SARH to go
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The moon
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do the RAF need SAR...? Just another waste of money, the days of spitfires and Lanks crashing into the sea have long gone. The RN need SAR as they operate from ships. HM costguard need SAR, and it's all civi work, so lets get a grip. I just wonder how many RAF jets have crashed into the sea over the past 10 years that requires a rescue.
Last edited by DECUFAULT; 14th Jul 2008 at 11:01.
No DECU the point is that the UK needs SAR and it should have SAR of the highest capability it can.
As for jets crashing - surprisingly quite a few!
As for jets crashing - surprisingly quite a few!
Mountain Rescue Committee Scotland
Anyone seen the recent report from the above committee re the S92?
I believe its quite damming! If i get a hold of it, i will post it.
I believe its quite damming! If i get a hold of it, i will post it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Mil SAR? & double hoist heritage.
Hi Guys
There are 2 issues I'd like to comment on - hope they are helpful.
The double hoist originated (as a modification proposal) in the early 1980s after MALM Dave Bullock died trying to rescue an F16 pilot from an RAF SK3 from Coltishall (AH Coltishall!!). The winch cable had to be cut as Dave was unable to detach himself from the F16 pilot who was being blown at considerable speed by his inflated parachute across the North sea. Dave made a valiant attempt to cut himself free but was drowned in the whole sad affair once connection to the aircraft was lost. Many other valuable lessons were learned from this tragic accident. Simultaneously the recent intro of the long range SK3 to the RAF SAR force had made people realise that long range missons were also prejudiced by not having a second (back-up) winch after flogging all the way out to a rescue point over 200 miles away at circa 100 kts only to find the primary winch failed on you. Thus was borne an MoD requirement for a second winch for SAR SKs. Unfortunately (as was often the case in those days - and now!!) money was tight and the no sexy duplex winch was either available or affordable at the time - and certainly not the modification funds to install a second similar winch on the side of the ac - although atrial modifciation fit was designed at some expense. Several of us tried hard over the years to sort this but failed. The saga of the waterproof winchman's radio (now resolved after nearly 20 years effort!!) was also bound up with this accident. In the end the RAF had to compromise and fitted a manually operated secondary winch stowed in the cabin and only to be used for emergency recovery of the winchman (if at all possible). Britsh Airways and early Bristows S61s were fitted with a much less capable electric air hoist and it wasn't long before they rightly upgraded to a simialr hoist that the RAF/RN Sks had demonstarted were essential for modern long range and more capable SAR helos. It is also true to say that Bristows in the late 1980s had become a very dynamic and progressive SAR organisation incorporating lots of good ideas in their SAR platforms that were either previously demonstrated by the mil, or were never fitted by the RAF due to lack of funds. A main motivation (understandably for Bristows) was their aim to take over mil sar across the country when the time was right for such a bid! Thus is the inhernet difference between a government funded and run SAR system and one which is commercially run and sponsored and that can at least be agile and flexible depending on which new demanding customer is paying the bill. Understandably the inquiry after Bill Deacon's death found out about the above, and quite understandably recommended what they did - and fortunately good old Bristows did the right thing and moved forward to a positon that the RAF & RN should have adopted some 10 years earlier. While both mil and civ SAR cabs have both had other rminor improvements - the new Interim CHC birds have now set the standards that SAR-H must equal or better (certainly as far as range is concerned!!)
As for why mil sar - I reiterate a post I made on another thread some time ago. SAR in the UK Search and Rescue Region (UK SRR) is a government responsibility under international conventions and agreements. Specifically the Chicago convention of 1948 calls for aviation SAR to be provided free of charge to any ac passing through national airspace - hence the UK SRR is directly aligned with the UK FIR/ airpsace.
