|
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Fund the MoD to be the full service provider (that should go down well with some here:)) and take another look in 10 years time.
|
If the RAF/RN continue providing SAR say with the Merlin we get a SAR force that has an aircraft with:-
a. A better range than the S92 b. A better lifting capacity than the S92 c. A better radar than the S92 uuhmm which one to choose? S92 or Merlin 332M |
Hopefully it will go to the civi's so therefore there isnt really any question to be answered there. Unless they want to train us in the Merlin?:E
|
332M
I think you are missing the point the whole programme as it has been rumoured has finicial difficulties how can anybody afford the merlin as it nearly double the cost to buy and to operate than the S-92. You are right about the 3 thing mentioned is it worth waisting taxpayers money when we can wait to see how good the S-92 really is.:ok: AgustaWestland has not the best track record when coming to customer support and the next question what about reliabilty as it has been mentioned the Portugies, Canadians and danes have problems keeping the machines in the air due to lack of spare parts and the operating costs of the Merlin.:( Is this the machine the Uk really want as a SAR platform wether it be civil or Military?:= |
Lt Fubar - they will fly for more than 10 years if they have appropriate airframe/rotor and avionics modifications - the airframe hours are very low compared to many S-61s in service. Even if they don't get an upgrade, the Out of Service Date is 2017 at the earliest.
I have been told the Merlin cabin is excellent for SAR but the fact remains that the trend towards higher disc loading for modern helicopters gives fierce downwash. A SAR helicopter is simply a delivery system for a winchman - if he cannot do his (often very difficult and dangerous) job properly because he and the casualty are sitting in a man-made tropical storm, then you have to say the important part of the job has been ignored. I know the easy answer is to hover higher but you can't hover accurately without references and the higher you go the further you are away from them which degrades the stability of the winching platform and again makes the winchman's job more difficult/dangerous. Skyepup - that observation was made by a senior RAF officer in 2002 or 3 at the SARForce conference - everything the MCA did was clearly with the aim of becoming more like the USCG, hence the desire to control all the SAR assets. |
This is an interesting thread but people seem determined to slag the S92. Why? The S92 is only a new S61 or Sea King after all. New technology makes things safer for the operators.
In all this time people have pointed out the failings of the S92 but no one has mentioned 'Black Monday' the day when all bar 1 of the RAF Sea King force was 'offstate'. Or the fact that the Sea King 3A took years to get radios that worked, a workable doppler and handling that felt like you were actually flying the thing. The S92 is not perfect yet, but it could well be the future.:ok: |
Ive kept quiet in all these discussions, but how about this thought.
Get a B model of the 92, five blades (lower disk loading), and a better fuel tank layout. Make an actual SAR variant with input from the day to day users (SAR crews), NOT company managment. I am no designer, nor managment/accountant type and its just a thought but surely that would make things better if not solve many problems? If on the interim contract Sikorsky got their act together and actually gave us the 92 operators asked for, then it may well be a great SAR machine. Apparently Sikorsky canvased many operators aking what they want in the next design of machine. Five blades being one of those, but Sikorsky hasn't quite followed the canvassed opinion. Anyway like I said, just a thought. |
On this one I am with Crab the aircraft is a delivery system to get the winchman to a casualty, however the cabin of that delivery system must be big enough to look after more than one seriously injured casualty.
