SARH to go
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi jonnyloove
Interesting that you previously gave this advice to a poster looking for how he could get a start as civvie SAR winchman
All little bit at odds with your last post ?
Surely employing ready trained ex military paramedic qualified winchmen will always be the cheap option compared to giving a course of flying training to a paramedic?
Interesting that you previously gave this advice to a poster looking for how he could get a start as civvie SAR winchman
Hi there
To be honest in the civil world to get one off the few civil aircrew slots you need to be a state registered paramedic.
To be honest in the civil world to get one off the few civil aircrew slots you need to be a state registered paramedic.
I would say that its being driven as a cheap way to get paramedics to fill slots the cheap way
Bluenose 50
Culdrose would be the nearest if it exists, who is to say it will, it may turn out not to be viable in private ownership and with these new speedy machines where will the next sight be at 140 Kts and & 1 hour from lift off, forgetting the head wind ??
This was an example not necessaraly a site I am sure you can fill in a situation to fit.
Nobody has given the cost of the mil still running their own SAR + the PFI cost.
All I know is if I take another dunking I want someone to pull me out as quick as possible & the last 10 minutes could be to late, + it could be any time in the 24 hours, do not want to wait till daylight.
Culdrose would be the nearest if it exists, who is to say it will, it may turn out not to be viable in private ownership and with these new speedy machines where will the next sight be at 140 Kts and & 1 hour from lift off, forgetting the head wind ??
This was an example not necessaraly a site I am sure you can fill in a situation to fit.
Nobody has given the cost of the mil still running their own SAR + the PFI cost.
All I know is if I take another dunking I want someone to pull me out as quick as possible & the last 10 minutes could be to late, + it could be any time in the 24 hours, do not want to wait till daylight.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of this, and the source of much argument, is that the military will not be running their own service.
Sven
Sven
500e - you seem to be under the misconception that SARH and milSAR will be 2 different entities - that is not so and the taxpayer won't be paying twice. The 12 SAR flights that presently exist will all be there post 2012 (except that Prestwick has to move but not very far - politics!!). Those 12 flight will be manned primarily by civilian crews except that 66 military personnel will be embedded into some (probably 3) of those flights with the favourites being Culdrose, Valley and Lossiemouth because they are all on large military stations.
The MoD retains a foothold in UKSAR but the rest of the aircrew and provision of aircraft and engineering is all civilian and provided by the winning bidder.
What is bizarre is that the MoD will be paying 70% of the cost of SARH despite only having a 3rd of the manpower in uniform.
The MoD retains a foothold in UKSAR but the rest of the aircrew and provision of aircraft and engineering is all civilian and provided by the winning bidder.
What is bizarre is that the MoD will be paying 70% of the cost of SARH despite only having a 3rd of the manpower in uniform.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the plan is that approx 2/3 of the public costs of SAR-H will come from the MoD 'pot', with the other approx 1/3 coming from (I believe) the Dept for Transport via the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), it's important to remember that 100% of that money comes from the taxpayer; it's all public money that will go to pay for UK SAR irrespective of the government dept that it flows through to get there.
Why would it be done this way, at least in the early years? Well, consider this: SAR-H has to be on contract next year in order to be up-and-running in 2 1/2 years' time. To attempt to change the SAR-H funding flow to a single government dept instead of the current situation would involve a fairly hefty amount of departmental bureaucracy (UK government depts are not known for their speed and efficiency of action), which would seriously jeopardise the chances of SAR-H being able to get underway on time. The simplest way to remove this risk to the programme would be to keep the current routeing for this public 'SAR funding' until the project is in place and providing the UK SAR service. Once this is achieved, and assuming that a single government dept is considered to be the most appropriate routeing for SAR-H funding, then the necessary bureaucracy can get under way with the 'fait accompli' of SAR-H already being extant rather than in a vulnerable pre-contract state.
As I heard someone describe it a little while ago, Private Bloggs in Helmand won't go short of body armour just because 2/3 of the public SAR-H money happens to flow through the MoD.
Louis
Why would it be done this way, at least in the early years? Well, consider this: SAR-H has to be on contract next year in order to be up-and-running in 2 1/2 years' time. To attempt to change the SAR-H funding flow to a single government dept instead of the current situation would involve a fairly hefty amount of departmental bureaucracy (UK government depts are not known for their speed and efficiency of action), which would seriously jeopardise the chances of SAR-H being able to get underway on time. The simplest way to remove this risk to the programme would be to keep the current routeing for this public 'SAR funding' until the project is in place and providing the UK SAR service. Once this is achieved, and assuming that a single government dept is considered to be the most appropriate routeing for SAR-H funding, then the necessary bureaucracy can get under way with the 'fait accompli' of SAR-H already being extant rather than in a vulnerable pre-contract state.