In 1948 of course, there was no government deprtment other than those related to Defence that could provide airborne (or even long range seaborne) rescue facilities, and given the RAF (& RN) capability established in 1941, it was approiate that the RAF was allocated formal respnsibility by the government for the provison of an organisation and assets to deliver this capability on behalf of the nation and the Transport Department who were lead ministry (and still are). Simultaneosuly of course, the experiences of the ASR service in WW2 ensured that the RAF saw this as a responsibility for the rescue of downed aircrew (whether shot down or from accident) - and this was replicated across the Empire and wherever main UK mil air bases existed - Oh for the days of HK, Singapore, Aden, Salalah, El Adem (Oh and the Falklands too of course!!). Incidentally, it is a poorly known fact that an RAF SAR sqn (22) was the first RAF helo sqn to deploy across the world in the late 1950s to the Bikini Atol for the UK's nuclear trials programme - the first example of deployable milsar?!! Overland rescue has always been a major feature in the UK too probably starting with the major floods of 1952/3 - again nothing new!! - and as many air related accidents occured there. As ejection seats developed but the accident rate remained high - it is easy to see why this requirement remained uppermost in Mil aviators & UK Mod's minds for many years to come well into the 1980s. Despite the marked reduction (for a variety of reasons) of mil aicraft accidents over the UK SRR in recent years, it remains a formal RAF responsibility on behalf of the DfT to deliver long range SAR (Nimrod) and short range air rescue (helo) capability on behalf of the nation. In the interim of course, both the RAF and RN have signifcantly reduced in size and no longer occupy a spread of airbases across the UK. This meant that from the 1970s and subsequently, a compromise has been reached with the DfT (who also "own" the MCA/HMCG), for gaps to be filled with civ funded SAR Flts - the first having been Manston in 1972 (only for 3 years before the RAF returned - but civ sar flights take up an inordinate proprtion of the DfT MCA budget - even the well priced Interim CHC contract (which incidentally is not a small version of SAR-H - the latter has some much more comprehensive and demanding requirments). The major spur for civowned sar in this country was of course the 1970s oil exploration in the Noth Sea - and hence Sumburgh and Aberdeen based SAR flts were born (and now Jigsaw) until te MoD finally funded some SKs in the late 70's which was part funded by the DfT. Stornoway came later as the regular RAF SK detachments were withdrawn post Cold War, those RAF SKs having shown what capability could be delivered and was needed on that part of the Scottish west coast. Lee and Portland fell in naturally once the RN departed in the 90s from a very busy part of the civ SAR turf. (RIP Leuchars, Manston, Warton, Brawdy, Thorney island, Linton, Felixstowe, Aldegrove, St Mawgan, Coltishall. A... ton (you know - that place near Newcastle!), even Finningley - all of whose demise show that a more modern and capable SAR servcie doesn't always need loads of bases!). Many people do not know that the RN Culdrose SAR flt (and others) was for many years funded by the DfT and not the RN, as the RN viewed its SAR role as shipborne not part of the UK National provision - not so now I hasten to add. It remains true that the MoD has a Duty of Care to its people, not just aircrew, and adequate airborne SAR is part of that duty. The fact we are (like it or not) now moving to a joint provison under a civilan cointractor (SAR-H) is the Uk Giverments decison on how to meet both their international and national SAR obligations as well as MoD ensuring it continues to provde for its people too. Its one of the reasons (in addition to allowing for deployable SAR training and good mil exposure to the UK public) that the MoD is investing in SAR-H and not handing it over in toto to the DfT & MCA. 65% of missons today in the UK are overland (including cliff rescues) anyway, and Crab is right to state that only the MoD SAR service has yet developed a comprehensive day/night bad weather capability in this domain. SAR-H will be contracted to deliver it from every base it operates form whether flown by mil or civ aircrew. The intention is to remove the inadvertant "post code lottery" that has developed (by accident) over the last 20 years as a result of having 3 different providers of SAR helos in the UK.
Time will tell ( whether the SAR-H contract meets this exacting requirement) but I know an awful lot of people from all 3 bidders who are working very hard to potentially deliver such a service (and yes at a profit!).
Cheers
There are 2 issues I'd like to comment on - hope they are helpful.
