of financing, not platform acquisition and through life support.
Think about the cost of crewing 12 bases with a minimum of 5 crews - not to mention the engineering, support staff and management, then add annual wage, benefits, insurance, sickness and recurring training cost escalations and program financing over 25 years and you begin to wonder whether platform acquisition and maintenance is likely to be in the top three front-runners when it comes to through life costs.
Neither am I naive enough to think that that any of the senior management in Vancouver, Owego, Southampton or Havant is thinking improvement is number one on their list of priorities. Yes it’s a key driver, but this is a business venture and first and foremost it’s about profit without which a company goes under and then where would SAR-H be? After all, isn’t that why UK Air Rescue pulled out?
Think about the cost of crewing 12 bases with a minimum of 5 crews - not to mention the engineering, support staff and management, then add annual wage, benefits, insurance, sickness and recurring training cost escalations and program financing over 25 years and you begin to wonder whether platform acquisition and maintenance is likely to be in the top three front-runners when it comes to through life costs.
Neither am I naive enough to think that that any of the senior management in Vancouver, Owego, Southampton or Havant is thinking improvement is number one on their list of priorities. Yes it’s a key driver, but this is a business venture and first and foremost it’s about profit without which a company goes under and then where would SAR-H be? After all, isn’t that why UK Air Rescue pulled out?
Hamster Wheel...
first and foremost it’s about profit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought I'd plunge in again.....mostly about the cost issue.
£6Bn seems a lot as a big headline figure - (if indeed that is the final contract price)...but bear in mind that is a locked in through life figure accounting for inflation and industy's best guess of future costings ...and it has to be right otherwise the winning contractor is locked in to a big loss sometime in the future - some would argue that the risks here are immense to any contractor however well refined the bid process...30 years is one hell of a long time - think how costs have changed both in the military and the civ aviation world over the last 30 years, and that's before forthcoming oil shocks and other commercial pressures as yet unseen - what for example if the usage expands beyond all predictions?
If it is £6Bn - (including the shiney new helos of course!) then that is an average £200M a year - think (although truely accurate figures are unavailable) of how much the present annual costs of the RAF, RN and Coastguard services are in 2009, never mind how they would escalate with inflation and pay rises alone over the next 30 years - (and thats just the running costs and doesn't include the large capital sums for new infrastructure and new helos) - especially as the military have a clear record of being more expensive over the civilian aviation world type for type (this is not neccessarily a criticism - just a fact). So to me £200M a year for a fully integrated national SAR helo service is not that expensive, particularly as any alternative may well prove unaffordable or politically unattainable.
By the way you may not appreciate that the SAR-H winner does not get anything like full annual payments until the complete service is in situ (ie after 7 years from contract award to last base commissioned) and anyone who knows anything about PFI financing knows that (depending on the size of the programme) - the winner usually does not make a profit until at least productive year 5 and maybe as far out as year 10 (SAR-H?) ie, Industry is paying up front to create the new service with the prospect of some (smallish but regular) profit in later years. The risks are considerable - be in no doubt.
As for paying this sum for a lesser service - well IMO this is very debatable and arguable (if you can ignore all the ill informed political hoo ha that always surrounds SAR bases) - the key indicator most talked about at present (the reduction of some bases to daylight only) is not neccessarily a reduction except from a very tactical perspective of local rescue to the base concerned (Chivenor?) - and why may I ask as an example does the locality of Chivenor deserve a rapid response over say 50 miles away across the Briz Channel on the Gower?. There are many complexities here - not least the possible "excess" rescue capability nearby - eg. see how many lifeboats await at readiness in close and effective proximity to where the very small number of SAR helo bases are, and maybe CG cliff rescue teams too. Note too, that essential and professional as the UK's SAR helo capability is for many tasks, a large number (and I would argue the majority) of missons carried out each year could have been done with no or little predjudice to the casualties concerned given those other means of rescue if the helo was not there at all. Throw this into the capability argument and a different perspective arises as to what UK SAR helo capability we actually need - particularly if the right and well coordinated balance is to be struck with the other rescue servcies such as the air ambulances, the RNLI, the MRTs and the Police and Fire Services - and not forgetting the rest of the military too who can always be called on to help at any suitable stage.