As I heard someone describe it a little while ago, Private Bloggs in Helmand won't go short of body armour just because 2/3 of the public SAR-H money happens to flow through the MoD.
Louis
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair Point
Louisnewmark. Yep, fair point that one. With 2 and a half years to go and over, now how long has it been .... 8 or 9 years.......behind it you are quite correct, they probably couldnt get the funding line changed!
Are you serious! As you say its the tax payers money and you think that level of inefficiency is acceptable - lets face it your saying they cant play shops properly when they have known all about it - let alone run a rescue service - in those timescales! Your having a laugh!
Very sad!
You are also quite correct about "no moving of the goal posts on the 1hr from take off". Doesnt mean the goals were in the right place in the first place though does it! And yes lots of people did point out that little issue. Its also still wind - that happens a lot! Not even an average wind from the ... oh forget it! I think the saying is " it is what it is and will be what it turns out to be".
Now, one base near Derby with Ospreys .... now there is an idea.
Are you serious! As you say its the tax payers money and you think that level of inefficiency is acceptable - lets face it your saying they cant play shops properly when they have known all about it - let alone run a rescue service - in those timescales! Your having a laugh!
Very sad!
You are also quite correct about "no moving of the goal posts on the 1hr from take off". Doesnt mean the goals were in the right place in the first place though does it! And yes lots of people did point out that little issue. Its also still wind - that happens a lot! Not even an average wind from the ... oh forget it! I think the saying is " it is what it is and will be what it turns out to be".
Now, one base near Derby with Ospreys .... now there is an idea.
Louis - the other point about the funding is that the MoD only pick up the cost of a flight (MoD converted to civ) once the conversion has finished and so won't pick up the full 70% until 2016 or so - if that isn't making the funding stream more complicated I don't know what is. It is also one of the reasons MoD seems to like this process because it theoretically gives more money in the early years to spend on more Chinooks/body armour etc etc.
SARREMF - yes, its a shame that none of those people involved wanted to listen to any criticism of their Master Plan but they just massaged the data to give the results they wanted.
SARREMF - yes, its a shame that none of those people involved wanted to listen to any criticism of their Master Plan but they just massaged the data to give the results they wanted.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the MoD only pick up the cost of a flight (MoD converted to civ) once the conversion has finished and so won't pick up the full 70% until 2016 or so
At the moment aren't they paying 100% and this will drop to 70% once the bases are civilianised??
Yes but that 70% is of the £5Bn costs for SARH which includes profits for the bidder whereas at the moment the costs of running the SAR flts are comparatively low
Thanks crab as I thought the mil will still be there, so why split the thing up & why should we give profit to private company for what appears to be inferior cover? will the mil personnel still provide 24 hour cover & if so how will the the 1 hour requirement be fulfilled
I think your comment is close to the mark,
"SAR should not be provided on a 'for profit' basis because, as we have seen from the banking crisis, once money is involved, anything can be justified by the need to make profit and all integrity is lost."
There is a case for the MOD to get its act together along with re structuring the existing system to make more efficient, but profit should not be involved.
I think your comment is close to the mark,
"SAR should not be provided on a 'for profit' basis because, as we have seen from the banking crisis, once money is involved, anything can be justified by the need to make profit and all integrity is lost."
There is a case for the MOD to get its act together along with re structuring the existing system to make more efficient, but profit should not be involved.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500e
For the second time.
Once SAR-H is in business, there will be NO military SAR in the UK. This is not an additional service, it's an alternative one.
Sven
For the second time.
Once SAR-H is in business, there will be NO military SAR in the UK. This is not an additional service, it's an alternative one.
Sven
ToTD - no that hasn't changed although the delay between going through 'Main Gate' - the authority to spend the money - and announcing the preferred bidder is worrying and it keeps slipping right.
500e - the final details of the exact spread of manning are still to be released once the preferred bidder is announced but spreading 66 milpers across 12 flights is not a likely strategy - more likely they will be blobbed up at flights which happen to be on big mil bases eg Culdrose, Valley and Lossiemouth - guess where all the RN guys will be! Theoretically there will be no mil SAR flights but it looks like a few will be top heavy with mil purely for administrative and management reasons. However, they will be flying civilian aircraft with civilian registrations with civilian licences - or so the hot rumours go anyway.