It is extremely worrying, if it is true, that the bidders have been told to bid only on a split fleet of large and medium size helicopters, because there simply is not a medium size helicopter that is up to the job. They are all built for speed, twitchy in the hover and low cabin height having been designed round people sat in seats. Unfortunately, now that the MCA appear to have given the green light to the AW139 no one appears to be able to stop the ball rolling. I feel it will be regretted at some stage in the future. S92's get my vote, or certainly aircraft big enough to continue the good work that has been achieved over the years. |
Do you believe that Sikorsky would go through all the design studies, research and certification for a five bladed head just for the sake of a dozen or so SAR machines. They would if somebody was paying for it, but they're not. A decade ago I was talking to people at Westlands on ways to make the EH101 Heliliner more suitable for the North Sea. They weren't interested, the market wasn't big enough. The 330 prototypes suffered from horrendous viabration way back in 1966 and they were at the point of cutting metal for a five bladed head when some burk developed the barbeque plate that brought it down to an acceptable level. It was cheaper, a lot cheaper. It then took nearly forty years to put five blades on a 225. If the 330 and 332 had five blades in the beginning they would have been unstoppable. We can all dream about what would make a particular helicopter ideal but on the whole all utility helicopters are jack-of-all-trades, master of none.
|
A dozen or so? Think much, much bigger opportunities worldwide.
|
Bigglesbutler - I stand to be corrected by a TP but whilst increasing the number of blades will change your rotor solidity ratio, the only way of changing the disc loading is to make the blades longer as it is the swept area of the disc divided by the AUM of the aircraft.
To my knowledge, the S92 doesn't have a downwash problem (certainly not when compared to the Merlin) and by all accounts is a good SAR machine already (despite the range issues) and will be better in the Mk2 whenever that comes out. I believe that Sikorsky are looking at creative ways of increasing the fuel load carried internally without compromising on the workspace in the cabin. The 139 on the other hand is always going to be hampered by its cabin size and, I gather, is not quite so popular on the front line as had been expected. The aircraft on the interim contract were assessed for suitability by the MCA's aviation consultant who is a one man band with only one SAR tour in Hong Kong in the 70s on Whirlwinds. Unfortunately, he has also been involved with the SARH IPT and believes the rearcrew involved (experts in their field with honours degrees and MScs) shouldn't even have been allowed to take part in the SARH proceedings, even though they were the guys who actually checked the bidders claims aginst the aircraft specs and found all sorts of factual distortions and misinformation. |
Does anyone have an official press release relating to the current status of SAR-H - I have looked on the DES (formerly DPA) website but there is no information at all. Seeing as a few posters have alluded to the current state of play I would be interested to know if there is an official release...
|
Crab,
The way things are in the MCA right now, they wont have any coastguards to do any comms with the aircraft, they will all be outside the MRCC`s on the picket line. :bored: |
Great pic for the August calendar
A real SAR machine!
Bet Crab will have it on his locker. TD |
Does anyone know how the Portuguese are getting on with their SAR Merlins? Do they have a rear ramp for easier Cas off-load or is it traditional on SAR that casualties/unhurt survivors have to jump/be assisted from the side door on the ac? ISTR from a Wessex chap 'the Seaking won't be as good in the mountains, downwash, cab too big' now this is being said of Merlin, well, downwash anyway. If the SARF were to get Merlin then the crews could alternate on posting with SH, keeping crew conversion down? Still, politics and logic, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
|
Well TD - it's just like a real SAR helicopter.......only smaller:):)
|
Bigger and better?