Nobody likes SAR flights to close or reduce their availability but it is not always the fundamental problem that is made out - think of how many flights there were 40 years ago. All I will say is that a truely open minded possibility to create a SAR-H solution that might have been affordable yet provide a more balanced and responsive capability was cut off by the very focus on keeping the 12 present bases at the same capability - don't you just love ill-informed politicians!
Cheers
£6Bn seems a lot as a big headline figure - (if indeed that is the final contract price)...but bear in mind that is a locked in through life figure accounting for inflation and industy's best guess of future costings ...and it has to be right otherwise the winning contractor is locked in to a big loss sometime in the future - some would argue that the risks here are immense to any contractor however well refined the bid process...30 years is one hell of a long time - think how costs have changed both in the military and the civ aviation world over the last 30 years, and that's before forthcoming oil shocks and other commercial pressures as yet unseen - what for example if the usage expands beyond all predictions?
If it is £6Bn - (including the shiney new helos of course!) then that is an average £200M a year - think (although truely accurate figures are unavailable) of how much the present annual costs of the RAF, RN and Coastguard services are in 2009, never mind how they would escalate with inflation and pay rises alone over the next 30 years - (and thats just the running costs and doesn't include the large capital sums for new infrastructure and new helos) - especially as the military have a clear record of being more expensive over the civilian aviation world type for type (this is not neccessarily a criticism - just a fact). So to me £200M a year for a fully integrated national SAR helo service is not that expensive, particularly as any alternative may well prove unaffordable or politically unattainable.
By the way you may not appreciate that the SAR-H winner does not get anything like full annual payments until the complete service is in situ (ie after 7 years from contract award to last base commissioned) and anyone who knows anything about PFI financing knows that (depending on the size of the programme) - the winner usually does not make a profit until at least productive year 5 and maybe as far out as year 10 (SAR-H?) ie, Industry is paying up front to create the new service with the prospect of some (smallish but regular) profit in later years. The risks are considerable - be in no doubt.
As for paying this sum for a lesser service - well IMO this is very debatable and arguable (if you can ignore all the ill informed political hoo ha that always surrounds SAR bases) - the key indicator most talked about at present (the reduction of some bases to daylight only) is not neccessarily a reduction except from a very tactical perspective of local rescue to the base concerned (Chivenor?) - and why may I ask as an example does the locality of Chivenor deserve a rapid response over say 50 miles away across the Briz Channel on the Gower?. There are many complexities here - not least the possible "excess" rescue capability nearby - eg. see how many lifeboats await at readiness in close and effective proximity to where the very small number of SAR helo bases are, and maybe CG cliff rescue teams too. Note too, that essential and professional as the UK's SAR helo capability is for many tasks, a large number (and I would argue the majority) of missons carried out each year could have been done with no or little predjudice to the casualties concerned given those other means of rescue if the helo was not there at all. Throw this into the capability argument and a different perspective arises as to what UK SAR helo capability we actually need - particularly if the right and well coordinated balance is to be struck with the other rescue servcies such as the air ambulances, the RNLI, the MRTs and the Police and Fire Services - and not forgetting the rest of the military too who can always be called on to help at any suitable stage.
Nobody likes SAR flights to close or reduce their availability but it is not always the fundamental problem that is made out - think of how many flights there were 40 years ago. All I will say is that a truely open minded possibility to create a SAR-H solution that might have been affordable yet provide a more balanced and responsive capability was cut off by the very focus on keeping the 12 present bases at the same capability - don't you just love ill-informed politicians!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 20th Nov 2009 at 07:20.
how much the present annual costs of the RAF, RN and Coastguard services are in 2009
Much of what you say makes sense, but sooner or later the issue of reducing units to 12 hour cover will bite. If one night 6 years from now, Culdrose are on a job and Lee's aircraft is broken, there will be nothing available to cover the south of England including the Channel south of Wattisham and Valley. Gloucester floods, anyone?
On the issue of current SAR costs, you ignore the issue of the mil often having two aircraft available per base - this capability has been degraded recently, but if push came to shove crews would be found for the spare aircraft (as has happened frequently when big jobs have come in after 2nd Standby had finished for the night).
The SAR-H combination of reducing the total number of aircraft and reducing the hours which some units are available will sooner or later turn a drama into a crisis - I firmly believe that what we have now, while far from perfect, is a better solution than what is proposed. Which units are you going to send to Cumbria if last night's flooding happens again in 10 years? Lossiemouth? Wattisham?
