Jim - RUSI
 

RUSI specialises in research, research is about what has happened, what has happened is in the past, QED what is passed is interesting and relates to today and the future. It's called 'learning the lessons of the PAST!!!!'

The Wx3 was technically more advanced than the a/c that succeeded it at least it was in concept if not in execution, being analogue rather than digital. The question is was a simplex system with basic instrumentation better than it's analogue duplex predecessor with superb displays? The answer is that reliability trumps clever-dick design every time. Now how has the Merlin fared? What will the next generation displays have to entertain and inform I wonder?

G. :)

PS where's the link to the RUSI article you mention?

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets...elicopters.pdf

Note the use of the word 'future' in the title!

Most of this is much more appropriate to the NPAS thread than this one. However, there is some stuff about SAR in this document. Some of it is SAR viewed from a large quiet desk in a large noisy city but nevertheless some important questions are being posed.

Interesting article - sadly for the author, time is running out!

Don't like the title of the third chapter though...brings back unhappy memories...:sad:

Yes. Sent a shiver down my spine. :{

So what's the latest? Any new dates for the process? Bristows still stuffed when it comes to GAPSar?

What did I miss St Evil?? - How does winning Sumburgh and Stornoway for GapSAR equate to Care to elucidate???

You want dates?

The latest published dates are from February and are in here
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...to-bidders.pdf
at "4.11 Procurement Timetable".

That makes the next event on Monday 30th but before that can happen they need to be told who's invited and who's out.


___________________

Quote of the month: "This is all about cost you know."

Here are the short-listed bidders who are invited to participate in Phase 1 Stage 2.

LOT 1
(Larger spec. Sumburgh, Stornoway, Culdrose, Leconfield and Valley)
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd

LOT 2
(Smaller spec. Lee-on-the-Solent, Chivenor, Prestwick, Lossiemouth and Wattisham)
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd
4. Noordzee Helikopters Vlaanderen N.V
5. Osprey Consortium (Babcock, ERA, BIH)

LOT 3
(Service requirements of both Lot 1 and Lot 2)
1. Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd
2. Bristow Helicopters Ltd
3. CHC Scotia Ltd
4. Lockheed Martin UK Integrated Systems Ltd
5. Osprey Consortium

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...tage-1-sar.pdf

jimf671

Who was it that came up with the 'this is all about cost' line? How can anyone be expected to provide a quality SAR service on a shoestring budget?

At this bureaucratic stage we are now 6 weeks behind schedule.

Mr Beaver made it clear anything from that part of the proceedings at RUSI last week was 'unattributable'. :=

I couldn't possibly comment.

:confused:


______________________________________________________

The Flat Earth Society
I wonder if Justine Greening will pay for my membership?

Surprised at how little interest this topic generates these days especially as the latest list of bidders has just been posted on the Department of Transport's website? Does anyone think the EC175 will be suitable for the Lot 2 bases? Eurocopter seem very quiet on where this aircraft is at the moment. With the UK's investment in the AW189 its difficult to believe that this aircraft isn't a natural choice for any bidder. Bristow and Bond have the 189 on order so its seems to point to what they might be hoping to fly.

Bristow have also been described as the launch customer for the EC175. It probably ticks many boxes for Lot 2 but I don't know if it does so in all the right combinations of load, endurance, altitude and conditions. I'm sure people known to us will be trying to tick those boxes, even on a Sunday afternoon. :E

Aw 189 looks a bit '21st century Sea King'. Perhaps not quite Lot 1 and maybe over-sized for Lot 2 unless ... somebody notices the deliberate mistake: weakness in the DfT's approach to land SAR because they just wish it would go away.

Not going away.
DASA, Feb 2012:
84 Land
6 Coast
13 Maritime
(MCA 43, unknown split.)

DASA, Mar 2012
75 Land
18 Coast
16 Maritime
(MCA 42, unknown split.)

And what will all that head-scratching about Lot 2 a/c with 2 big doors do to the a/c choice for Lot1?

Competition is reducing
 

All Bidders

To inform you that OSPREY (Babcock, BIH and ERA) has withdrawn from the competition and we are content that they are no longer bound by any constraints within the Contract Letting Process Agreement (CLPA).

So 3 competitors left for Lot 1, 4 left for Lots 2 and 3 - sweepstake on the next faller?

OSPREY drop out
 

Any rumours as to why the Osprey consortium pulled out? Not enough cash in the deal? I wonder if we will see others do the same.

CAUTION
Normal rules of chance are suspended in the alternative universe that is government contracting.

I wonder who is going to be doing the technical compliance assessment?

Crab - stop going on about that will you:ugh: You are not going to be the SME, OK?
Bristows and CHC will do their own tech compliance it's obvious.:oh:

I was told that the DfT team has chosen its own way for this competiton. It would be too easy to think this is just SAR-H reborne but it's not. The MoD has withdrawn in most respects and thats how it is.:hmm:
As a result, an independent evaluation consultancy has been contracted in to do the technical assessment after the DfT ran a short and swift competition for the role before the last submission. As far as I understand it, they are composed of a suitable range of technical experts that meets the DfT's evaluation needs.:8
I think the DfT will be more worried about the reducing number of competitors before the next submission is due:(:sad:

Who?

As has been seen in these pages over the years, a lot of people claim to know what they're talking about in SAR but relatively few actually do.