Cost effective...just like the chinook saga...:bored:

Hmm
 

Just another rumour spread by the die hards trying to control the current manning crisis the SAR Force finds itself in. SAR - H is the way ahead with technology fitting for the 21st century, both in the front and back of the cab. Let it go boys, your stress levels will reduce:ok:

You know these 5 things for a fact?

WreckingBall - no one is denying the need for improved technology - it is a question of who should fly it.

However, it is strange that, apart from top speed, none of the current or proposed solutions matches the actual capability of the 3A Sea King, especially on range.

I heard that a shiny new aircraft wouldn't go out past 170 nm recently so a poor old Sea King had to go and do the job.

All the cobblers talked about improved response times and the ability to reduce the numbers of bases is exactly that - cobblers.

Strange also that apparently some bidders want to know why they can't go for all military crews in their bids - maybe our proposed 66 might go up a bit.

Crab,

Who/what is preventing an all military aircrew bid? If the URD doesn't state that explicitly then the condition cannot be imposed on a whim.

I had heard that the only condition was a minimum of 66 mil aircrew in SAR-H which all mil manning obviously satisfies.

On a more general point, what saddens me most is that all of the SAR-H discussions on PPrune end up pitting the front liners, mil and civ, against each other. They are mandated to do different jobs which they both do to the best of their abilities within the operational and resource constraints imposed.

HAL

Quite right HAL9000, spot on.
This decision has been made by the government based solely on one issue and one issue alone. COST.
The arguments SHOULD be about whether the job really can save the public money.
6 billion is a lot of savings INITIALLY. Over the 25 yr contract though maybe it isn't. Provided the civilian contractor DOESN'T come back to the table asking for more taxpayers cash to prop up their operation in future, then it's a reasonable deal, I suppose.
However - I would suggest that due to the current MOD climate where everything is being cut back, this project must be up there along with others as sacrificial lambs.:\

The next election may end up happening before a decision is made with SAR-H. What then !!!

Crab,

Should you really be on pprune at 06:23 on Saturday morning. Maybe you were up early to watch the All Blacks game.
Buddy you say that the argument is over who should fly the new technology. I am not entering an argument over who is better, but should the military not put all their efforts into the conflicts around the world, and let, what is predominately a civilian role in the UK, be done by civilian crews. They have managed 4 bases well over the last 20 years including probably the most challenging one in the UK, Stornoway. I am sure they could manage the others. The service delivered to the public would not change at all.
All new ac have teething problems chap. Dont tell me the 3A didn't when it first came off the production line, you Chivenor stalwart. Surely 170nm ROA is better than another flight off state again. :) Just thought I would drop that one in.
Anyway enough for now. Take it easy in the SW:ok:

Crab, as you have said before an expert team from the MOD (with a experienced SAR RAF Sq Ldr at the helm - who's now apparently working for the winning bidder :ooh:) provided technical advice on the interim contract. Surely this expert team should have picked up on the fact that the new aircraft had reduced range?

Incidentally, those same shinny aircraft were the only cover in Scotland recently because both Lossie and Prestwick were off line AGAIN!!!!!! :sad:

So if you are going to start throwing mud again expect some to come right back at you!!! :p

Have a lovely weekend, LAS. :)

Hi Lost at Sea

an 'expert' team from the MOD (with a 'experienced' SAR RAF Sq Ldr at the helm - who's now apparently working for the winning bidder ) provided technical advice on the interim contract.


The quote marks round EXPERT and EXPERIENCED suggest that you have an opinion as to the validity of those people's status. I am also interested as to the identity of the Sqn Ldr who worked on the interim contract and is now employed by CHC - and in what role?

Not that I know anything at all about the interim contract process - heaven forfend that I could have been involved - just curious.:E

Sven

Ask the Coastguard in Ireland who's cheaper now as the CHC bills roll in for an ageing fleet!

Lost at Sea - Various claims were made by the contractors, manufacturers and the MCA regarding the capabilities of the proposed aircraft, especially regarding range. These capabilities have not been achieved and this is what is wrong with the proposed civilianisation procedure - even with scrutiny, if bullsh*t claims are made in order to win the contract, where are the penalty clauses for failing to deliver?

If Sikorsky and AW had actually come clean that their aircraft could not manage to match the existing capability of the poor old Sea King without extra tanks at extra cost and at the expense of their claimed payload - would anyone have selected those machines for the job? 170nm RoA is pathetic for a SAR aircraft, especially one in such a remote area.

Sadly it seems this is still happening with SARH and it is only when bids are scrutinised that the capability gaps are recognised.

I want top quality SAR cover for the UK and we won't get it when there is so much profit to be made that companies will lie about every aspect of their bid in order to win it.

You can sling as much mud at the Sea King force and Mil SAR as you like - we have been operating twice as many flights for a lot longer with, apparently, some degree of success both at sea and on land. Our serviceability problems are the stuff of legend but you have to play the hand you are dealt.