And although in some incidents, other means of rescue would make do, you may regret saying that if it's ever you stuck in agony on a cliff waiting for ropes to be set up to get you, then being carried a long way over uneven ground in a stretcher to a distant air ambulance...
As it happens, Boulmer, Leconfied, Valley and...you guessed it... Chivenor went to Cumbria last night (5hrs day 5hrs night) - exactly the sort of surge capability that will be lost under SARH.
We were planning a mountains detachment to Cumbria starting tomorrow but that has understandably been cancelled - our engineers (who would have deployed with us) however, have offered to place themselves on standby this weekend in case engineering support is required up there, whether for our aircraft or Valley and Lec's. Is that the sort of thing we will see under SARH? Unlikely since I keep being told a modern SAR flight will be run with only 2 engineers per shift so being able to generate 5 keen and well motivated guys, who won't get paid any more for it, to go and work in crappy conditions just ain't going to happen. I might add that our engineers are civilians but their ethos is true military!
Tallsar - where did £6Bn come from?? talk about inflation, it was £3-5Bn only a short while ago!!! The IPT offered up the cuts based on percentage of night jobs which meant that Leconfield and others with a lower overall job count scored higher in percentage terms than Chivenor with the highest RAF flt job count year after year - that is the sort of thinking that makes me beleive the IPT has lost the plot.
Your super-efficient view of how little Chivenor contributes to UK SAR that it can be reduced in operating hours with impunity is very disappointing especially since you live in the area - have a look in your local press to see how many people disagree with your viewpoint - including the other rescue services.
The talk of libeboats and CG cliff teams sounds plausible but cliff teams are slow to get going and even the best lifeboat in the world can't get to someone stuck on rocks in high seas.
Cutting SAR flights further, as you and others have advocated, ignores the very real need for surge and concurrent ops which won't be possible with fewer aircraft and bases - it's not just the winching rescues, its the rural isolation of many areas of UK which rely on medtransfers. All the bollocks about faster aircraft meaning fewer bases is flawed logic which ignores both historical precedent and common sense.
We were planning a mountains detachment to Cumbria starting tomorrow but that has understandably been cancelled - our engineers (who would have deployed with us) however, have offered to place themselves on standby this weekend in case engineering support is required up there, whether for our aircraft or Valley and Lec's. Is that the sort of thing we will see under SARH? Unlikely since I keep being told a modern SAR flight will be run with only 2 engineers per shift so being able to generate 5 keen and well motivated guys, who won't get paid any more for it, to go and work in crappy conditions just ain't going to happen. I might add that our engineers are civilians but their ethos is true military!
Tallsar - where did £6Bn come from?? talk about inflation, it was £3-5Bn only a short while ago!!! The IPT offered up the cuts based on percentage of night jobs which meant that Leconfield and others with a lower overall job count scored higher in percentage terms than Chivenor with the highest RAF flt job count year after year - that is the sort of thinking that makes me beleive the IPT has lost the plot.
Your super-efficient view of how little Chivenor contributes to UK SAR that it can be reduced in operating hours with impunity is very disappointing especially since you live in the area - have a look in your local press to see how many people disagree with your viewpoint - including the other rescue services.
The talk of libeboats and CG cliff teams sounds plausible but cliff teams are slow to get going and even the best lifeboat in the world can't get to someone stuck on rocks in high seas.
Cutting SAR flights further, as you and others have advocated, ignores the very real need for surge and concurrent ops which won't be possible with fewer aircraft and bases - it's not just the winching rescues, its the rural isolation of many areas of UK which rely on medtransfers. All the bollocks about faster aircraft meaning fewer bases is flawed logic which ignores both historical precedent and common sense.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely SARH will allow the much needed relief to allow the RAF aircrew to get to Afghanistan (where they are needed?).
The contract will allow the rescue of civilians to be conducted by professional civilians.
Go SARH.
The contract will allow the rescue of civilians to be conducted by professional civilians.
Go SARH.
The contract will allow the rescue of civilians to be conducted by professional civilians.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys - nice to see your comments.
