detgnome

Most capable, possibly. Most expensive, probably. Luckily the AW101 has a long history of excellent availability...

Hot_LZ

The UKSAR AW189 has the majority of the equipment/capability listed above for the 101. They don’t have LIDAR but the mobile phone tracking has been trialled.

LZ

jimf671

That aspect is going to be particularly interesting. Anyone know what the numbers are for Portugese SAR or Italian CSAR?

[email protected]

Oh dear, don't they know a 360 radar is very old fashioned and very unnecessary?

Shame our politicians and military couldn't have been as pragmatic as the Norweigans and just equipped the military with 101s................

detgnome

Knowing the British military we would have negotiated an even more expensive contract based on less availability than we had with the Sea King. Leonardo laughing all the way to the bank/Italian Government.

[email protected]

Probably, but we already had the aircraft in service in the RAF and RN so the training system, engineering and supply systems were already in place. We won't know because we didn't try.

Would it have cost £1.6 Bn though???

detgnome

You would need to strip out all the costs that are included in the £1.6B to get a fair comparison. For example - wages, new build costs, fuel, training etc. That is not just for the aircraft but the whole service.

Hot_LZ

We must also consider that the MoD bosses were having to look for considerable savings from their budget (they still are!), and to drop what could be seen as a domestic service was an easy option. Why continue with this home service when they are trying to fund the likes of F35 and carriers.

LZ

[email protected]

Detgnome - exactly what the SARForce commander wasn't allowed to do to because it may well have shown that privatisation wasn't the cheapest option. No new bases required, already a 101 training and engineering system in place and the wages were already being paid.

Hot LZ - the problem with the MOD bosses was they were fighting a war in Afghanistan and everything was centred around that capability - SAR didn't feature in their short-term strategy.

llamaman

Crab, you really are a stuck record! As somebody with both 101 and SAR experience can I offer the following observations;

- the RAF SAR force demilitarised itself over a number of years to the point where it was in effect a civilian service. You might have felt you were part of the RAF, the rest of the RAF very much considered that you weren’t.

- why should UK SAR be military, really? It is almost entirely a civilian requirement (albeit with very niche military endeavours). Senior MOD bods weren’t Afghanistan obsessed, just pragmatic.

- when the 101 was mooted as an option at the time, almost exclusively it was dissed at the time by the SAR fraternity as too big, too ferocious downwash, too much maintenance etc. etc...

I know all this has been said before but just felt the need to chip in. Our civilian friends are doing a great job with some world-class kit and that will continue. The next iteration won’t be perfect and it will no doubt involve some compromise but it will be pretty damn good. Let it lie, you’d do well for your stress levels to move on.

detgnome

Compared with pre 2015 I would say that we have a better equipped and significantly more available service. Probably better trained as well....

[email protected]

I'm not stressed at all about UKSAR and I am well aware of the current capabilities since a bunch of my friends still work in it.

Remember, many of those civilians used to be 'not very military' RAF SAR and are a large part of the reason for the present services success - where did most of the trainers come from? Oh yes......the poorly trained RAF SAR Force

Some people can't get away from having a snipe at me but perhaps you'll grow up.

jimf671

The slow death of MilSAR goes back over twenty years. At least to 1998 and the formation of JHC. Was it AVM Niven's idea not to include it or was it policy? Then came the 2001 Provision and Coverage report by the Coastguard. All before 'Iraq 3' and 'Afghan 4'. The idea of unified service was around 20 years ago but clearly from the form of the failed SARH25 we can tell that the idea of a unified all-civilian service was not fully formed until well into the last decade. Defending the British people still included wide aspects of keeping them safe.

I remember H-60 Hawk being the item of choice in certain crewrooms some time back. Perhaps driven by USCG exchanges and visits from Pavehawks. That would never have happened. I suspect you may well have got AW149/189.

£1.6bn is the fixed cost. With the variables, the projected total would have been around £1.88bn although oil price and other changes since 2015 may have modified that. The financial structure is designed to avoid any incentive to deploy or not deploy in order to keep life-saving decisions out of the hands of the bean counters. The training load for a civilian contractor is very significant and it would be pretty difficult to separate those cost in a military context.

cyclic

I hate the willy waving on here but most of the demilitarised SAR Force had been part of the militarised RAF at some stage. Some of the most challenging and dangerous flying that required sheer grit from some of the bravest guys and gals I have met happened when I was in yellow. I wasn’t a great fan of the structure and how it ended which is why I voted with my feet and left but to try and say that the SARF wasn’t a relevant part of the RAF is at best insulting and at worst shows little knowledge. We weren’t being shot at but neither were the SH force for some considerable part of their existence. I think the RN guys at Prestwick and Culdrose would take particular exception to your assertions.