The double hoist originated (as a modification proposal) in the early 1980s after MALM Dave Bullock died trying to rescue an F16 pilot from an RAF SK3 from Coltishall (AH Coltishall!!). The winch cable had to be cut as Dave was unable to detach himself from the F16 pilot who was being blown at considerable speed by his inflated parachute across the North sea. Dave made a valiant attempt to cut himself free but was drowned in the whole sad affair once connection to the aircraft was lost. Many other valuable lessons were learned from this tragic accident. Simultaneously the recent intro of the long range SK3 to the RAF SAR force had made people realise that long range missons were also prejudiced by not having a second (back-up) winch after flogging all the way out to a rescue point over 200 miles away at circa 100 kts only to find the primary winch failed on you. Thus was borne an MoD requirement for a second winch for SAR SKs. Unfortunately (as was often the case in those days - and now!!) money was tight and the no sexy duplex winch was either available or affordable at the time - and certainly not the modification funds to install a second similar winch on the side of the ac - although atrial modifciation fit was designed at some expense. Several of us tried hard over the years to sort this but failed. The saga of the waterproof winchman's radio (now resolved after nearly 20 years effort!!) was also bound up with this accident. In the end the RAF had to compromise and fitted a manually operated secondary winch stowed in the cabin and only to be used for emergency recovery of the winchman (if at all possible). Britsh Airways and early Bristows S61s were fitted with a much less capable electric air hoist and it wasn't long before they rightly upgraded to a simialr hoist that the RAF/RN Sks had demonstarted were essential for modern long range and more capable SAR helos. It is also true to say that Bristows in the late 1980s had become a very dynamic and progressive SAR organisation incorporating lots of good ideas in their SAR platforms that were either previously demonstrated by the mil, or were never fitted by the RAF due to lack of funds. A main motivation (understandably for Bristows) was their aim to take over mil sar across the country when the time was right for such a bid! Thus is the inhernet difference between a government funded and run SAR system and one which is commercially run and sponsored and that can at least be agile and flexible depending on which new demanding customer is paying the bill. Understandably the inquiry after Bill Deacon's death found out about the above, and quite understandably recommended what they did - and fortunately good old Bristows did the right thing and moved forward to a positon that the RAF & RN should have adopted some 10 years earlier. While both mil and civ SAR cabs have both had other rminor improvements - the new Interim CHC birds have now set the standards that SAR-H must equal or better (certainly as far as range is concerned!!)
As for why mil sar - I reiterate a post I made on another thread some time ago. SAR in the UK Search and Rescue Region (UK SRR) is a government responsibility under international conventions and agreements. Specifically the Chicago convention of 1948 calls for aviation SAR to be provided free of charge to any ac passing through national airspace - hence the UK SRR is directly aligned with the UK FIR/ airpsace.
In 1948 of course, there was no government deprtment other than those related to Defence that could provide airborne (or even long range seaborne) rescue facilities, and given the RAF (& RN) capability established in 1941, it was approiate that the RAF was allocated formal respnsibility by the government for the provison of an organisation and assets to deliver this capability on behalf of the nation and the Transport Department who were lead ministry (and still are). Simultaneosuly of course, the experiences of the ASR service in WW2 ensured that the RAF saw this as a responsibility for the rescue of downed aircrew (whether shot down or from accident) - and this was replicated across the Empire and wherever main UK mil air bases existed - Oh for the days of HK, Singapore, Aden, Salalah, El Adem (Oh and the Falklands too of course!!). Incidentally, it is a poorly known fact that an RAF SAR sqn (22) was the first RAF helo sqn to deploy across the world in the late 1950s to the Bikini Atol for the UK's nuclear trials programme - the first example of deployable milsar?!! Overland rescue has always been a major feature in the UK too probably starting with the major floods of 1952/3 - again nothing new!! - and as many air related accidents occured there. As ejection seats developed but the accident rate remained high - it is easy to see why this requirement remained uppermost in Mil aviators & UK Mod's minds for many years to come well into the 1980s. Despite the marked reduction (for a variety of reasons) of mil aicraft accidents over the UK SRR in recent years, it remains a formal RAF responsibility on behalf of the DfT to deliver long range SAR (Nimrod) and short range air rescue (helo) capability on behalf of the nation. In the interim of course, both the RAF and RN have signifcantly reduced in size and no longer occupy a spread of airbases across the UK. This meant that from the 1970s and subsequently, a compromise has been reached with the DfT (who also "own" the MCA/HMCG), for gaps to be filled with civ funded SAR Flts - the first having been Manston in 1972 (only for 3 years before the RAF returned - but civ sar flights take up an inordinate proprtion of the DfT MCA budget - even the well priced Interim CHC contract (which incidentally is not a small version