TOD - I empathise with your comment - of course if I was caught out and had to stay longer in a difficult situation than neccessary I would not be too happy if a helicopter could otherwise be made available(has happened to me by the way... but less of that at the mo). The strategic point though is that there are so many life boats and CG cliff and MR teams that these rescues happen all the time without helos including when the weather is unflyable particualry at the point of rescue, eg, I believe in recent years about 12000 maritme rescues annually to the UK SAR helos >1000 (most of the nearly 2000 annual helo rescues now being "overland".) - and similar is increasingly applying to overland medevacs and rescues as the air ambulance service becomes more effective (albeit daylight only at present.) It is simply not true therefore to suggest as many do that many lives are put in peril by a helo not being availble - some may be made more uncomfortable - but such non SAR helo rescues and transits are by far the higher proportion of rescues in our UK SAR region to date. If I could wave a magic wand and find the very large amount of money to provide resources to rescue all by helo I would most certainly do it - but that is never going to happen and many in difficulties will always have to rely on the non SAR helo rescue means - it has always been so and always will be - where does this argument stop - a SAR baset every 30 miles along the coast? - I don't think so.
Now Crab my friend - while I appreciate your well rehearsed views on the neccesity of Chivenor, I have cringed at some of the semi nonsense gushing out of the local press - it is not helpful to a rational debate on this matter from a professional perspective. I offer the following points: Some if not most of those missons you (and I) have been involved in are done by the helo as a matter of choice as selected by the CG, police and ARRC - not because a helo is truely essential - and as for the local rescues (ie within say 30 miles of Chiv) - it is arguable who would get there first - which of the local lifeboats or the air ambulance would you prefer? Conversely you as well as I have probably watched the Appledore L/B set of on a misson that we felt would have been nice for us to be called out to - and I am sure every SAR flt can reflect on similar circumstances. The main point remains - there is a plethora of rescue services in the UK and many missons do not need the helo as an "essential" resource - helpful as it can be if it is available - and their is not a litany of medical cases as a result reflecting on how the casualties would have been much better if they had been helo rescued instead - or litigation case either! IMO we keep our capaple helos at readiness for the really signicant jobs where their capability is indispensable - for example any inaccesible location (maritime or land), urgent missons where clearly the helo is the speediest response in a genuine life saving or urgent medical situation, or in major incidents as last night so conclusively showed and where the helo can offer real value and essential capability to the situation.
I do not support the argument that the SAR-H requirement will not have sufficent assets acrosss the country on standby to meet the needs of incidents as we saw at Cockermouth. The historic statistics are very indicative as to how likely such surge ops are needed and how many concurrent helo ops are needed elsewhere, and the requirement reflects this - this drives the value for money argument. I will not probe too far on the likely airframe availability arguments - but feel confident that 12 1st standby modern ac are likely to be more available than the present miltiary availability we have seen over at least the last 10 years. Obviously we can never safeguard the future entirely and in every location. Sods law says that you could choose any area of the country for what happened last night and implicit in it means denuding some part of the country of 1st standby cover for a period of time. It is a simple value for money neccesity that a balance has to be struck on how many bases and where and how many platforms you need at readiness to cover the majority but never all of potential rescue circumstances. To second guess where the next "local" rescue is required when a helo is already away is an impossible game -but surely that has always been the case once the standby cab has departed on a misson form its base locale. In due course if op demand really does change signifcantly (NB the Norwegians are predicting a doubling of their rescure requirements over their new procurement timescale once the Artic ice receedes away permanently by 2030) then the SAR-H contract will need amendment to reflect changing circumstances and as required by the government, but at present there appears little of any substantive argument that more than 12 helos at readiness cannot achieve the tasks as often needed and as shown over the last 40 years. As for ad hoc second standby availability - the true cost of this in airframe numbers and peronnel (see EWTD too!) rapidly drive you to an unaffordable contract - and the same would be true of a totally government owend service IMO. My guess is we might see more of last night but less of the maritime oil and fishing stuff as these activites wane substantially. There will always be the time when overall coverage is at risk no matter how many helos you have - 2nd standby or otherwise - on those few occasions (as probably last night) when many (but not all) of the 1st standby ac have deployed clearly on the one hand local capability had dissapeared elsewhere (ie Chiv to Cockermouth), but also ask how often there has then been a need for a local rescue at the denuded flight where the helo was essential, and if so could not be completed by other rescue agencies such as the RNLI etc. If it really does need a helo then one can either diverted from the other main misson (temporarily) or sent form a flight further away - this has always been the case and this will not change under SAR-H. Indeed the situation may well be even more efficent as all 12 standby aircraft will always be available to the same standard as managed by one provider and in close liaison with one controlling agency - the ARCC - this is the 1st time this has been possible in the UK - and will bring some important improvements with it, including a more rapid response in redepolying ac to those bases that might be unserviceable or need reinforcing without any "ownership" issues slowing the process. There maybe only 12 ac on 1st standby required by SAR-H, but none of us yet know how many airframes either of the bidders is putting forward as the total fleet size and therefore what will be available to ensure effective coverage when required across the country and meet the contracted requirements without penalty.
