Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Helicopters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Helicopters

    cut from the orignal article I posted in the news section .....



    ................Critics claim that leasing and outsourcing aircraft doubles the cost to the taxpayer, deprives the exchequer of its own assets and reduces the Aer Corps' SAR training. The total cost of private outsourcing and maintenance is €45 million a year.

    The contract to acquire three medium-lift Sikorsky helicopters for €70 million, which was controversially abandoned two years ago on cost grounds, is still under review, said a spokesman for the Department of Defence.
    This is my arguement about the tender for those S-92's being cancelled. It was a botched decision by the government, it was made in light of "green flu", not fully understanding the arms industry with its offsets and thinking that the private sector can perform the job cheaper.:confused:

    Yet even if the contract is given out to the private sector the DF will still have to cover this service with the threat of strikes. "Renting out" SAR for €45 million when you can buy 3 helis for €70million is a joke and a foolish decision by the government.

    I havent read the tender for the ulititly heli tender but Im sure there is a mention of winches (or someone posted something about it)

    Within 1 and a 1/2 years you can purchase 3 helicopters with an expected life time of 20 years. The deal included numerous spare parts and the DF, most importantly the wing, would have the use of 3 medium lift helis.

    Those 3 S-92's should have been purchased (with 2 at a later date) along with 8 blackhawks and a trainer helicopter.

  • #2
    The reason that the military are losing out to commercial operators is due to cost. The cost of purchasing 3 brand new types (never a good idea) that you refer to is just that - the purchase of 3 helicopters. The contract with commercial operators covers EVERYTHING. If you really believe that the IAC can operate 4 large, IFR, 24 hour, fully crewed SAR helicopters at all you are living in dreamland - let alone do it cheaper than a commercial operator. And do you really think that the IAC could just stop providing a SAR service to use the helicopters for other military tasks? For Gods sake wake up man or confine your comments to something that you know about

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cuchulain
      The reason that the military are losing out to commercial operators is due to cost. The cost of purchasing 3 brand new types (never a good idea) that you refer to is just that - the purchase of 3 helicopters. The contract with commercial operators covers EVERYTHING. If you really believe that the IAC can operate 4 large, IFR, 24 hour, fully crewed SAR helicopters at all you are living in dreamland - let alone do it cheaper than a commercial operator. And do you really think that the IAC could just stop providing a SAR service to use the helicopters for other military tasks? For Gods sake wake up man or confine your comments to something that you know about
      Are you Hpt in disguise?
      Meh.

      Comment


      • #4
        For Gods sake wake up man or confine your comments to something that you know about
        Im fully awake and know what Im talking about. I wont confine my comments since this is a discussion board

        The cost of purchasing 3 brand new types (never a good idea) that you refer to is just that - the purchase of 3 helicopters.
        go and re read that S-92 bid, it included spare parts etc...

        buying new helicopters a bad idea ? I did note, the DF should purchase the extra 2, bringing the total to 5.

        you cant stick your head in the sand and run away for this issue

        Comment


        • #5
          If I have my head in the sand Andy then you have yours very firmly up your ar*se. You obviously know nothing about SAR operations.

          Comment


          • #6
            Cuchulain, as a matter of intrest, what evidence can you present that you know anything about SAR ops
            All you have presented, so far is a sh***Y attuide.



            If you really believe that the IAC can operate 4 large, IFR, 24 hour, fully crewed SAR helicopters at all you are living in dreamland

            Intresting comment; total bo**ox, but an intresting comment all the same.
            "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
            Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
            Illegitimi non carborundum

            Comment


            • #7
              45mil a year x 20 years, thats 900 milion and I would well believe the figure as not only do they charge to have the service in place they also charge per call out, I believe this can be checked by looking into Dept of Marine info.

              Anyway if the figure was even half this figure there is no way in hell that one unit of the DF would be allocated this much money, even considering wages, and remember if the helis are bought for the air corps they become a state asset, like any other state asset, and be far more flexible than sole use.

              Comment


              • #8
                Last time I heard,there is still a requirment for at least two MLH. The new Light utility helis will pave the way to the successful operation of this type,given the required financial commitment. Whether or not these will be used to compete in at least one of the SAR tenders around the country remains to be seen,though it may be retained as a standby asset in case of major emergencies.
                The new tender,mentioned elsewhere,suggests aircraft fitted with rescue hoists,and capable of being fitted out as air ambulances,but no mention of Dedicated Over water SAR is mentioned.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  45million pa? Where is that figure coming from? Even Lorna Siggin's book mentions €30 Million as the payment. Figures are probably in previous PQs.

                  Ok, some facts. That figure is for 3 aircraft on station. To provide a similar level of cover, the Air Corps would need to have at least 5 aircraft, and these would all have to be dedicated SAR assets, which means no deployment and no army co-op.

