SAR goes private, concerns over RAF Valley.

[anonymous-user]

A foreign firm is rumoured to be taking over the SAR coverage of the UK.

There is also concern over the future of RAF Valley.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11977239

Shame the Yellow Sea Kings will be a thing of the past soon.

Another piece of the RAF/RN being consigned to history

[Eric Mc]

They are very old machines now but I do feel sad that the services are being gutted in this way.

[aeropilot]

Yup...

And Valley isn't goning to be needed for training any more as there won't be any need for the RAF to have it's own training, as the small size means it's going to be more cost effective to pay other airforces to train the small numbers of air crew we will need for a future grand total of just 6 fast jet squadrons

It wasn't that long ago, that the RAF used to train many of the other airforces of the world

Even back in 1990 just before GW1 the RAF had 33 fast jet squadrons, let alone going back another 20 years before that when there was probably double that amount again.

[tank slapper]

The proposed reductions to coastguard coverage are concerning as well. They plan on reducing the current number of stations from 19 to 8, and possibly down to 3 at night.

This seems to be cutting it dangerously thin. Anyone who has been on the water with a VHF radio on a busy summer weekend will know how busy it can get. The local coastguard stations also have a lot of local knowledge that stands to be diluted or lost if the stations are consolidated.

I can't see many positive outcomes from this at all.

[anonymous-user]

The Government is clearly focussed on one thing "cuts."

There is very little concern IMHO for loss of life or the implications their decisions are going to cause.

Cancellation of Nimrod SAR being one, reduction in Coastguard is another and if SAR coverage is reduced it will cost lives. I suppose the bean counters are totting up how much a life is worth against the cost of keeping the life saving services in place.

If the RAF Fast Jet fleet is going to be reduced, as reported to 6 squadrons, then this will then put a question mark over the RAF training fleet.

There was a rumour that training would then take place in the US. That will probably put more jobs at BAe Systems at risk if the Hawks are wound down.

It is a very sorry state of affairs.

1400 people were made redundant this week from BAe Systems with the cancellation of the Nimrod and winding down of the Harrier force. Where are these skilled engineers going to work now?

When we have thousands of military crew unemployed, thousands of engineers out of jobs, and local communities dessimated and all claiming benefits then what happens?

[Eric Mc]

Maybe THIS is what people should be rioting about?

[plasticpig]

I certainly can't see how they can maintain the coverage that used to be available. If something like the Fastnet storm happens again I doubt they could respond in the same way. There were over 200 hours of flight time in 3 days.

[ninja-lewis]

Is the training fleet really at risk? Doesn't the RAF do a roaring trade in training pilots for other nations (especially Gulf States)?

[statts1976uk]

Some of the partners are foreign but one of the major backers are RBS, I happen to work for one of the partners and ex-RAF and after seeing how well they operate in the Scottish Islands, Ireland and various other places it will be a vast improvement over the current system. The Sikorsky S-92 is a far more modern and much more capable aircraft than used by 202 Sqn. The scaremongering over losing Valley and a cut down service at night is just that. This move actually frees up manpower for other areas in military and that can only be a good thing.

Edited by statts1976uk on Sunday 12th December 14:55

[Eric Mc]

RBS? - we#re all saved then.

[statts1976uk]

The standard of aircrew and engineers will also improve greatly when it goes civilian as there are higher standards for both in Civvy Street. The number of bases cannot be cut as this has been stipulated as part of the contract but some if the bases may be moved eg Prestwick SAR is moving to Glasgow Airport.

Edited by statts1976uk on Sunday 12th December 15:01

[davepoth]

Eric Mc said:

RBS? - we#re all saved then.

So the government will have a stake after all...

[statts1976uk]

At least there is a British stake in this consortium, the Airknight one was wholly foreign owned and an early abortive bud had the Lehman Brothers as financial backers!

[Eric Mc]

The mention of all these banking institutions as being sponsors/partners/funders of essential emergency services does not fill me with confidence.

Are Northern Rock planning on taking over the RNLI?

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 12th December 15:29

[Simpo Two]

Well, we can either fund the emergency services ourselves directly through taxation, or we can let the bankers run them until they go bankrupt and then bail THEM out through taxation. Paying directly cuts out the middlemen it would seem...

[The real Apache]

statts1976uk said:

The standard of aircrew and engineers will also improve greatly when it goes civilian as there are higher standards for both in Civvy Street.

That's quite an insult for Military trained people, on what do you base that remark?

[statts1976uk]

RBS are just one if the partners basically just providing the mortgages for the aircraft but the other partners CHC, Sikorsky and Thales are very big players. This SAR contract will save money over the term of the contract and will provide the UK with the most advanced SAR in the world. If I was stranded I would rather know that a new S-92 was coming than an old Sea King that might or might not make it. There has been very few RAF engineers on 202 Sqn for some time and only the minimal amount of aircrew, since these aircraft will be on the civilian register there will be more higher qualified B1.3 and B2 engineers and aircrew with greater experience on them. The pilots that Soteria are hoping will join them will be very experienced North Sea aircrew.

[statts1976uk]

The real Apache said:

statts1976uk said:

The standard of aircrew and engineers will also improve greatly when it goes civilian as there are higher standards for both in Civvy Street.

That's quite an insult for Military trained people, on what do you base that remark?

I used to be military trained but you'll find that very few military engineers on rotary will have a B1.3 or B2 EASA UK licence. The gulf between civilian helicopters and military particularly engineering standards is huge, nothing gets "penned up" as the repercussions for the civilian are extremely serious.

[Eric Mc]

statts1976uk said:

The real Apache said:

statts1976uk said:

The standard of aircrew and engineers will also improve greatly when it goes civilian as there are higher standards for both in Civvy Street.

That's quite an insult for Military trained people, on what do you base that remark?

I used to be military trained but you'll find that very few military engineers on rotary will have a B1.3 or B2 EASA UK licence. The gulf between civilian helicopters and military particularly engineering standards is huge, nothing gets "penned up" as the repercussions for the civilian are extremely serious.

You seem to be making a very strong defence of the "privatisiation" of the rescue services, Have you got an economic interest in these changes or are you a neutral?

I have read that some of the civilian crews of the Coast Guard S-92s were not altogether enamoured with the switch from the their old S-61Ns (which were also, civilian, of course).

[statts1976uk]

As I said in my opening statement I work for one of the partners. This new contract will provide better aircraft with better coverage with higher trained crews and engineers at a cheaper long term rate. I'm sad to see the RAF lose the contract as I had some good friends on 202 Sqn but it was almost a civilian operation for the last few years apart from name and aircrew only.