Plans to replace the ageing Sea Kings have been suspended
Plans for the part-privatisation of Britain’s search and rescue helicopters have been shelved by the Government.
The £7bn scheme to replace the ageing Sea King helicopters that support mountain rescue teams across the country has been suspended, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander announced today.
The replacement programme was due to start in 2012, and would have seen the familiar yellow Sea Kings of the RAF and the red and grey craft of the Royal Navy replaced by faster Sikorsky SAR-H S92A helicopters with a greater operational range. The scheme would have been run by the Soteria Consortium which includes Royal Bank of Scotland, French company Thales, Canadian Helicopter Corporation and Sikorsky. It would have used craft similar to ones used by the Coastguard in Scotland.
The suspension of the helicopter contract was by far the biggest cut in a list of projects that includes the proposed Stonehenge Visitor Centre and the Department of Health’s Active Challenge Routes with Walk England.
A total of 217 projects that had been given the go-ahead by the previous Government were resubmitted to Mr Alexander for approval. A total of 24 of them have been either cancelled or suspended, saving, the Treasury says, £10.8bn.
Danny Alexander: 'spending black hole'. Photo: Dave Radcliffe CC-BY-ND-2.0
Danny Alexander said: “We are determined to tackle the unprecedented budget deficit and bad financial management we have seen over the past decade, but are equally determined to do this in a way that is fair and responsible.
“As a result of the poor decisions made by the previous Government, I have taken the decision to cancel certain projects that do not represent good value for money, and suspend others pending full consideration in the spending review.
“We have also found another spending black hole in the previous Government’s plans; projects had been approved with no money in place to pay for them. I am determined to deal with this problem head-on and ensure we never see this kind of irresponsible financial planning in Government again.”
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government said it would review the search and rescue helicopter case as a matter of urgency.
Under the proposals for the helicopters, military search and rescue helicopter crews were to be reduced from 240 to 66, with civilian staff ‘trained to the same high standards’, according to the Ministry of Defence. The scheme would also have seen the closure of HMS Gannet and the relocation of the rescue helicopters to Glasgow Airport.
Although the RAF and RN Sea Kings and their crews are primarily a military provision, about 90 per cent of their work is carried out supporting civilian operations such as the country’s mountain rescue teams.
Walk England denied the £2m cuts to the Active Challenge Routes would lead to the abandonment of the project. A statement said: “The press reports today are incorrect. The Department of Health is still supporting the Walk4Like Miles project – formerly Active Challenge Routes.
“However, some of the funding that was to be allocated for promotion has been cut for 2011/12. This is in part due to the fact that Walk England has worked hard to deliver better value for money on this project by working in partnership with Change4Life and maximising the opportunities for promotion through that project.”
SuffolkSARGal
17 June 2010Great news! Hope the contract is shelved for good. The money would be much better invested in purchasing new helicopters for the existing, hard-working SAR forces rather than allocating the money to a private company who puts profits first. Why waste time and money training new civilian crews when you already have a first-class dedicated work force available? Ironically it will probably be the military at RAF Valley who end up training the civilian crews to do their old colleagues jobs, meanwhile the existing crews - in particular the paramedic qualified back crew - who risk their lives on an almost daily basis get made redundant or worse, 'reallocated' to the back of a Chinook with a machine gun in their hands.... what a mess.
rhodesy
17 June 2010Perhaps this is one example of how the cuts will be a good thing - I for one really opposed the plans to privatise rescue helicopters.
CiviSAR!
17 June 2010Very interesting post SARGal....
So does that mean the coastguard are going to get new helicopters too :-) Or do you not count us as a Hard working?
The company might put profit first but i think you will find the staff (crews and engineers) put the service we provide first. One part of interest is we are encouraged to train as much as we want as the company currently get paid for each training hour we fly.
Funny enough the Mil have to train new crews all the time.
Last time i visited a mil SAR base there was about 80 staff doing the work of 30 on a Civi Sar base.
Ironically enough the training would have been carried out at Valley for the new service, but the trainers would have been Civilians.
The RAF are not keen on having paramedics and were actively looking at dropping the requirement due to all the extra training they require......Civil bases are contractually required to have a Paramedic trained winchman on shift.
Last time i checked if you join the military you might end up in the back of a Chinook with a gun in your hand, I am guessing its a occupational hazard.
Rhodesy , why are you opposed to the plan?
Orlando
17 June 2010Problem will be - what to replace the plans with? Seaking is ageing and is due out of service by 2015-2017. Do we buy French helicopters (EC225- aaaaargh not the French!) Or Buy, outright, S92s for the RAF and RN to operate? Do we buy fewer Merlin SAR variants and close several current SAR bases to pay for them? Do we refurbish the Seakings and fit upgraded rotor blades (the Carson blade option). Can we keep Seaking going for another 10(?) years? Are there enough engine spares around to provide a reliable solution?
This is not small money. Whatever the government do it is going to cost a lot of money up front to buy aircraft followed by ongoing costs, year on year.
The contractor aircraft won't need newer aircraft as they already operate S92 in Scotland and Aw139 in the south of England. The AW139s were due to be replaced by S92s as were all UK Seakings.
My guess is the government are just putting the brakes on until they can get their heads around the figures and the problems. They will probably then go ahead but maybe with 3 or 4 less SAR bases to save money.
