RAF sends air rescue helicopters to Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Aug 2, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The Sunday Times August 3, 2008

    RAF sends air rescue helicopters to Afghanistan
    Michael Smith
    The RAF is being forced to pull a fifth of its helicopter crews out of Britain’s search and rescue service and send them to Afghanistan in an attempt to stop soldiers being killed by roadside bombs.

    The move will drastically reduce the number of RAF Sea King helicopters available to rescue people in trouble at sea or caught in disasters such as last year’s floods.

    The RAF crews respond to an average of 1,000 emergency calls a year, varying from rescuing holidaymakers in difficulties to the 2004 floods that devastated the Cornish village of Boscastle.

    Cutting one of the five crews from each of the six RAF search and rescue stations around Britain will put at risk the current ability to respond to any emergency within an hour.
    More on the link
  2. Isn't it fortunate that we have a military SAR force (read an in-great-desperation reserve of trained and skilled crews) from which to pinch some chaps... leap ahead beyond the much vaunted privatisation of SAR in 2012 and what would happen then? Would we be able to bolster the front line in extremis in such a manner? No.

    I'm sure the brass would claim those crews post 2012 are permanantly released to front line and so thus this situation would not arise... but we all know that is arrse, afterall, surely the point of having reserves of strength (even if you don't call them that) is that you dont plan on using them and you maintain their availablity... no-one can know when you might be overstreached and in dire need of that support... ok, ok, so 39,000 RAF, 34,000 RN and 102,000 Army, their wives, wives' tennis partners, wives' tennis partners' friends and the whole of the English speaking world (bar ZanuLabour) have known and forseen the need for some time but you catch my drift.

    Will this cause a re-think of SAR privatisation?

    Will the sweeping privitisation of all manner of UK based jobs be halted or reversed because they realise the utility of having spare blokes in the system?

    Will Gordon Brown admit that a better way to honour the memory and courage of fallen soldiers, sailors and airmen he talks about in his recent book would be to fully support IN ALL RESPECTS their successors who too fight and die for each other in foreign fields?

    If true this is an incredible, if admittedly necessary, move. In my book this kind of thing is for the approach of WWIII - there is no way that we should be in this state over Afghan and Iraq; another indicator, as if it were needed, that we have past the elastic limit.
  3. They have realised that the spare aircraft do not need crews as they are unserviceable due to lack of spares or insufficient maintenance. Shows that privatising SAR really is a bad idea.


    When they are paying that with all the benefits you know they are getting desperate for people. Bet someone could get in with the bare minimum of experience. Not me though, don't want to live with all those sheep shaggers :D

  4. That is a crap wage for what they're after, if that's what the supervising technician is getting i wonder what they're paying the air techs?
  5. Peanuts, just like all the other positions for avionics techs around the UK. You should have seen what they were offering six months ago.
  6. no because spare capasity in the system = loss of profit :x still im sure that some people will be fine with this :roll:
  7. excellent post, but your preaching to the choir here. perhaps you could send a copy of that to your MP.
  8. From the article;
    Anyone got idea where these figures come from, or is it 'journalistic interpretation' ie pulled out of a hat?
  9. No they are a compilation of MoD responses to written answers

    Total fleet if all programmes happen

    Total fleet if LEPs on contract but Future Lynx goes ahead

    Total fleet if no LEP but Future Lynx goes ahead

    Total fleet if no LEP and no Future Lynx

    Source: compilation of Hansard answers
  10. Can't see us dropping to such a low figure, i'm also struggling with this 'future lynx' and 'LEP', aren't they one and the same, Future Lynx was all about the Lynx airframes coming up for Lifex and needing to replace them to keep the Lynx flying, so in short a life extension program?

    At present though i would have thought we had programs for a lot more helicopters, with the medium lift cargo, FLynx and others on the horizon.
  11. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    Where it says total fleet if all programes happen
    I take it that shows helicopters which are still in storage and my be still being built?
    I also assume it includes airframes with limited troop carrying capabilities (Gazelle,squirrel etc)
    Is there a seperate figure for heavy lift or troop carrying helicopters?

    I smell fudge and not in a nice way

    I could produce a receipt showing I own 600 helicopters but if you call my bluff I may come unstuck
  12. Where will they get the Sea King techies from, now that all the support went civvy at the start of the year ? The SAR aircraft are also pretty much on their last legs, and struggle to provide cover with 2 aircraft per unit!
  13. Can I take you back to the spring of 2004 and ask you, could you then see, amid Iraq going pear-shaped and in the full knowledge that we were committed to a major deployment to Afghanistan (agreed between Blair and Bush in April 2002) that the government would axe three infantry battalions; a dozen ships and a quarter of the RAF?

    It is certainly true that it is difficult to see how anyone sensible would let helicopters numbers go so low. Taylor declined to confirm at Farnborough that the government would go ahead with Future Lynx which the government has always insisted when touting it would cost around £1bn. The MoD accounts say it will cost £1.9bn, which is an oddly steep and completely unexplained rise in costs.

    Browne and Taylor have an in-tray full of helicopter programmes, including life extension programmes for the RAF’s Puma, the RN’s Sea King HC4 and the AAC Lynx AH.9., and yes they do need to life extend it to meet up with the ISD for Future Lynx whenever that might or might not be. Decisions are also needed soon on the modernisation of the bulk of RAF’s Chinooks and the launching of a competition to replace the troop carrying Puma and Sea Kings from 2017 with around 50 brand new helicopters.

    None of these contracts have been given the go-ahead and more than four months into the financial year PR08 has still not been signed off by No 10. It is as I say difficult to see how anyone sensible would let helicopter numbers go so low but having provided you with a whole raft of evidence I would like to see your evidence that anyone sensible is making the decisions.
  14. tin fiol hat moment.

    Is it just me or does it seem like labour are deliberately degrading our armed forces as a means to force us to join with the united states of europe armed forces as it will be the only way left to protect us?

    Call me paranoid, but broon has treasonously signed us up to become part of the USE, so maybe this is just part of the plan. there has also been talk of signing over our aircraft carriers for european use, an idea floated in the media to gauge public opinion, and rapidly denied what said opinion was very negative.

    I cannot believe any intelligent person can think that the cut-backs imposed on HM armend forces are sane considereing what is happening in the world, so perhaps ......
  15. Argee, the techs are on approx 1500ish less a year. Unusually for a newspaper the headline implies something other than the content of the article, Aircrews are going, not Airframes as I read it, funny that innit?