Size isn't everything:=
|
I think it is in the back of a SAR helicopter:ok:
|
It really was inevitable (from the Sunday Times - 030808):
The RAF is being forced to pull a fifth of its helicopter crews out of Britain’s search and rescue service and send them to Afghanistan in an attempt to stop soldiers being killed by roadside bombs. The move will drastically reduce the number of RAF Sea King helicopters available to rescue people in trouble at sea or caught in disasters such as last year’s floods. The RAF crews respond to an average of 1,000 emergency calls a year, varying from rescuing holidaymakers in difficulties to the 2004 floods that devastated the Cornish village of Boscastle. Cutting one of the five crews from each of the six RAF search and rescue stations around Britain will put at risk the current ability to respond to any emergency within an hour. The cuts, due to come into effect over the next few months, will leave most RAF search and rescue stations with only one helicopter on call instead of two, leaving no back-up for big incidents. Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, whose North Devon constituency includes the RAF’s Chivenor search and rescue base, said: “There have to be grave concerns they will be left shorthanded.” It is the first time search and rescue crews have been cut to help frontline forces. Extra helicopters and crews in Afghanistan are seen as vital if the number of soldiers dying there is to be prevented from escalating. Twenty-seven of the last 33 soldiers killed in Afghanistan died as a result of roadside bombs or landmines.Commanders say unless they get them, more soldiers will die. Just 16 transport helicopters serve British troops in Helmand, an area five times the size of Northern Ireland. Concern over rising numbers of victims of roadside bombs led to an emergency meeting on Thursday chaired by Des Browne, the defence secretary, to raise helicopter numbers. Merlin helicopters bought from Denmark and revamped special-forces Chinooks, previously deemed too dangerous to fly, will relieve pressure in the short term. However, budget cuts could mean total helicopter numbers dropping from 525 to 220 within eight years. The importance of rescue helicopters was highlighted this weekend when an RAF crew saved six children and two fathers. They had become stranded yesterday afternoon while travelling in an inflatable boat down the River Tees at Dalton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire. With the boat trapped on an island in the middle of the rising river, the helicopter was scrambled and winched all six to safety. The MoD confirmed the cuts in crew numbers but said the RAF’s search and rescue would still have “at least one committed standby helicopter at six bases . . . This will not affect normal capability”. |
continued on one engine?
Coastguard chopper forced to make emergency landing - Stornoway Today
Coastguard chopper forced to make emergency landing THE NORTH WEST of Scotland was left without Coastguard emergency search and rescue helicopter service this week when one of the Stornoway based Coastguard choppers was forced to make an emergency landing. At around midnight on Monday night, the S92 aircraft made an unscheduled landing in a field north of Glasgow whilst transporting a patient to hospital. The landing came after indications from an alarm of a possible fire in one of its two engines. The medical evacuation was later completed as the helicopter returned to its mission with the affected engine shut down. Maritime and Coastguard Agency spokesperson Fiona Warren expanded: "The S92 from Stornoway was tasked to two medical evacuations last night. "On scene, the aircrafts was forced to put down between Lochgilphead and Glasgow due to fire alarm activation. The medical evacuation was completed on one engine." She added: "Unfortunately the spare aircraft cannot be used since it also has mechanical problems." With the second aircraft out of commissions, the drama left much of the northwest Scottish coast and islands without Coastguard cover until 9pm on Tuesday. Cover is provided – as a matter of routine in such situations – by RAF Lossiemouth and the HMS Gannet Royal Navy base at Prestwick. After engineers completed work on the S92 on Tuesday afternoon, the aircraft then returned to Stornoway and was serviceable later that day. |
SARH to Go
Yes to Afghanistan.
Still the sun tan is not too good in the south west so crab might like a top up trip to show him how much fun!!!!!!! the rest of the helicopter crews from all of the services are having (not). |
Took some time but my letter back in 2006 worked!
See link to Send RAF SAR to Afghanistan letter.....
http://www.pprune.org/forums/militar...ghanistan.html When you off CRAB??:O Good luck to all those going, well done and keep safe. |
:):):):):)
I'm waiting to hear the excuses proffered by some to explain their inability to go. Got to take the children to their tax payer funded educational establishment. Got to take the chil.... bugger used that. NECrab is unable to attend today due to a very nasty paper cut. What an opportunity, now they can practice their CSAR techniques. Not to be missed or scorned. Off you go Crab, go on, stop dripping, you only need your log book and etcha sketch. Everything else will be provided. Enjoy. :ok: :E:E:E I know, I'll never get to heaven. However, as an agnostic atheist I don't have much to worry about.:E Did anybody else hear a crafty scuttling noise? :) |
Just think of those lovely OPERATIONAL medals you'll get. Have fun!:rolleyes:
|
Cover is provided – as a matter of routine in such situations – by RAF Lossiemouth and the HMS Gannet Royal Navy base at Prestwick. |
Ah yes, a particularly brilliant piece of journalism from the Times. Some journo has read that the SARF is having to reduce from 5 to 4 crews per flight as a result of PR 08 (money saving measures) and that SAR winchmen are already doing tours in the 'Stan as medical team leaders in the back of Chinooks and put 2 and 2 together resulting in a sloppy 5.