of SAR-H - the latter has some much more comprehensive and demanding requirments). The major spur for civowned sar in this country was of course the 1970s oil exploration in the Noth Sea - and hence Sumburgh and Aberdeen based SAR flts were born (and now Jigsaw) until te MoD finally funded some SKs in the late 70's which was part funded by the DfT. Stornoway came later as the regular RAF SK detachments were withdrawn post Cold War, those RAF SKs having shown what capability could be delivered and was needed on that part of the Scottish west coast. Lee and Portland fell in naturally once the RN departed in the 90s from a very busy part of the civ SAR turf. (RIP Leuchars, Manston, Warton, Brawdy, Thorney island, Linton, Felixstowe, Aldegrove, St Mawgan, Coltishall. A... ton (you know - that place near Newcastle!), even Finningley - all of whose demise show that a more modern and capable SAR servcie doesn't always need loads of bases!). Many people do not know that the RN Culdrose SAR flt (and others) was for many years funded by the DfT and not the RN, as the RN viewed its SAR role as shipborne not part of the UK National provision - not so now I hasten to add. It remains true that the MoD has a Duty of Care to its people, not just aircrew, and adequate airborne SAR is part of that duty. The fact we are (like it or not) now moving to a joint provison under a civilan cointractor (SAR-H) is the Uk Giverments decison on how to meet both their international and national SAR obligations as well as MoD ensuring it continues to provde for its people too. Its one of the reasons (in addition to allowing for deployable SAR training and good mil exposure to the UK public) that the MoD is investing in SAR-H and not handing it over in toto to the DfT & MCA. 65% of missons today in the UK are overland (including cliff rescues) anyway, and Crab is right to state that only the MoD SAR service has yet developed a comprehensive day/night bad weather capability in this domain. SAR-H will be contracted to deliver it from every base it operates form whether flown by mil or civ aircrew. The intention is to remove the inadvertant "post code lottery" that has developed (by accident) over the last 20 years as a result of having 3 different providers of SAR helos in the UK.
Time will tell ( whether the SAR-H contract meets this exacting requirement) but I know an awful lot of people from all 3 bidders who are working very hard to potentially deliver such a service (and yes at a profit!).
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 14th Jul 2008 at 11:28.
A very well thought out post, which puts a lot of the arguments in context.
Still doesn't address the most important question - what colour is the ac going to be?
Still doesn't address the most important question - what colour is the ac going to be?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it or not - there is an international regulation governing SAR ac colour schemes now - and guess what the colours are!! I think you might know!!
Cheers
Last edited by Tallsar; 14th Jul 2008 at 11:01.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truro
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put Tallsar, thanks for the information. A point we all seem to forget is the customer; does he/she care who is driving, who is on the end of the hook, what colour the aircraft is? Nah, they just want out of there.
Crab keeps telling us about NVG and overland at night. Now NVG isn't exactly a modern phenomena, is there a helmet clear visor system/ head up display that supersedes NVG, removing some of the problems associated with limited vision etc? A quick Google produced this acronym. ANVIS/HUD
Crab keeps telling us about NVG and overland at night. Now NVG isn't exactly a modern phenomena, is there a helmet clear visor system/ head up display that supersedes NVG, removing some of the problems associated with limited vision etc? A quick Google produced this acronym. ANVIS/HUD
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks BN - yes its easy for us practioners (old!!(me!!) or young) to get embroiled in the important minutia of our trade - but Joe Bloggs just want's rescuing and doesn't give a real stuff about where its come from at the time! (they get pi**ed off if it doesn't show though - thats for sure!!)
Well wouldn't it be nice if that was part of a SAR-H contract - there are other innovations as well - Have to say that as a guy with quite a few NVG hours behind me - anything that takes the art forward for the next 30 years has to be where its at!
Cheers
Well wouldn't it be nice if that was part of a SAR-H contract - there are other innovations as well - Have to say that as a guy with quite a few NVG hours behind me - anything that takes the art forward for the next 30 years has to be where its at!
Cheers
Tallsar - yes an excellent post - some of that history I had forgotten and some I had never learned.
Ropedope - do read the bit about the twin hoist, then you can apologise for not mentioning Dave Bullock in your rant
Bootneck - there are plenty of projects trying to address the shortcomings of NVG but most will be cutting edge military research (by mil or on behalf of), therefore very expensive and unlikely to be seen widespread for a few years. I saw a set of wideangle NVG a few years ago but don't know what became of that project.
DNVG, where flight data is projected onto the eyepice is in use already but not in milsar. The problem comes when you need to winch since the visual acuity of an NVG picture (typically 20:35 or 20:40) is not sharp enough for really accurate hovering compared to the (20:20 ish) human eye on white light and the lack of peripheral vision shows up as uncorrected drifting.