The 24 hour cover will still be there - except at Portland, Chivenor and Boulmer (thanks IPT!) and the MoD official line is that the faster aircraft will allow the 1 hour requirement to be met. Unfortunately most of what comes out of MoD at the moment, where everyone is scared of their own shadow, is disingenuous at best. Our local MP made a nice point that no matter how fast the helicopter, it can't be in 2 places at the same time!
500e - the final details of the exact spread of manning are still to be released once the preferred bidder is announced but spreading 66 milpers across 12 flights is not a likely strategy - more likely they will be blobbed up at flights which happen to be on big mil bases eg Culdrose, Valley and Lossiemouth - guess where all the RN guys will be! Theoretically there will be no mil SAR flights but it looks like a few will be top heavy with mil purely for administrative and management reasons. However, they will be flying civilian aircraft with civilian registrations with civilian licences - or so the hot rumours go anyway.
The 24 hour cover will still be there - except at Portland, Chivenor and Boulmer (thanks IPT!) and the MoD official line is that the faster aircraft will allow the 1 hour requirement to be met. Unfortunately most of what comes out of MoD at the moment, where everyone is scared of their own shadow, is disingenuous at best. Our local MP made a nice point that no matter how fast the helicopter, it can't be in 2 places at the same time!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRAB Quote:-Our local MP made a nice point that no matter how fast the helicopter, it can't be in 2 places at the same time!
With Pearls of Wisdom like that how did he ever become an MP
With Pearls of Wisdom like that how did he ever become an MP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
You state the cost of a RAF flight is 'comparatively low'. Compared to what? From my experience it has been almost impossible to compare apples with apples where MOD are concerned. For example, in by gone days, in the space of a week, the MOD office providing operating costs for aircraft quoted me Tucano costs on Monday at £250pph and on Friday £1500pph! If you try and get a figure for a SAR flight it will be a PDOOMA!
Sea King operating costs per hour are vastly more that a 225 for example. Running costs for Prestwick are simply prohibative compared to Portland. My guess if you could actually pin down the real MOD costs per Flight it would be at least 50% more that they currently believe - so much is hidden in the infrstructure/supply and support noise! Whilst the loss of RAF SAR is to be mourned, If the MOD kept their 8 Flights and bought new aircraft through the procurement process we would not see new aircraft until 2015 - 2020 and the cost would be much more than a PFI. Simply put MOD are incapable of doing anything efficiently - Chinook Mk 3 is a fine example.
Tigwas
You state the cost of a RAF flight is 'comparatively low'. Compared to what? From my experience it has been almost impossible to compare apples with apples where MOD are concerned. For example, in by gone days, in the space of a week, the MOD office providing operating costs for aircraft quoted me Tucano costs on Monday at £250pph and on Friday £1500pph! If you try and get a figure for a SAR flight it will be a PDOOMA!
Sea King operating costs per hour are vastly more that a 225 for example. Running costs for Prestwick are simply prohibative compared to Portland. My guess if you could actually pin down the real MOD costs per Flight it would be at least 50% more that they currently believe - so much is hidden in the infrstructure/supply and support noise! Whilst the loss of RAF SAR is to be mourned, If the MOD kept their 8 Flights and bought new aircraft through the procurement process we would not see new aircraft until 2015 - 2020 and the cost would be much more than a PFI. Simply put MOD are incapable of doing anything efficiently - Chinook Mk 3 is a fine example.
Tigwas
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the MOD kept their 8 Flights and bought new aircraft through the procurement process we would not see new aircraft until 2015 - 2020
Having said that unless the mil procurement process has improved I dont imagine they could meet your timeframe either!!
And with a defence spending review planned for early next year who knows what will be left of any plans for mil procurement anyhow
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was led to believe (from a reasonable MCA source) that the RAF charged twice the then hourly price the MCA was paying for civvy SAR.
SARH has decided what level of cover they want provided. If the RAF were to provide that level of service at a price cheaper than civvy, why aren't they? Reading between the lines, someone has looked at this and determined that private finance profit is cheaper than the bureaucratic bunglings within the MOD/RAF.
Whether it will work or not, time will tell. But if SARH expects contractors to take the risk on future fuel/labour/equipment/land rental costs then we the tax payer have to pay for that risk. Perhaps that is still cheaper than the RAF. If the RAF charges were pie in the sky and not realistic then we don't need SARH. Maybe they were realistic and the RAF is more expensive than civvy. But if that's the case we don't just need SARH, we need some radical restructuring of the MOD and gain the efficiencies that the private sector can achieve whilst meeting the specifications.