As for your point about the busy nature of Chivenor (the 20minuters eh?
) - well many SAR flights are busy these days for sure, and a few jobs here and there makes little difference to the need for the 1st standby to be available as possible - by the way - how many of those busy jobs needed the 2nd standby?? - I suspect very few. It is also a fact that many flights are busy because they are there and therfore can be called on many of these missons as matter of choice. We all know that similar nodes of intense activity dissappeared when their local flights closed - look at Leuchars, Manston and Brawdy. Some of these jobs were picked up by the remaining bases but many went straight to the other local rescue resources or dissapeared altogther as an urgent rescue requirement. I'm sorry guys but I have always viewed SAR flights as basing facilites for a national capability that can provide area coverage in the broader vicinity not immediate local rescue at short range ie point defence! That is often taken care of as we indicated previously.
By the way - £6Bn was just a sensible guess from previous experience - if the original project budget is £5Bn (and that was 4 years ago!) then inflation and the realities of properly costed bids suggest to me that the actual cost is bound to be higher - £6Bn was a rationale guess for the sake of my argument. I suspect if either bidder is coming in very much higher than that then there will be no SAR-H contract!
Cheers
TOD - I empathise with your comment - of course if I was caught out and had to stay longer in a difficult situation than neccessary I would not be too happy if a helicopter could otherwise be made available(has happened to me by the way... but less of that at the mo). The strategic point though is that there are so many life boats and CG cliff and MR teams that these rescues happen all the time without helos including when the weather is unflyable particualry at the point of rescue, eg, I believe in recent years about 12000 maritme rescues annually to the UK SAR helos >1000 (most of the nearly 2000 annual helo rescues now being "overland".) - and similar is increasingly applying to overland medevacs and rescues as the air ambulance service becomes more effective (albeit daylight only at present.) It is simply not true therefore to suggest as many do that many lives are put in peril by a helo not being availble - some may be made more uncomfortable - but such non SAR helo rescues and transits are by far the higher proportion of rescues in our UK SAR region to date. If I could wave a magic wand and find the very large amount of money to provide resources to rescue all by helo I would most certainly do it - but that is never going to happen and many in difficulties will always have to rely on the non SAR helo rescue means - it has always been so and always will be - where does this argument stop - a SAR baset every 30 miles along the coast? - I don't think so.
Now Crab my friend - while I appreciate your well rehearsed views on the neccesity of Chivenor, I have cringed at some of the semi nonsense gushing out of the local press - it is not helpful to a rational debate on this matter from a professional perspective. I offer the following points: Some if not most of those missons you (and I) have been involved in are done by the helo as a matter of choice as selected by the CG, police and ARRC - not because a helo is truely essential - and as for the local rescues (ie within say 30 miles of Chiv) - it is arguable who would get there first - which of the local lifeboats or the air ambulance would you prefer? Conversely you as well as I have probably watched the Appledore L/B set of on a misson that we felt would have been nice for us to be called out to - and I am sure every SAR flt can reflect on similar circumstances. The main point remains - there is a plethora of rescue services in the UK and many missons do not need the helo as an "essential" resource - helpful as it can be if it is available - and their is not a litany of medical cases as a result reflecting on how the casualties would have been much better if they had been helo rescued instead - or litigation case either! IMO we keep our capaple helos at readiness for the really signicant jobs where their capability is indispensable - for example any inaccesible location (maritime or land), urgent missons where clearly the helo is the speediest response in a genuine life saving or urgent medical situation, or in major incidents as last night so conclusively showed and where the helo can offer real value and essential capability to the situation.