Ropedope - do read the bit about the twin hoist, then you can apologise for not mentioning Dave Bullock in your rant
Bootneck - there are plenty of projects trying to address the shortcomings of NVG but most will be cutting edge military research (by mil or on behalf of), therefore very expensive and unlikely to be seen widespread for a few years. I saw a set of wideangle NVG a few years ago but don't know what became of that project.
DNVG, where flight data is projected onto the eyepice is in use already but not in milsar. The problem comes when you need to winch since the visual acuity of an NVG picture (typically 20:35 or 20:40) is not sharp enough for really accurate hovering compared to the (20:20 ish) human eye on white light and the lack of peripheral vision shows up as uncorrected drifting.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where the sun don't shine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crab, tallsar mentioned an incident from the early 80's and i mentioned the cullen report of 1998, at which time there were no dual hoists. i don't intend having a slagging match with you and using brave winchmen who are now lost to score points against anyone.
Crab.
The Dave Bullock tragedy is an example of the changes that can be brought to "the party" with civilianisation of SAR. The report into his death recommended dual, same capability, hoists I believe. This was accepted and then ran into the mandarins in Whitehall! End of Story!Their salary/pension is more important than a life!
When Billy Deacon died and the subsequent report made the same recommendation, it was actioned and installed and trialled without delay.
We, civvies/ex-mil, do not have to put up with extended
trials of equipment.(Although I wish the 139/92 had been given more of a going over than appears to have been done, given the last few days!) Most stuff has been in use elsewhere so can easily be adapted to whichever aircraft/person it has to be strapped on to! E.g. Flir1000 begat Flir2000 which itself led to the 4000. Now the Wescam. How long did you have to wait for Flir? Oh, sorry you had NVG didn't you?
But you will be bringing that along won't you.
I am not making political points out of the deaths of two great guys! Just trying to point out that the civilian world can react quicker, sometimes, to tragedy than the military which is top heavy with bureaucrats and A.V.M.'s etc worrying about their knighthood!
3D
The Dave Bullock tragedy is an example of the changes that can be brought to "the party" with civilianisation of SAR. The report into his death recommended dual, same capability, hoists I believe. This was accepted and then ran into the mandarins in Whitehall! End of Story!
Their salary/pension is more important than a life!When Billy Deacon died and the subsequent report made the same recommendation, it was actioned and installed and trialled without delay.
We, civvies/ex-mil, do not have to put up with extended
trials of equipment.(Although I wish the 139/92 had been given more of a going over than appears to have been done, given the last few days!) Most stuff has been in use elsewhere so can easily be adapted to whichever aircraft/person it has to be strapped on to! E.g. Flir1000 begat Flir2000 which itself led to the 4000. Now the Wescam. How long did you have to wait for Flir? Oh, sorry you had NVG didn't you?
But you will be bringing that along won't you.I am not making political points out of the deaths of two great guys! Just trying to point out that the civilian world can react quicker, sometimes, to tragedy than the military which is top heavy with bureaucrats and A.V.M.'s etc worrying about their knighthood!
3D
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi 3D - I do believe the points you make were within my rather long diatribe too - it certainly was why I pointed out how quickly Bristows did what they did at various stages of our UK SAR helo history. Of course, unlike the military, one of the main drivers is not only professional improvement but also the better positoning for business continuance and new business ie - the profit motive. That said ,the general point you make about the military being overladen with beaurocracy is perfectly valid, but not neccessarily worth placing the "blame" on the top brass. I know from experience that many such people were fully behind many sensible improvement intiatives - but sadly it is often the dead hand of the senior civil service within both MoD and always the Treasury, that kill many such efforts to improve things.
In RAF SAR terms, we were stuck with a dichotomy where the capability (without FLIR and even NVG) was deemed adequate for the rescue of military aircrew but whatever its merit in improving general civilan SAR - this was not deemd why the SARF was there! Yes I know - it was a blinding use of contradictory common sense - but that I fear is how government departments work (sadly!!) - particualry these days as they struggle to do as much as possible with grossly insufficent budgets. I amuse myself occasionally (How sad!) with thinking how infuriating it must now be for the SAR-H bidders who are now having to deal with not only one government department but 2, and the Treasury (remember previous civsar contracts were not dealt with at this level!), as they struggle to put something affordable on the table that will not get blown out of the water by these faceless "protectors" of the Queen's purse.
