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

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

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

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

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

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.

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???

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.:ok:

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.

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.

Cyclic - :ok: 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.

Operational Stakeholder Presentation and Q&A.

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...

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?

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?

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'.

The response time you quote is the fixed wing response. Rotary asset is 15 and 45 currently. The land grab is med transfers, missing person searches , RTAs and not all cliffs are at the sea for example.

That's why I wanted to check - the question was asked about air assets and didn't specify that it was for FW. The rotary times are what I was expecting.

Fair points but none of that was made clear in the presentation - they are jobs that were traditionally done by MilSAR but are hardly core MCA business as they take an asset away from its prime responsibility which, when cover is spread thinner than it was, leaves great swathes with no immediate SAR asset.

MISPERS don't need a SAR helicopter and med transfers and RTAs are the NHS/AA AOR - inland cliffs must be a very small percentage of the jobs except in mountainous areas.

Maritime Coastguard Agency is what the title says - still a land grab.

Its primary task is to help any one in need now.. The MCA release an asset if its not actively tasked.
Its a triage system if a higher task comes in it goes to that if its committed the next asset goes till none are left. .
Its just the way it is you cant have lifesaving skills sat on the ground waiting for a titanic to sink, while people die 2 miles down the road because we are a "seafarers" only service.

Crab

We agree on many things but if you are suggesting that the UK MOD could have rolled out the EH101 across the UK SAR fleet (inc HMCG) for less than the cost of the commercial contact (inc manning) then I simply don't believe that's possible.`
`
But perhaps i'm misunderstanding you?

I must say that I do from time to time get concerned about the MCA's grasp on some matters. For instance, two of the questions from me during the Q&A went straight to the heart of their understanding of how SAR aviation is regulated. If they don't make prescriptive requirements in the contract about matters that require regulatory approval (as they failed to do 1971 to 2006+) then it does not get translated into an Operating Manual and ultimately an AOC and appropriate secondary regulation. They need to pay attention in class.


They did however end up with a world class service the last time. I agree that no alternative to the helicopter is likely to exist by 2024, or probably 2035. I have a suspicion that as the contract process moves forward, even without Richard Parkes to make incisive statements about helicopter operations, reality will sink in and the big beast rip-off merchants and the half-price dreamers will be turfed out and we'll be left with the usual suspects. I hope I'm not wrong.

My feeling is that we are in the right place already. I understand what our friend John Foster says about the number of quick jobs not far from base but my feeling is that there is a reason that as one moves further into the 45+ degrees 'hostile environment', all around the world the SAR aircraft get bigger. Could be coincidence but I don't think so. I think that if we end up with a contractor with S-92 and another contractor with maybe H145 then whatever you do it's likely to turn into a sh1tshow with everybody in the wrong place.

Nice little earner for Bristow renting those out? Business collaboration is more profitable than business competition after all (that's why we have laws against some forms of it!). Maybe not the best for the taxpayer certainly, although we don't know how the bidders might account for commercial property investments.

The police have been pussies and let the Coasties elbow in on things. It is not helped when some police think that anything that doesn't involve baton-wielding or battering down doors as the sun comes up isn't worth their while. The broad view of public safety that many of us are used to is wasted on them. The Coasties on the other hand may feel a need to bolster their position since their importance in the Civil Contingency hierarchy is not as clear cut as police and fire for instance.

The stakeholder training matter is as good as fixed. Requirements are being reviewed and the bidder on the new contract will have access to the names and contact details of the stakeholders and thus the ability to go and ask the right questions. If the right questions are not asked then that becomes another measure for the MCA to consider during the competitive dialogue phase.

We should remember that nobody else wanted UK SAR Helicopters. If the military wanted it then it would have all been sorted out at the same time as JHC. There is no other Govt department that wants it or is a good fit. The MCA was doing contract SAR already and could see that bolstering its image in this way was a win-win not least from the point of view of deterring a move to single European coastguard.

Police air support beyond the scope of an economically sensible NPAS should be an RAF SH task and can be based on air support for RAF Police and RAF Regiment. It would be sensible for a variety of reasons to have military helicopter resources more widely spread around the UK.

Air Ambulance? Do NOT start me.

Jim, thank you for your usual reasoned and informed response:ok:

Overthawk - Perhaps not feasible given the military disinterest in SAR but it would have been interesting to see what a military proposal looked like on cost. Llamaman was right though, the 101 wasn't what people wanted due to the downdraught but the S92 isn't far off and it seems to work allbeit the working environment under the aircraft is very unpleasant - guess who chooses the aircraft, pilots or winchmen?:)

All 3 Armed Services have dwindling numbers of helicopters and a training system (when it works) that will produce too many pilots for OCUs to cope with or the front line to absorb. Having military SAR - no matter how unlikely now - would have kept trained pilots in demanding flying posts ready in case they were needed for core-military business.

UK
More4, 2100h, Sunday 13th September 2020,
EMERGENCY RESCUE: Air, Land & Sea.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/...e-air-land-sea

They really missed out by not hiring Crab to narrate it. :rolleyes:

I would only have commented on how the guys getting their hands dirty are paid half as much as those driving them to the job:)

Why RAF SH? Surely the wildcat role would fit in far better if your sending it to the Military, recce is what’s needed not bus drivers.

NPAS do that. What NPAS lack, and what MCA Aviation are proposing to provide, are bus drivers. This is part of the MCA's idea of being able to deploy a range of different teams from across public service.

they'll be annexing Poland next:E

and want more money....

Am I dreaming when I hope that 1 one day we can have an integrated aviation arm that can be tasked to assist any government service, paid for by the tax payer that cover key disciplines such as SAR/HEMS, police support and general duties like moorland fire fighting?

The GFS and SC have been doing it successfully for years...

LZ

Or maybe even a JRCC? That would really be leaping into the 21st century.

I do feel that the MCA vision is moving towards a government flying service. :hmm: However, if we are prioritising the saving of lives, all serious crime and fires must be scheduled for Tuesday mornings. :ugh:

That question was asked during the approach to the ARCC changeover. The answer was that the JRCC model would not be part of that stage. I await with interest any progress in this area.

Just watched the first episode on catch-up - all good professional stuff but it highlights the issue of the S-92 downdraught.

I know people like the space and power but it is surely overkill for the majority of coastal and inland jobs.

Based on the advances that continue in rotor technology, I am not expecting any great relief for those who work under SAR aircraft.

Currently, we have no discernible difference in downwash intensity between an 8.6t aircraft and a 12t aircraft.

Not so much rotor technology but more powerful engines that allow smaller rotor discs and make them work harder, producing the higher downwash speeds.

S92 - rotor 56'4", 2 x 2520 SHP engines, MTOW 26,150 lbs

AW 189 - rotor 48', 2 x 2000 shp engines, MTOW 18,300 lbs

Sea King - rotor 62', 2 x 1660 shp engines, MTOW 21, 400 lbs

Honestly, Crab, this is what I admire about your inputs. No BS from anyone.