I do not support the argument that the SAR-H requirement will not have sufficent assets acrosss the country on standby to meet the needs of incidents as we saw at Cockermouth. The historic statistics are very indicative as to how likely such surge ops are needed and how many concurrent helo ops are needed elsewhere, and the requirement reflects this - this drives the value for money argument. I will not probe too far on the likely airframe availability arguments - but feel confident that 12 1st standby modern ac are likely to be more available than the present miltiary availability we have seen over at least the last 10 years. Obviously we can never safeguard the future entirely and in every location. Sods law says that you could choose any area of the country for what happened last night and implicit in it means denuding some part of the country of 1st standby cover for a period of time. It is a simple value for money neccesity that a balance has to be struck on how many bases and where and how many platforms you need at readiness to cover the majority but never all of potential rescue circumstances. To second guess where the next "local" rescue is required when a helo is already away is an impossible game -but surely that has always been the case once the standby cab has departed on a misson form its base locale. In due course if op demand really does change signifcantly (NB the Norwegians are predicting a doubling of their rescure requirements over their new procurement timescale once the Artic ice receedes away permanently by 2030) then the SAR-H contract will need amendment to reflect changing circumstances and as required by the government, but at present there appears little of any substantive argument that more than 12 helos at readiness cannot achieve the tasks as often needed and as shown over the last 40 years. As for ad hoc second standby availability - the true cost of this in airframe numbers and peronnel (see EWTD too!) rapidly drive you to an unaffordable contract - and the same would be true of a totally government owend service IMO. My guess is we might see more of last night but less of the maritime oil and fishing stuff as these activites wane substantially. There will always be the time when overall coverage is at risk no matter how many helos you have - 2nd standby or otherwise - on those few occasions (as probably last night) when many (but not all) of the 1st standby ac have deployed clearly on the one hand local capability had dissapeared elsewhere (ie Chiv to Cockermouth), but also ask how often there has then been a need for a local rescue at the denuded flight where the helo was essential, and if so could not be completed by other rescue agencies such as the RNLI etc. If it really does need a helo then one can either diverted from the other main misson (temporarily) or sent form a flight further away - this has always been the case and this will not change under SAR-H. Indeed the situation may well be even more efficent as all 12 standby aircraft will always be available to the same standard as managed by one provider and in close liaison with one controlling agency - the ARCC - this is the 1st time this has been possible in the UK - and will bring some important improvements with it, including a more rapid response in redepolying ac to those bases that might be unserviceable or need reinforcing without any "ownership" issues slowing the process. There maybe only 12 ac on 1st standby required by SAR-H, but none of us yet know how many airframes either of the bidders is putting forward as the total fleet size and therefore what will be available to ensure effective coverage when required across the country and meet the contracted requirements without penalty.
As for your point about the busy nature of Chivenor (the 20minuters eh?
) - well many SAR flights are busy these days for sure, and a few jobs here and there makes little difference to the need for the 1st standby to be available as possible - by the way - how many of those busy jobs needed the 2nd standby?? - I suspect very few. It is also a fact that many flights are busy because they are there and therfore can be called on many of these missons as matter of choice. We all know that similar nodes of intense activity dissappeared when their local flights closed - look at Leuchars, Manston and Brawdy. Some of these jobs were picked up by the remaining bases but many went straight to the other local rescue resources or dissapeared altogther as an urgent rescue requirement. I'm sorry guys but I have always viewed SAR flights as basing facilites for a national capability that can provide area coverage in the broader vicinity not immediate local rescue at short range ie point defence! That is often taken care of as we indicated previously.By the way - £6Bn was just a sensible guess from previous experience - if the original project budget is £5Bn (and that was 4 years ago!) then inflation and the realities of properly costed bids suggest to me that the actual cost is bound to be higher - £6Bn was a rationale guess for the sake of my argument. I suspect if either bidder is coming in very much higher than that then there will be no SAR-H contract!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 20th Nov 2009 at 23:39.
Tallsar - despite the plethora of other rescue agencies, including 2 Devon air ambulances and several police helos, Chivenor has passed 310 callouts already this year and, whilst some of our '20-minute' jobs you feel could be done by others are hardly award-winning, most of the callouts save lives or minimise suffering for a great many people.