Cheers
In RAF SAR terms, we were stuck with a dichotomy where the capability (without FLIR and even NVG) was deemed adequate for the rescue of military aircrew but whatever its merit in improving general civilan SAR - this was not deemd why the SARF was there! Yes I know - it was a blinding use of contradictory common sense - but that I fear is how government departments work (sadly!!) - particualry these days as they struggle to do as much as possible with grossly insufficent budgets. I amuse myself occasionally (How sad!) with thinking how infuriating it must now be for the SAR-H bidders who are now having to deal with not only one government department but 2, and the Treasury (remember previous civsar contracts were not dealt with at this level!), as they struggle to put something affordable on the table that will not get blown out of the water by these faceless "protectors" of the Queen's purse.
Cheers
3D - a point worth mentioning when trying to compare the reaction (or lack of it) by the RAF compared to Bristows is that the two events were separated by about 15 years and during that period the whole litigious society syndrome was imported from the USA. The MoD didn't need to worry significantly in the 80s about being sued if they did nothing about the BoI's report - they did this on many occasions (Puma anticipators anyone?). How different for a civilian company in the 90s where failure to act could be seen as negligent if a similar event occurred again. That would hurt the bank balance and is a powerful motivator for change. You can see the difference today with the way the MoD reacts to criticisms about quality of kit because families are prepared to sue and cause lots of bad PR.
As for FLIR - it did take a lot of effort to get it but the wait was worth it - until QWIP technology and staring arrays became available, the FLIR kit wasn't up to the job of finding a head in the water (obviously still attached) and we would not have been able to upgrade once the kit was bought.
The biggest problem with SARH is going to be affording it - the country is broke thanks to Tony and Gordon and £3-5 Bn is a lot of dosh - especially since the cost will go up as the bidders can't meet the required spec within current costings.
The answer is to leave well alone and give the Sea Kings a new lease of life with Carson Blades, structural package and avionics upgrades. Cheap at twice the price and no reduction in capability. Unfortunately Sir Clive's train is going the wrong way for those of us in the RAF - but it's OK, we can watch the Typhoon at airshows
As for FLIR - it did take a lot of effort to get it but the wait was worth it - until QWIP technology and staring arrays became available, the FLIR kit wasn't up to the job of finding a head in the water (obviously still attached) and we would not have been able to upgrade once the kit was bought.
The biggest problem with SARH is going to be affording it - the country is broke thanks to Tony and Gordon and £3-5 Bn is a lot of dosh - especially since the cost will go up as the bidders can't meet the required spec within current costings.
The answer is to leave well alone and give the Sea Kings a new lease of life with Carson Blades, structural package and avionics upgrades. Cheap at twice the price and no reduction in capability. Unfortunately Sir Clive's train is going the wrong way for those of us in the RAF - but it's OK, we can watch the Typhoon at airshows
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Crab
Well - some good points there but perhaps 2 potentially flawed assumptions:
Carson SKs - yes they do what it says on the tin - for sure! But someone earlier in this thread pointed out that running on the SK (even with certain improvements such as C Blades & tail rotor) while undoubtedly improving operational performance may not be cheap to run - like it or not the SK is getting ever more expensive per annum to keep flying with SKIOS intiatives only lowering the curve - question is of course, would a SAR-H solution cost less - an educated guess is all that is possible at present, unless you've been lucky enough to see the bid paperwork my friend.
As for the expense of SAR-H - yep the billions involved is not cheap - but remember this is spread equally over 30 years, and not in a lump sum (probably over about 5 years) associated with a conventional procurement - even though the latter is always cheaper in total sum terms even when you consider through life ownership costs. Thats why we are where we are - with this PFI business. Have the bidders got the capability against specification right for the price? - I cannot for one minute imagine that they will not be trying their hardest to do so - and of course, the period and stages of negotiaion are lengthy and detailed - so I suspect the jury is out on whether the full capability can be provided for the money available at this stage.
More pertinently, your point about the Governments greater difficulties may have more impact - the present government is going to have to make some very hard decisions across government expenditure very soon - just as the last labour government had to in 1976, and Thatcher had to in 1981 - remember the "The Moritorium" anyone? Maybe SAR-H will die or be postponed as a result of this - we shall see!!
