Self loading bear

I do not think it will go back to your military as:
a) they are not bidding
b) they do not have the right aircraft anymore and military purchase will definitely take longer than commercial.
c) it is still not your government policy

I understand Bristow can do it with a profit now.
As their current aircraft are not at their end of life, I think they can make the best proposition.
But this will also allow the competitors to submit a bid with not-brand-new aircraft.

I don’t think that the use of AW189 will be continued.
Perhaps only UK executed upgrades/outfitting.
That might give some competitors a chance with young second hand repurposed and upgraded Offshore aircraft.
S-92B and AH225 come to mind.
Although the last will be controversial (but very cheap).

Time will tell.

jimf671

That's a bit like national service. The military has no appetite for it, neither has the public and if it ever happens then it is a generation or more down the line. We would have to be taking a far broader attitude to national defence than we do now.

The last contract was set out in two lots with a third lot, as in the winning bid, encompassing both lots. It seems likely that lot structure will happen again although it's not certain. The transition-out plan is certainly laid out in that way.

It is certainly a worry that so many of the usual suspects have had serious financial woes or lost interest or both during the last few years. In continues to annoy me greatly, as it probably does other ppruners, that those usual suspects once blossomed and thrived under the leadership of people who could fly but now that they are run by the MBA's they flit from one financial disaster to the next.

However, Bristow maintains the Alan Bristow rescue ethos and if that is not apparent to you now then I suspect it may become so across the next five years or so. That makes them, along with their new friend, still a player. A few others, even from amongst the injured, maintain just enough technical and commercial weight to pick up one lot, whether alone or with partners. Ask BIH and NHV if they'd like a piece of the action.

It is of course possible that the 'big bruiser' crowd will get a piece of the action. The likes of Lockheed Martin, when they're not too busy bossing governments around , might see it as prestige contract and simply employ some riff-raff contractor who actually knows what he's doing to make the day-to-day stuff happen.

Splitting it between contractors might cause a increased problems with the practicalities of providing the 'Common Standard of Service' that featured in the Post Implementation Review of the current service. That is something that might be easier to fix if the CAA took more interest in setting standards for SAR Tech Crew, which also featured in the PIR.

jimf671

The 225, although I personally like the aircraft, is not an option for UK SAR mountain flying. It appears to be optimised for those long heavy crew change flights and it's unlikely it would have the required lift and hover ability unless AH did some clever mods.

As for the AW189, you have to remember that it is currently out there doing the job well in two British territories on contracts with two different UK departments of state, so it scores a lot of points for that. Once you run the numbers for mountain and maritime in hostile environment SAR, the number of options get less and less.

jeepys

SLB,

why don’t you think the 189 will have a future in UK SAR?
I think the 92 is more at risk than the 189.

Self loading bear

I didn’t say it has no future.
I think it will not be a requirement or a benefit in the tender to have half of the aircraft to be produced in the UK.

jeepys

Ah okay but I wasn’t even thinking of the political gains for a particular bid. In my opinion the 189 has a better future than the 225 and 92. The size and cost of the 92 has to be questioned against the 189 which will improve with time.

detgnome

Agreed about the S92. It is costly and a generation behind the AW189 in terms of avionics, although I am not saying the AW189 is perfect. One of the original reasons for specing an aircraft such as the S92 at 5 bases was the perception that it offered a significant range advantage over the 'smaller' (Lot 2) types - the reality is that an AW189 could probably just about match the ROA of an S92, somewhat negating the requirement for the larger and more expensive type.

shetlander

Was it not more to do with survivor capacity?

jimf671

In the current spec, Lot 1 (S-92A) is 8 rescued persons, 2 of whom are on stretchers. Lot 2 (AW189) is 4 rescued persons, 2 of whom are on stretchers.

You could do 6+2=8 in the AW189, and of course it has turned out to have good range and endurance, but it would be a hell of a squeeze and winching those in would be a struggle. Also a struggle to do any proper work on a patient in that cramped situation. H215 and 525 are hot'n'high-winching-capable but not really any bigger. You end up looking at the S-92 (and the B is coming of course) whatever way you slice it, unless you have a Norwegian sized budget!!!

jonnyloove

Is it possible with the second phase of UK SAR the AW-101 is possibility for UK-SAR..? Or still to costly to operate..?

jeepys

The 101 would be too costly and too big. You may as well stick with the 92 rather than going 101. The other half of the business (if O&G contractor wins) would most probably already have 92’s so adding another type to the fleet would be unnecessary.

Jim, what are the stats for the last 10 years in terms of casualty numbers. Do we still need to have 92 size aircraft? Where do you draw the line?

cyclic

The HK GFS are getting on really well with their H175s....

Fareastdriver

A slightly different environment than the UK in the winter.

[email protected]

You can pretty much bet it will all be about the money and any compromises will be glossed over. The recession/depression caused by Covid will leave the UK coffers dry and dropping a no-deal Brexit on top will just add to the pain.

The current contract was based on a 'no less service' than that which the military provided and memories are short so don't be surprised if some erosion od standards occurs for the sake of lowering the cost.

As for aircraft types, you would need an honest appraisal from the CG concerning the S92 - how often has that big lift capability been used and how often has that big downwash been an issue? If the 189 is as good as claimed and can do 95% (or more) of the S92s jobs then perhaps a mix of 189 and 169 might be the option.

jeepys

189 and 139 would work well.

cyclic

True but we operated the Sea King quite successfully with no blade ice protection for years. We just stayed out of the ice and even in the Scottish mountains and the FI, it was rarely a big problem. The 175 is actually quite good in icing conditions by the way.

lowfat

Ill play this Game, Aw189 OR Bell 525 relentless and AW139. any one that bids 225 , s92 or 175 will be on the naughty step. oh and all new machines, whats the point of getting a contractor in if using old machines.

jeepys

AW189 is more 'proven' than the 525.

Self loading bear

Using old machines was on my assumption that Bristow is allowed to bid with their aircraft in place.
Then they must allow others to bid with old machines as well.

But of course when operating costs of S92 and 225 are much higher this makes no sense.
Please enlighten me why bidding with S92, 225 and 175 would be on the naughty side?

lowfat

S92 is too expensive and "old tech" the 225 because of its reputation in the north sea and and old tech, the 175 is just a body kitted 225 with low service life of mgb components.
Other opinions are available

Not sure the mass casualty evacuation argument is relevant due to the plethora of stats gathered under this contract.

The next contract will be set by statisticians and run by accountants