                  On costs, the figures mentioned (be it 45 or 30m) covers everything included in running the service; fuel, insurance, salaries, pensions, aircraft maintenance, crew training, depreciation, everything. To have the AC do this would cost the state a lot more, but the costs would be buried in the DoD budget, or more likely, wouldn't be properly found and spent, so that the service would be half assed and underfunded, and the AC would get the blame for any 'accidents' that ensued.

                  The only thing that matters here is the service provided, sailors and fishermen need a dedicated, professional, day, night and foul weather capable air sea rescue service. Who provides it is completely irrelevant. To have the Air Corps running this service means that the heli wing is entirely organised around the SAR tasking, its too small to do this and another job at the same time.

                  The re-orientation of the AC to more military roles is a welcome thing, and something that they couldn't expect to do while providing SAR at the same time. They are better off without SAR, and SAR is better off without them.

                  The AC needs to be able to provide a contingent capacity, both in IR situations and in the case of a major disaster, but I can't see any reason why they should have to be asked to do what is a civilian function. Are there any real reasons or is this purely an emotional response from our younger posters?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    well I still remain unconvienced. I dont think the decision to privatise SAR was taken in the cold light of day, it was a reactive decision more than anything to do with "planning".

                    I dont know much about the private company operating this service or its track record, it remains to be seen if they can actually deliver on service and price.

                    After around a year of operation it will be come apparent the real finanical costs and the actual service. That medium lift deal had major offsets,it had spare parts and a option for 2 more helis. It was pretty cheap and good value in my eyes and finanically I think the Aircorps do the job for cheaper offering a better service.

                    Were still going to have to cover SAR and some of the air corps assests will be tied up in that.

                    This could all back fire on the government and turn into another rail track. But if it genuinely works out cheaper for the tax payer and its better for the DF then im all for it.

                    just found out its the same company thats operating at the moment...
                    Last edited by andy; 14 June 2004, 15:22.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      45million pa? Where is that figure coming from? Even Lorna Siggin's book mentions €30 Million as the payment. Figures are probably in previous PQs.
                      Currently the cost is €30 million and thats only for Dublin Shannon and Waterford. Add the north west on to that and the figure easily goes to €45 million P.A.

                      Aidan, this was taken out of the Sunday Business Post. The comments regarding SAR where from a business point of view.. i.e finanically is privatisation cheaper or better?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Currently the cost is €30 million and thats only for Dublin Shannon and Waterford. Add the north west on to that and the figure easily goes to €45 million P.A.

                        No it doesn't, if its €30mill for three, then surely it should be €40m for 4.

                        The company involved has many years of experience, in fact it has significantly more experience with long range SAR than the Air Corps.

                        That medium lift deal had major offsets,it had spare parts and a option for 2 more helis. It was pretty cheap and good value in my eyes

                        To accept the offsets would have meant a legal challenge to the deal which would have prevented a purchase in the first place. And it was not cheap, or good value. The S-92 has yet to enter military service anywhere, and is still an unknown quantity.

                        and finanically I think the Aircorps do the job for cheaper offering a better service.

                        Unless you have some figures to back that up, its just an opinion with no basis in fact. The better service piece is debatable, particularly given the recent issues in Sligo (or in your magical world, would all that just dissapear?).

                        still going to have to cover SAR and some of the air corps assests will be tied up in that.

                        No they won't, and certainly not to the same extent as having 4 MLH on call and ready 24/7. Under the new arrangements, all that will be required is to have the aircraft capable of SAR in an emergency, no having aircraft on call and that that implies for servicing and maintenance.

                        Comment


                        • #13

                          No it doesn't, if its €30mill for three, then surely it should be €40m for 4.
                          The North West is a bigger area to cover. Its not going to stop at €40 P.A.

                          To accept the offsets would have meant a legal challenge to the deal which would have prevented a purchase in the first place. And it was not cheap, or good value. The S-92 has yet to enter military service anywhere, and is still an unknown quantity.
                          The tender was a botched tender. Another example of the government making a mess of it. How they didnt factor in offsets is unknown to me. Perhaps the S-92 is unproven but its still won. Nothing is cheap, but the deal on offer taking in the offsets and capabilities of the helicopter was value for money. If they government did go ahead with the S-92, it would have met all the needs of SAR. The issue would have been closed.

                          and finanically I think the Aircorps do the job for cheaper offering a better service.


                          Unless you have some figures to back that up, its just an opinion with no basis in fact. The better service piece is debatable, particularly given the recent issues in Sligo (or in your magical world, would all that just dissapear?).

                          The fact that the medium lift heli tender is going under review, demonstrates that there are draw backs to a private company providing the serivce. Its a fudge, they didnt go ahead with the tender because they made a mess of it, poor economic conditions and short sightedness of Smith. Privatisation still doesnt entirely solve the issue since the air corps has still not been fully released from SAR.