Cheers
Well - some good points there but perhaps 2 potentially flawed assumptions:
Carson SKs - yes they do what it says on the tin - for sure! But someone earlier in this thread pointed out that running on the SK (even with certain improvements such as C Blades & tail rotor) while undoubtedly improving operational performance may not be cheap to run - like it or not the SK is getting ever more expensive per annum to keep flying with SKIOS intiatives only lowering the curve - question is of course, would a SAR-H solution cost less - an educated guess is all that is possible at present, unless you've been lucky enough to see the bid paperwork my friend.
As for the expense of SAR-H - yep the billions involved is not cheap - but remember this is spread equally over 30 years, and not in a lump sum (probably over about 5 years) associated with a conventional procurement - even though the latter is always cheaper in total sum terms even when you consider through life ownership costs. Thats why we are where we are - with this PFI business. Have the bidders got the capability against specification right for the price? - I cannot for one minute imagine that they will not be trying their hardest to do so - and of course, the period and stages of negotiaion are lengthy and detailed - so I suspect the jury is out on whether the full capability can be provided for the money available at this stage.
More pertinently, your point about the Governments greater difficulties may have more impact - the present government is going to have to make some very hard decisions across government expenditure very soon - just as the last labour government had to in 1976, and Thatcher had to in 1981 - remember the "The Moritorium" anyone? Maybe SAR-H will die or be postponed as a result of this - we shall see!!
Cheers
Crab.
Good point with regards to the "Ambulance chasing brigades."
Upgrade the Sea King with Carson blades etc???
Didn't you slag off Bristow for wanting to do that with the 61 as an option for the interim contract?
Still waiting for the 360 degree radar as well!
3D
Good point with regards to the "Ambulance chasing brigades."
Upgrade the Sea King with Carson blades etc???
Didn't you slag off Bristow for wanting to do that with the 61 as an option for the interim contract?
Still waiting for the 360 degree radar as well!
3D
3D - Bristows' comedy answer to improving the S61 was to add a 360 radar mounted by the tail wheel - this was level of their 'innovation' and 'forward thinking' - not only was there no such piece of equipment available off the shelf but it would have got squashed every time the aircraft landed on anything but a billiard table LS.
Tallsar - apart from the manpower issues at Valley, the spares provision does seem to have improved under SKIOS2 and all expectations are for it to get better as AW are the providers (apart from specialist sub contractors) from manufacture to fitting now - I don't think the same can be said for the S92 or AW139. The costs of running the SeaKing could be brought down if one could stop it cracking and fit modern avionics - there are many S61s still flying with 20,000 to 30,000 hours on the clock, our fleet leaders have a good deal less than that so there should be a lot of life in the old girl yet.
If the full Carson package was applied, the structural frames (290 et al) would be replaced as well as the main and TR blades. If we went the whole hog and binned the folding head as well we would end up with a 140kt helicopter with an increased RoA (gusting 300nm I reckon - still with 17 seats available for casualties) with a proven track record, a MRGB with an emergency lube system, almost 360 radar, FLIR and TV turret, sat tracking (coming soon), NVG compatible cockpit and a modern autopilot a la Mk3A.
Any of the bidders' aircraft match that spec? I have been led to believe that to even meet the current capability would cost more than estimated - you should know if you are who I think you are and your post seems to indicate my suspicions are correct. So where would that leave us? Pay more or think again - so much for civsar being cheaper than the mil, it only validates much of what I have said ad nauseum on this and other threads about civilianisation.
The modified mil Sea King option would not cost £3-5bn and the govt would not be locked into a 30-year contract with no escape, there would be no dip (temporary or permanent) in the overland night SAR capability and the military would remain the major player in UKSAR helicopters.
I think my job might be safe for a while longer frankly
Tallsar - apart from the manpower issues at Valley, the spares provision does seem to have improved under SKIOS2 and all expectations are for it to get better as AW are the providers (apart from specialist sub contractors) from manufacture to fitting now - I don't think the same can be said for the S92 or AW139. The costs of running the SeaKing could be brought down if one could stop it cracking and fit modern avionics - there are many S61s still flying with 20,000 to 30,000 hours on the clock, our fleet leaders have a good deal less than that so there should be a lot of life in the old girl yet.
If the full Carson package was applied, the structural frames (290 et al) would be replaced as well as the main and TR blades. If we went the whole hog and binned the folding head as well we would end up with a 140kt helicopter with an increased RoA (gusting 300nm I reckon - still with 17 seats available for casualties) with a proven track record, a MRGB with an emergency lube system, almost 360 radar, FLIR and TV turret, sat tracking (coming soon), NVG compatible cockpit and a modern autopilot a la Mk3A.