Quite how having a SAR helicopter in province will stop soldiers being blown up by roadside bombs is a little difficult to conceive:confused: Apart from the performance problems mentioned earlier, none of our engineers would be able to deploy as they have all been civilianised! Hey, if the man says go, we go but it would be an indication of how desperate things have got and how little either the top levels of the military or the ministers actually know about SAR and its lack of relevance to CSAR. Lost - that's something to be proud of - one S92 only able to operate on one engine and the other U/S in the hangar - what was all that guff about modern SAR being the way forward:ugh: As for SARH - if it is all civilianised then there will be no deployability at all (personnel or aircraft) - something else to consider eh? |
So reading between your line's Crab you wouldn't be happy going because you couldn't take your engineers with you :)
Ok we'll put that down in the book of excuses could be the first of many :) Oh and please don't slag off the S92 you know what they say "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones":= |
I'm with Crabb on this.
What's the point of sending out an SAR pilot on an SH job. He doesn't know the business, doesn't know the aircraft, he's just a liablity. He is more likely to lead to the loss of an aircraft and other more valuable members of the crew. If you are going to have to train him to do the job then you're just as well employing civilians. Dangle a twin turbine heli course, lots of hours and £30K tax free and there would be stacks of PPL(H) and hour-building CPLs queuing up. |
Lost - that's something to be proud of - one S92 only able to operate on one engine and the other U/S in the hangar - what was all that guff about modern SAR being the way forward As for the military SAR going to abroad it just shows how the country needs a complete civilian SAR setup so the people of the UK have a permenent SAR cover and are never let down again. [quote]As for SARH - if it is all civilianised then there will be no deployability at all (personnel or aircraft) - something else to consider eh? /QUOTE] Are you saying that if we have military SAR then all the assets can be removed from the country if required - and that's a good thing????? :ugh: |
Crab said -
"Quite how having a SAR helicopter in province will stop soldiers being blown up by roadside bombs is a little difficult to conceive:confused:" Don't think you'll be needing your SAR helicopter Crabman - From the BBC story - "They will pilot transport helicopters serving British troops" "Helicopters are a preferred mode of transporting troops in Afghanistan, as they avoid the risk of roadside bombs" Ass and trash for you from now on, boy.:ok: |
I sit here, pissing myself laughing, imagining the conversations in various smoke free environments around the Crab SAR world.
Surely the opportunity to experience a real combat environment is a chance worth grabbing? Think of all the extra mullah.....and Mullahs. :ok: On the other side of the coin the conversations in Sumburgh, Stornoway et al must be worth recording. ;) |
Crab
Never mind, we will look after your patch while you are away.:D:D Just like you look after some of ours after 2100hrs.(When you are serviceable that is.) Ooh. Got to be careful there haven't I? Our record is not so good at the moment with our new Italian speed machine!:mad: Take care!!:ok: 3D P.S. I see Bristow are advertising for drivers.:) Go on, you know you want to. Just don't tell them who you are.:D |
Flaxton, had you any military experience at all you would know that you can't control the ground without ground patrols - therefore all the helis in the world won't stop the roadside bombs and suicide bombers. I've done ash and trash enough to know it is the most tedious experience in the world - I might not have been to the Stan but S Armagh in the 80s and Beirut still count I think:)
I think you'd be surprised how many SARboys would go without complaint but that doesn't suit most of the ignorant stereotyping that goes on here. Lost - I think we establised fairly well that the MCA got what their much vaunted aviation consultant agreed to - the RAF technical advice was mostly ignored. The s92 is supposed to be better than the Sea King, it is after all brand new but seems to have as many technical issues as we do - hardly progress is it? I'm not going to defend our serviceability but those with broken S92's shouldn't gloat when the Sea King is U/S. Nobody has been let down as no change to the SAR cover is going to happen - the piece is journalistic fabrication. If I thought you knew anything about UKSAR I might argue the pros and cons of mil SAR again but you don't and won't listen anyway. Bootneck - just as well you're not bitter:8 3D - careful chap, the ARRCK have it on tape this afternoon from Brixham CG asking for a Sea King to attend a yacht taking on water because Quote' the new CG helicopter (139) isn't any good for this job' unquote - 13 Pob!!!:) And we'd have been first on scene but were stood down when the Torbay LB got there. |
