Falklands SAR and Support helicopter tender announcement .
Helisniper - don't forget that the both the SH and SAR elements should be provided by the Falklands Govt rather than the British taxpayer - sending more mil assets down there achieves little and costs the MoD more since the FI Govt only pays about 10% of the cost of the military presence down there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Aarhus
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sub contracting out the crewing of the new SAR /SH may give one of the bidders the competitive edge. It's not a new concept .
http://www.helioperations.co.uk/pdf/...anyProfile.pdf
http://www.helioperations.co.uk/pdf/...anyProfile.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Age: 61
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think very unlikely to be 139. If it is to be a common airframe for SAR/SH, the 139 is far too small.
Also very unlikely to be S92. The tender specs were written around S61/Sea King performance so anybody bidding S92 would be way way overpriced compared to other contenders.
I'd put my money on an older model Super Puma, or the enduring S61 herself. It's pretty hard to beat the 61 for the type of SH done in the FIs. She's just getting a bit slow and lacking in payload for the longer range SAR role.
Also very unlikely to be S92. The tender specs were written around S61/Sea King performance so anybody bidding S92 would be way way overpriced compared to other contenders.
I'd put my money on an older model Super Puma, or the enduring S61 herself. It's pretty hard to beat the 61 for the type of SH done in the FIs. She's just getting a bit slow and lacking in payload for the longer range SAR role.
In March 2016, the last of almost 110 Sea Kings will be mothballed (stand fast Mk7 and some 4's).
You'd think the prospective contractors for this project (BiH) might consider buying these at £250,000 a pop???
You'd think the prospective contractors for this project (BiH) might consider buying these at £250,000 a pop???
I don't think you'd ever get those airframes onto the civvy register.
Bigger and better things are planned for those SAR aircraft
Falklands
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Age: 61
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1helicopterppl
Are you confusing contracts?
I said (always accepting that I could be wrong) that the S92 is probably an overkill for what the MOD is hoping to spend on the SH/SAR contract.
But LZ was talking about Bristow winning the O&G contract. For that the S92 would make a lot of sense and I was told that is what the customer wanted all along. That contract also had a AWSAR element in its original form.
(That isn't necessarily as ridiculous as might seem. The offshore SAR contract needs range, high capacity for 19+2 survivors, but maritime only. The BFFI SAR cab is for 2 stretchered survivors only, wouldn't have to be ultra long range, but would require overland and NVG training. So a big enough difference to result in different requirements for type, equipment and training and stop the cheque writers in Aberdeen and MOD from ever talking)
Two totally different contracts.
.......or maybe not. Maybe O&G and MOD ( and FI Gov) did do the sensible thing and talked
A combined bid for the two contracts would reduce the SAR element, support and service costs for the O&G customer and maybe lower the SH/SAR costs sufficiently for MOD to have the aircraft that they really need for the BFFI contract ( yes 1helicopterppl...S92
)
Are you confusing contracts?
I said (always accepting that I could be wrong) that the S92 is probably an overkill for what the MOD is hoping to spend on the SH/SAR contract.
But LZ was talking about Bristow winning the O&G contract. For that the S92 would make a lot of sense and I was told that is what the customer wanted all along. That contract also had a AWSAR element in its original form.
(That isn't necessarily as ridiculous as might seem. The offshore SAR contract needs range, high capacity for 19+2 survivors, but maritime only. The BFFI SAR cab is for 2 stretchered survivors only, wouldn't have to be ultra long range, but would require overland and NVG training. So a big enough difference to result in different requirements for type, equipment and training and stop the cheque writers in Aberdeen and MOD from ever talking)
Two totally different contracts.
.......or maybe not. Maybe O&G and MOD ( and FI Gov) did do the sensible thing and talked
A combined bid for the two contracts would reduce the SAR element, support and service costs for the O&G customer and maybe lower the SH/SAR costs sufficiently for MOD to have the aircraft that they really need for the BFFI contract ( yes 1helicopterppl...S92
)
Last edited by inputshaft; 3rd Sep 2014 at 02:23.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Head in the sky
Age: 70
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falklands SAR
Inputshaft
I have no knowledge of the contract details but you clearly do so tvm for the interesting post.
What I do know is that a S92 is being prepared for SAR role in the Falklands & there will also be a second machine idc.
I have no knowledge of the contract details but you clearly do so tvm for the interesting post.
What I do know is that a S92 is being prepared for SAR role in the Falklands & there will also be a second machine idc.