Let's make sure that the hand that is dealt in 2012 is a winning one and not bluffer's pair of twos!

crab,

A few years ago didn't the RAF move Australia in order to try to 'win a contract' in an attempt to argue the case against the need for aircraft carriers?? :ok:

Crab,

Is this an admission that the MOD team who scrutinised the technical details of the interim contract have failed?

Had your expert team actually read the two aircrafts flight manuals they would have known exactly what the ranges, performance and capability of the aircraft were. Its not exactly difficult, all the information was there and available before the contract was decided.

So on one hand you want a top quality SAR cover but on the other you seem happy to brush off your serviceability problems.

Better not use the MOD to scrutinise the contract then!

Sven Sixtoo,

I can see that the quote marks are misleading and they have been removed from my original post incase they are misinterupted again.

The team that scrutinsed the last bid have been described to me as expert and experienced. Maybe I should have used " " instead of ' '. Put it down to my poor grammar. I'm sure they're all very qualified and lovely people but it does appear, if you listen to Crab talking about "capabilities have not been achieved", that they haven't done very well in scrutinising the bid.

LAS

crab says;

This is one of the biggest motivators for change. If you have been doing it for twice as long as everyone else, but still can't your act together - then it is proof that serious change is the way forward.

If you were a commercial operator, no-one would even remember your name now!

Seaking to old
 

Why is it that Crab is that youare bitching about civilian contractors and that they are are not suited for SAR-H.

Tell me this then if the MoD are so perfect then why are the HC.3 Chinooks not flying still and how taxpayers money has been waisted on something that was so dessprately need to help troops in Iraq and so on.

The fact of the matter is the Seaking is getting old and to darn expensive to keep in the air and how long do want to fly in something that is nearly falling apart and waisting valuable money.

I heard as well the programme to upgrade the future Lynx and Puma fleet has been cancelled due to no money in the kitty to upgrade them.

The money the MoD save with civilian SAR around the coast of the UK then the Mod will have spare cash to spend to either upgrade or purchase furture projects to help troops in difficult sittuations

Don't get me wrong Crab I'm not against the job that you do I think you all do a marvellous job in protecting our coasts and saving countless lives infact is this not what SAR is all about and help one another to save lives instead of nik picking at civilian SAR give the guy's a break and support the programme you never you might be pleasently supprised:ok:

Lost at Sea - the RAF gave advice on the interim contract but did not scrutinise the details of the bids - hence, bullsh*t claims by the bidders made it past the MCA who naively trusted the contractors to tell the truth.

The present bids for SARH have been properly scrutinised by the RAF and this process has shown up the lengths to which companies will go to obfuscate the true capability of the platform (that is a nice way of saying they are lying b*st*rds).

Now who is trying to rip off the UK taxpayers? Not the MoD - we suffer from systemic incompetence caused by career-seeking jack-of-all trades - it is true but money is not the driver there. It is industry, with both feet firmly in the golden trough of the public purse who are looking to give the least in return for the most. It may be the way of the commercial world but it is not the best thing for UK SAR.

It's a nice idea to blame the RAF for the greed of industry but it just won't wash - we get on with our job in the best way we can within the constraints of our platform - both our aircraft were serviceable throughout the day and night yesterday for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did and they are both still there this morning - any civilian operator provide that in UK?

But on the 25th March you said "All I said was that due to the fact the MCA couldn't get unbiased advice from industry (Bristows, CHC or others) because they all had vested interests, the MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract."

So the guidance and expertise in EXAMINING the contract you talked about has now turned into "advice". Bit of a change of tune isn't it old chap! Or are you trying to distance yourself from the fact that the "advice" given by your experts was pretty poor especially if they didn't even look at the range of the aircraft! Can you tell us what the "advice" was based on?????? Did they actually "examine" the aircraft at all????

Once again your your posts are inconsistent.... :sad:

I'm going to remember that for your post 2012 rant!!!! :ok:

Not something you want in a top quality SAR cover really, is it? But it's one hell of an admission! :ok:

I feel that congratulations are in order, quite an achievement nowadays! :D

Lost - I should be flattered that you value my contributions so highly that you are dissecting and examining them in such fine detail - but I am more concerned at your mental health issues. It is not unusual for those of limited intellect to ignore the big picture and concentrate on the minutae but to spend so much of one's time cutting and pasting other people's comments does rather border on the obsessive - are you not able to formulate arguments of your own?:)

Never mind - keep taking the medication - if you thought I was going to rise to your bait you are delusional as well:)

Cost Saving
 

Surely regardless of ac type the biggest savings of all would be in manpower and hence in salary bills. The civilian SAR Flts have far fewer engineers and that is why they are cheaper. The ac don't fly all that many hours so surely the DOCs of the ac have a relatively lower impact. Could be argued that an old ac with little capital cost implications is a cheap way forward. Sea King 3s with the Carson blades could be looming onto the horizon!!

I agree with Crab that the Sea King is a good ac operationally. However, we should all remember that all the Flts whether RAF, RN or Civilian are all trying to do the best they can with the equipment they have. Equipment which inevitably was not designed from the outset for SAR but was compromised from some other role. None of them are perfect.