Any of the bidders' aircraft match that spec? I have been led to believe that to even meet the current capability would cost more than estimated - you should know if you are who I think you are
and your post seems to indicate my suspicions are correct. So where would that leave us? Pay more or think again - so much for civsar being cheaper than the mil, it only validates much of what I have said ad nauseum on this and other threads about civilianisation.The modified mil Sea King option would not cost £3-5bn and the govt would not be locked into a 30-year contract with no escape, there would be no dip (temporary or permanent) in the overland night SAR capability and the military would remain the major player in UKSAR helicopters.
I think my job might be safe for a while longer frankly
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The moon
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upgrade the Seaking...come on get a grip. It would be like the Chinook upgrade, waste millions and millions. Upgrade the airframe,change the cockpit,change the head, blades, tail blades, sounds like a new helicopter is required...! 360degree radar..questionable and no dry run on the MGB. Sat tracking (coming soon),what year...! What about "HUMS" and "HOMP" dual hoist, CVFDR, just to mention a few. Unfortuntally the seaking like the S61 has had it's day it time to move on.
At the end of the day it's just to expensive to get the RAF up to speed to cover all SAR. So crab get ready to change uniform. Yes you do provide a good service at the moment but you could do alot better.
Lets keep the Puma as well...another pile of junk.. Someone high up in the RAF/goverment want to wake up and stop telling the RAF..."just upgarde it".
At the end of the day it's just to expensive to get the RAF up to speed to cover all SAR. So crab get ready to change uniform. Yes you do provide a good service at the moment but you could do alot better.
Lets keep the Puma as well...another pile of junk.. Someone high up in the RAF/goverment want to wake up and stop telling the RAF..."just upgarde it".
DECU fault - most of my list already exists on the Sea King; the 360 degree radar (330 ish but close enough and discussed on other threads), Emergency Lube system on the MRGB has been in use for years (nothing on S92) and HUMS is already fitted to 70% of the aircraft (the rest by the end of 09 I think) and incorporates a CVFDR.
The sat tracking has apparently been sanctioned for this year's underspend (although we still have HF unlike the S92) and, whilst a dual hoist would be nice, we do carry an emergency electrical hoist which I don't think has ever needed to be used in anger yet.
The Vd for the Sea King is 157kts reduced by a factor of 1.1 to give a Vne of 145kts - we can't fly the aircraft to this limit because the Military Aircraft Release limits us to 127kts max. Most of the aircraft would shake themselves to bits long before they got to 145 but that is where the Carson blades come in, especially if properly paired with the S61 head (non folding and with a bi-filar vibration absorber) - the MAR could be adjusted with permission of the Design Authority, AW, since it is in their interest to do so.
I am not saying it is a perfect solution - we would all like shiny new toys but when faced with budgetary constraints and the opportunity to keep AW afloat for another few years, which way do you think the Govt might go?
The sat tracking has apparently been sanctioned for this year's underspend (although we still have HF unlike the S92) and, whilst a dual hoist would be nice, we do carry an emergency electrical hoist which I don't think has ever needed to be used in anger yet.
The Vd for the Sea King is 157kts reduced by a factor of 1.1 to give a Vne of 145kts - we can't fly the aircraft to this limit because the Military Aircraft Release limits us to 127kts max. Most of the aircraft would shake themselves to bits long before they got to 145 but that is where the Carson blades come in, especially if properly paired with the S61 head (non folding and with a bi-filar vibration absorber) - the MAR could be adjusted with permission of the Design Authority, AW, since it is in their interest to do so.
I am not saying it is a perfect solution - we would all like shiny new toys but when faced with budgetary constraints and the opportunity to keep AW afloat for another few years, which way do you think the Govt might go?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decu Whats wrong with the Puma still life in the old bird yet
Stick a pair of makilas and an avionics upgrade and she will be as good as new
Maybe think about replacing thePuma fleet with AS532 Cougars
Oh what a beast
Stick a pair of makilas and an avionics upgrade and she will be as good as new
Maybe think about replacing thePuma fleet with AS532 Cougars
Oh what a beast
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle Uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab M8 u do brighten up our days with your great posts/stories
Keep it up M8 you never know they might send you out to Irag to entertain the troops
when we take over at Chiv 
Keep it up M8 you never know they might send you out to Irag to entertain the troops
when we take over at Chiv