I did a 20 minute job the other day at Woody Bay where a man and his dog were cut off by the tide in failing light at the bottom of a 300' cliff in 30 kts of wind and sea state 4. Now a cliff team could have been called but would have taken at leat 30 mins to get there, lete alone set up in the dark and get 300' down only to have to try and get cas plus dog 300' up again - how long would that have taken and what suffering to a less than spring chicken of a casualty? Or an IRB could have launched (we did ask for one just in case we had a problem winching) which would have taken over 30 mins to get there and then been faced with a nasty dumping shorebreak onto boulders to try and get ashore - again putting the casualty in more peril in the water as they would have had to try to extract him somehow.
My point is that your grand view that there are so many other assets that could do the job is fundamentally flawed - all those assets get used regularly for the jobs they are best suited to and they do an excellent job - but there are so many ocassions that a SAR helo is the best weapon of choice for the casualty, and that seems to have been forgotten in your intellectualising of UK SAR.
BTW - Brawdy shut but we still do 50% of our jobs in S Wales so I am afraid your logic is only partly sound - you cannot ignore the fact that our part of the country has an enormous stretch of coastline and attracts millions of visitors every year who deserve protection.
The Air Ambulances do not and are unlikely to ever have (because they are charity funded) a big enough aircraft to perform medtransfers of critically ill patients and how many years will it be before they are allowed to fly at night.
Your 12 Helo solution isn't what is planned under SARH now - at night it will be 9 aircraft for the whole of the UK - do you still think that is enough?
I do know that Stornoway were able to produce a second aircraft and crew ready to go to Cumbria if required - if that sort of response could be guaranteed under SARH, I for one would feel happier about it but it's not in the contract. Well done Stornoway anyway
If all we did in UKSAR was urgent lifesaving then your logic could probably give a 6 base solution but would conveniently ignore the fact that many communities, especially those island ones, Scillies, Orkneys, Shetlands etc rely on the capabilities of a SAR helo all year round.
I did a 20 minute job the other day at Woody Bay where a man and his dog were cut off by the tide in failing light at the bottom of a 300' cliff in 30 kts of wind and sea state 4. Now a cliff team could have been called but would have taken at leat 30 mins to get there, lete alone set up in the dark and get 300' down only to have to try and get cas plus dog 300' up again - how long would that have taken and what suffering to a less than spring chicken of a casualty? Or an IRB could have launched (we did ask for one just in case we had a problem winching) which would have taken over 30 mins to get there and then been faced with a nasty dumping shorebreak onto boulders to try and get ashore - again putting the casualty in more peril in the water as they would have had to try to extract him somehow.
My point is that your grand view that there are so many other assets that could do the job is fundamentally flawed - all those assets get used regularly for the jobs they are best suited to and they do an excellent job - but there are so many ocassions that a SAR helo is the best weapon of choice for the casualty, and that seems to have been forgotten in your intellectualising of UK SAR.
BTW - Brawdy shut but we still do 50% of our jobs in S Wales so I am afraid your logic is only partly sound - you cannot ignore the fact that our part of the country has an enormous stretch of coastline and attracts millions of visitors every year who deserve protection.
The Air Ambulances do not and are unlikely to ever have (because they are charity funded) a big enough aircraft to perform medtransfers of critically ill patients and how many years will it be before they are allowed to fly at night.
Your 12 Helo solution isn't what is planned under SARH now - at night it will be 9 aircraft for the whole of the UK - do you still think that is enough?
I do know that Stornoway were able to produce a second aircraft and crew ready to go to Cumbria if required - if that sort of response could be guaranteed under SARH, I for one would feel happier about it but it's not in the contract. Well done Stornoway anyway
If all we did in UKSAR was urgent lifesaving then your logic could probably give a 6 base solution but would conveniently ignore the fact that many communities, especially those island ones, Scillies, Orkneys, Shetlands etc rely on the capabilities of a SAR helo all year round.
Crab (or should I call you Cassandra?),
Tallsar's arguments are plausible enough that most people will never accept your warnings until it's far too late (no offence Tallsar, we just disagree - I hope you turn out to be right but I have my fears!).
Well done to your and all your RAF SAR Force colleagues for last night - you'll be missed when you're gone (that's you plural, not just you Crab!).
TOTD
Tallsar's arguments are plausible enough that most people will never accept your warnings until it's far too late (no offence Tallsar, we just disagree - I hope you turn out to be right but I have my fears!).
Well done to your and all your RAF SAR Force colleagues for last night - you'll be missed when you're gone (that's you plural, not just you Crab!).
TOTD
TOTD - cassandra????? Am I missing something here?