[email protected]

Cyclic - most of the anti-RAF sentiment is just aimed at me because I dared to criticise their brave new world.

You, me and anyone else who served in RAFSAR knows what bolleaux they are talking.

jimf671

Operational Stakeholder Presentation and Q&A.

[email protected]

I've only watched the first 12 minutes and already my 'w*nk word Bingo' - ' Management-speak Bingo' for the sensitive types-, card is full - can these people not speak in plain English at all?

However in the first couple of minutes the director states he wants to 'Take the search out of Search and Rescue' and the disclaimer slide points out the MCA has no liability for the accuracy or completeness of any information????????

Talk later on of increased security and surveillance capability in SAR2G - isn't that the job of the security forces?

I'll bravely try to plough through the rest...

llamaman

Not sure how you made the jump to me questioning how challenging and dangerous (sometimes) SAR can be. My point was that RAF SAR (bar 84 Sqn) had almost no military value by the end except as a good PR machine. Having done both SH and SAR I have been as scared being shot at on Operations as I have flying in Snowdonia and the Scottish mountains at night in ****ty weather. Not sure how my comments imply I have little knowledge, it's just an opinion to which you have every right to disagree with. Also no idea what relevance the RN Flights are to your point either?

I am in no way 'willy waving', just making a credible argument. Some people need to get over the fact that SAR has evolved and will not be coming back to the military. We did it very well and so now is HMCG. Anyway, Crab says I need to grow up; I thought part of being grown up was having the right to an opinion and challenging those of others occasionally?

[email protected]

So, just got through to the first part of the Q and A session where someone asked for the current response times for aerial assets - the answer was 45 mins day and 60 mins night - is that correct?

[email protected]

Made my way through what was not a very professional looking or sounding presentation or Q and A.

My first question is why are the MCA not the experts in this field? They state that themselves!

Lots of buzzwords about innovation and specifying effect not solutions which is the same crap that happened last time - 'blue-sky thinking outside the box' - does anyone really think there will be an alternative to helicopters for rescuing people by 2024? They are frightened to commit to the realities of life in order to make themselves look progressive.

It seems pretty obvious that you need mostly smaller aircraft for bases since 87% of jobs are within 100nm of base and then perhaps 2 long range assets (both West facing, one North and one South) for long range stuff. You can supplement this with FW and UAVs as much as you like but you will still need to rescue people.

They wouldn't specify bases or equipment, why? If Bristow don't get the contract does that mean all their expensive infrastructure would have to be replaced elsewhere as part of the bill to the UK taxpayers? How is that value for money?

The stats on jobs show again what a land grab MCA made in the past, a full 50% of jobs are inland with the rest spread between maritime and coastal - how is that all MCA territory when the police have primacy inland?

There seems to be an acknowledgement that the present contract wasn't well thought out - the implication that stakeholder training is currently inadequate, no-one thought about carriage of rescue dogs and problems with increasing capability or adding new technology.

One issue the director acknowledged was cross-governmental department work is difficult due to contract issues and turf boundaries - something the military never had a problem with and one of the strengths it brings to the party.

Govt strategy should be to incorporate Air Ambulance, Police and inland SAR work into one outfit and leave the coastal and maritime stuff to MCA or just hand back UKSAR to the military so you can include all surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as retaining the best aircrew training playground available. The UK military is dropping below critical mass without a war to fight and having surplus manpower in flying jobs means less lag when you have to ramp up (inevitable at some time in the future). Now I know that will seem like pie in the sky but thinking outside the current 'get a new MCA contract sorted, like the current one but somehow better' box doesn't seem what the MCA want to do. Not innovative or forward thinking, just more of the same.

I have always questioned the fitness of MCA to manage aviation and that presentation hasn't changed my mind. The question about the CAA approving the use of UAVs wasn't answered and seemed to be 'well they will have to approve it'.