Neil R
17 June 2010I'm opposed to the plan because privatisation of services never turns out a good deal for the public.
Before privatisation: You have a SERVICE, run for the public and funded by tax revenues.
After privatisation: You have a PRODUCT, run by private shareholders for the benefit of the private shareholders. The price to the public will go up because, necessarily, the enterprise must now make a profit; the level and quality of service will, from experience of other privatisations, go down, to maximise that profitability. The public can no longer demand a certain level or quality, or a reasonable value for money, because they are only customers, not masters: they sold what they had to someone who can now hold them to ransome.
Put crudely, I admit, but there's the essence of every privatisation.
If the system we have has its faults (and of course it will) then work within it to solve those problems: don't just sell it all to the highest bidder.
rhodesy
17 June 2010Neil R has summed up my feelings on the matter
D
18 June 2010The Soteria consortium is simply too messy. Part privatisation never works, especially having military and civilian crews working together. A review of the consortium is welcome in my opinion and I hope that the result will be either to fund the military SAR services properly, or hand over full maritime SAR to the Coastguard. Lets not forget that SAR is very regularly called upon in the UK so should be included within the frontline services which the coalition govnt said only a few weeks ago would not be cut.
CiviSAR!
18 June 2010I think you will find the coastguard will need new aircraft as they have been sold to Ireland for the SAR contract there starting 2012 when the current UK Coastguard sar contract ends and SAR-H was due to start!
The coastguard have had a private company run there sar helicopter fleet for over 20 years and seem very happy with it, the costs have not increased substatialy in that time. The much lower cost of this service compaired to the mil was the main driving force for sar-h along with the government having no money for new helicopters!
SuffolkSARgal
18 June 2010Well said Neil R. The current SAR force has it's issues - mostly the Sea Kings breaking down! You've got the crews, you've got the infrastructure (pretty much) so why not give the service what it needs rather than selling it to the higest bidder with no guarantees that either the level or quality of service will remain the same?
Civi SAR - I agree with much of what you said to! My initial comment was directed at military services as I have most interaction with them and know the situation, stress and feelings involved. The Coast Guard perform a equally brilliant service! Isn't the Coast Guard is a government service too tho? Surely privatisation would also affect your role/crews/pay etc (the pay package Soteria were looking at offering was under what most of the crews currently get paid) if the Coast Guard crews would simply be transferred with TUPE protection then great for you, but do try and spare a thought for the military guys too.
True, they signed up for the military and as part of that role there is the possibility of war. However these guys worked their socks off to qualify for SAR and (taking most winchmen in particular) worked their socks off to become qualified paramedics. Having your job taken away from you and being re-tasked to empty a machine gun over a battle field is not only demoralising but a complete waste of skills and training. True the RAF had taken a step back from SAR medical qualifications, but would you spend thousands training people for a job that wouldn't exist in a few years? Of course not. The military are still training SAR crews and it will be interesting to see how they react to this news!
Scot Walker
18 June 2010Good news, I was against the privatisation and profit motive being introduced into SAR. The current setup is non-profit and manned by excellent people.
Ex-RN Commentator
18 June 2010My feeling was against purchasing S92s direct from Sikorski - whereas a purchase of an SAR version of Merlin would keep commonality with existing mil helicopters as both RN & RAF operate Merlin - and even more importantly, provide UK jobs at Westlands, Yeovil.
In any case, providing a second line service of SAR would offer 'home' postings for aircrews employed on Merlin in the front line.
Whether the Coastguard would then buy Mer;lin for commonality is debatable - but would keep more money witihn UK rather than spending money in the USA
23 years in too!
18 June 2010With the new defence review does anyone think that the MoD will continue to fund this luxury service which was going to be funded from elsewhere anyway? From what I had read the new service would have provided better cover with more availability.
As for the aircrew they should (and may well be for all I know) be in operational rotations with their colleagues flying in Helmand.
maoner
19 June 2010Dont you join the millitary with the understanding that you will go where ever and do what ever when you are told? including war?????
I am sure there are plenty of civiilin paramedics that can after training perform this role as the millitary guy's were not born winch men????
And as for paramedic training it will soon be impossible to training and qualify post 2013 due to the only pathway being through university on a full time 5 year programme or in full time ambulance service employ with university placement, cant see the millitary wanting to loose crews for that?
Neil
12 October 2010We have a decent search and rescue. I am opposed to the plans for many reasons:
1. Plans to move the SAR service from HMS Gannet:
As part of the deal, the current SAR service from Prestwick Airport will move to Glasgow Airport. What's the point? It's cost a lot of money to move, so why not save that and keep the base at Prestwick? It will be the end of HMS Gannet because SAR is the only reason for it being here today.
2. Other affected bases:
Three bases will be restricted to just day cover as part of this contract: Chivenor, Boulmer and Portland (already a daytime base). If they're responsible to ensure that all emergencies are reached in an hour. If they close the bases, how will other bases reach their area in an hour?
3. The reasons for privatisation:
The government is only doing this to replace the Sea Kings. I've seen several programmes involving them. They still work fine. And even if they need replaced, why not simply order new aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy, rather than remove their livery.
The Coast Guard will also be affected. Another part of the deal is to replace the current AW139's in the south of England. They're brand new! Why replace them when you just need to replace one aircraft.
This is one thing I'm glad the Tories have axed.