Bootneck - just as well you're not bitter
:) Moi? :) Not in the slightest, just enjoying my fertile imaginings. I do have a serious question. Is it known whether this new edict will require you to convert to Chinooks, or are they going to send you out to bolster the junglies? |
Crab
"I've done ash and trash enough to know it is the most tedious experience in the world - I might not have been to the Stan but S Armagh in the 80s and Beirut still count I think" Glad to see you hold your fellow aviators in such respect. I do not think that the boys and girls on the ground are thinking the same way. As for over the water, you should not require the same amount of requalifying time. "Beirut", well the "waddi runners" had already cleared that issue before any RAF cab got anywhere near the land as it was a bit too far for anything except a Chinny and they had to refuel on the RFA.The RN were already operating from said ship. Still good try. |
Crab.
the new CG helicopter (139) isn't any good for this job' unquote - 13 Pob!!! 13 pob?? No problem! 5 at a time, 2/3 drop offs somewhere, 1/2 refuels somewhere! Yes a great leap forward from the 61!:rolleyes::rolleyes: If you recall an earlier discussion, this was exactly what I said could happen. Remember "Ice Prince"? And don't you think this worries us as well??? We are all here to provide a service to the British public. Only we are trying to do it with one hand tied behind our backs through the "expert advice" of someone from the RAF. We all know who that is!!!! I think the last comment from that person on here went something like.. "get on with it!!" Well that is exactly what we are trying to do!! You may have beaten us there but we would have been able to get some great footage for the press to show how the premier SAR boys do it!!:DBefore they go to the Stan! Again, take care. 3D |
Crab,
It doesn't matter how much you try to cover it up we all know the expert advice came from the RAF and you said SAR would be better because of it. Do I really need to start quoting you again? And now your saying the technical advice was ignored - utter rubbish and you know it but another spectacular change of story by you! You're inconsistency is now becoming legend. Why not just except the fact that you and your RAF collegues got the interim contract badly wrong like they did with the chinooks, nimrods and countless other MOD screw ups which costs the taxpayer a fortune! |
"careful chap, the ARRCK have it on tape this afternoon from Brixham CG asking for a Sea King to attend a yacht taking on water because Quote' the new CG helicopter (139) isn't any good for this job' unquote - 13 Pob!!!:) And we'd have been first on scene but were stood down when the Torbay LB got there."
Dont know why you were tasked in the first place........ It was a non event and the people never wanted to come off the yacht! Just aswell you had your, oops sorry I mean, the CG pump with you though.... |
Sad to see the in fighting here...shouldn't we be directing our fire against an incompetent Scotsman who has managed to reduce the military and coastguard helicopter scenario to a point where one big shipping incident offshore in the Channel...or an inland flood disaster could leave us unable to deploy enough capacity to do anything ?
|
Crab -
Flaxton, had you any military experience at all you would know that you can't control the ground without ground patrols - therefore all the helis in the world won't stop the roadside bombs and suicide bombers. I may not have any military experience but it is obvious even to me that they are talking about moving troops around by air to avoid having to travel on dangerous roads. I can't recall mentioning replacing ground patrols??? On a happier note, I think you would feel quite at home flying in Afghanistan - it's very similar to Rotorheads. Every time you poke your head over the ramparts, you get shot down by ignorant, ill-educated non-military types:) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.