                          It also flags up that the government has not a well thought out policy regarding SAR and they are simply responding to incidents without any long term strategy.

                          Incidents with the Air Corps shown that the government failed to provide them with the necessary equipment to do their job. They were offering a great service with the sh1te equipment they had to fly in. Instead of simply addressing the problems with equipment they went down this route of privatisation and the problems and cost associated with it.


                          still going to have to cover SAR and some of the air corps assests will be tied up in that.

                          No they won't, and certainly not to the same extent as having 4 MLH on call and ready 24/7. Under the new arrangements, all that will be required is to have the aircraft capable of SAR in an emergency, no having aircraft on call and that that implies for servicing and maintenance.
                          :confused: So they will have to provide SAR back up and provide some the helis and training for it. When else do you need a heli for SAR except for an emergency? The aircorps were providing this 24/7 in some areas but lacked the helis to cover the 4 areas. Its not a huge demand on the A.C. its the lack of modern helicopters that was the problem.

                          The question im putting forward is this:-

                          Under the new arrangements the government is paying out €45million a year for a private company to operate the service.

                          This sums up to €900million (in todays money, but the actual cost will be a lot more with inflation) while the contract for the 4 s-92's was something in the region of €70million (with offsets,total cost is €70m,subtract the intrest savings).

                          However the new arrangement doesnt even completly solve the SAR service. The DF is still providing some of its resources as a back up. It is interferring with the new tender for the utility helis.

                          From experience the DF can provide this service as cheap and as good. This service by its nature is best suited to the military, there is no overtime,strikes etc. There has been no "freeing up"of air corps assets since they hadnt any medium lift helis assets in the first place.

                          Its clear as day, the government have made a balls of this whole thing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Perhaps the S-92 is unproven but its still won

                            No it didn't, the EC-725 did. The decsion was changed for political reasons after the tender committee reported, as was reported in the press at the time. And if offsets had been included in the deal, who's to know that either of the other two contenders wouldn't have been in a position to offer a better deal?

                            From experience the DF can provide this service as cheap and as good. This service by its nature is best suited to the military, there is no overtime,strikes etc

                            What experience? Like you said yourself, the AC has never really operated MLH in the SAR role (Apart from about a year in 1982 with an SA330 and a few months with an S.61), and it couldn't even keep the S.61 operational without, wait for it, a strike! Nice one Andy.

                            And anyway, what else is there about SAR that means it /has/ to be provided by the military? Driving buses in parts of Dublin is dangerous, should the army do that? Firemen get stones thrown at them in some areas, should that be military also? Lets have one good, logical reason why SAR has to be a military function.

                            There has been no "freeing up"of air corps assets since they hadnt any medium lift helis assets in the first place.

                            There is more to the AC than just helicopters, there are also things like staff time, fuel, maintenance time and available flight hours. Also, see the reports that the Dauphin and Alouette's are both already seeing a lot more military training.

                            It also flags up that the government has not a well thought out policy regarding SAR and they are simply responding to incidents without any long term strategy

                            Again, you don't know that. Looks to me that, if you take the last 10 years, things have evolved along a fairly predicable path with an increasing input by private contractors into SAR.

                            This sums up to €900million (in todays money, but the actual cost will be a lot more with inflation) while the contract for the 4 s-92's was something in the region of €70million (with offsets,total cost is €70m,subtract the intrest savings).

                            The order was for three aircraft with an option for two more. The three were SAR, the two potential were for TTH duties. The costs would have been spent over 3 years. Now, three helis are not enough to keep 4 on station, you'd need 5 or (to be even nearly safe) 6. So, in short, you'd need a capital investment of at least 120mill to deliver the same level of service as the private contracts do now.

                            Now lets consider the other costs involved. The AC would have to train pilots, pay them and provide a state pension. The AC would have to train maintenance crew, pay them and provide pensions. The AC would have to invest heavily in facilities and machinery. And the AC would have to pay for fuel, parts and repairs. For 20 years! Do you think these things are free just because its the government? Trust me, your 900m figure would look very small next to that lot.

                            I'd have no problem justifying spending that amount of money on the aircorps if it granted an appreciable increase in the usefulness of the AC to the state, as it stands the SAR role can be better dealt with by the private sector, let them off, the AC have other things to be doing.


                            Oh, and as for;

                            When else do you need a heli for SAR except for an emergency?...

                            The emergency referred to is generally considered to be a ferry in trouble in the Irish sea or something of that magnitude; its a scenario that has been long planned for and has little implications for having aircraft ready on the ramp at all times because there would be enough warning to stand-to and get aircraft in the air.

                            Its not a huge demand on the A.C.

                            Um, yes, it is. Have you being paying attention over the last 20 years?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              what a load of complete rubbish Aidan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X