SARH has decided what level of cover they want provided. If the RAF were to provide that level of service at a price cheaper than civvy, why aren't they? Reading between the lines, someone has looked at this and determined that private finance profit is cheaper than the bureaucratic bunglings within the MOD/RAF.
Whether it will work or not, time will tell. But if SARH expects contractors to take the risk on future fuel/labour/equipment/land rental costs then we the tax payer have to pay for that risk. Perhaps that is still cheaper than the RAF. If the RAF charges were pie in the sky and not realistic then we don't need SARH. Maybe they were realistic and the RAF is more expensive than civvy. But if that's the case we don't just need SARH, we need some radical restructuring of the MOD and gain the efficiencies that the private sector can achieve whilst meeting the specifications.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prestwick to move……pray tell !
With Crabs’ foresight and analysis shouldn’t he be in MOD Policy department?
1. MOD saving money by investing in a civilian contract for SAR-H….. isn’t that like like not buying software codes for new airframes, thus rendering them useless??????
2. SAR Flights relatively low cost….apart from the £46,000 taxi costs for spares to get to Prestwick a few years back!!!! I agree with Tigwas, how can you state what it costs when they can’t decide themselves. Not mention “Extra invisible costs” like military pensions, through life training costs, BOQs and MQs add to that Boarding School Allowances etc the list could go on.
3. A civilian pension fund would cost a company £150,000 (approx) over 20 years. I’d like to see ANYONE fund £15K per year (index linked) plus a lump sum of 75K out of that pension fund. But of course MIL SAR must be cheaper !
4. Why will the service be any less in the future when we are reducing 24hr cover to 12 hr on a daily basis at all bases due to lack of personnel, (Lossie, Boulmer and Leconfield, plus reduced cover at Prestwick).
5. Lastly, how can the Air Force be unhappy about moving goal posts? Didn’t they move Australia by 200Nm in the mid 1960s to justify F-111 bombers from their bases around the world as an alternative to a new fixed wing aircraft carrier (CV-01 project)?
Pas
1. MOD saving money by investing in a civilian contract for SAR-H….. isn’t that like like not buying software codes for new airframes, thus rendering them useless??????
2. SAR Flights relatively low cost….apart from the £46,000 taxi costs for spares to get to Prestwick a few years back!!!! I agree with Tigwas, how can you state what it costs when they can’t decide themselves. Not mention “Extra invisible costs” like military pensions, through life training costs, BOQs and MQs add to that Boarding School Allowances etc the list could go on.
3. A civilian pension fund would cost a company £150,000 (approx) over 20 years. I’d like to see ANYONE fund £15K per year (index linked) plus a lump sum of 75K out of that pension fund. But of course MIL SAR must be cheaper !
4. Why will the service be any less in the future when we are reducing 24hr cover to 12 hr on a daily basis at all bases due to lack of personnel, (Lossie, Boulmer and Leconfield, plus reduced cover at Prestwick).
5. Lastly, how can the Air Force be unhappy about moving goal posts? Didn’t they move Australia by 200Nm in the mid 1960s to justify F-111 bombers from their bases around the world as an alternative to a new fixed wing aircraft carrier (CV-01 project)?
Pas
Sven Sixto
It would appear it is not only me that is confused
."..apart from the 66 mil aircrew - or has this changed?2
Why any mil crew then? ah yes (including Falklands and Cyprus, neither of which features in SAR-H - extra costs
Could it be if a mil ship goes down after dark one of the 66 be sent to collect their own?.
DS
I think we all agree with your comment.
" But if that's the case we don't just need SARH, we need some radical restructuring of the MOD and gain the efficiencies that the private sector can achieve whilst meeting the specifications."
It would appear it is not only me that is confused
."..apart from the 66 mil aircrew - or has this changed?2
Why any mil crew then? ah yes (including Falklands and Cyprus, neither of which features in SAR-H - extra costs
Could it be if a mil ship goes down after dark one of the 66 be sent to collect their own?.
DS
I think we all agree with your comment.
" But if that's the case we don't just need SARH, we need some radical restructuring of the MOD and gain the efficiencies that the private sector can achieve whilst meeting the specifications."
Last edited by 500e; 1st Dec 2009 at 21:59. Reason: forgot that bit