Exclusive: Military police investigate £6bn privatisation deal
January 27, 2011 7:41 pm by Alex Barker

Military police have been called in to examine allegations of improper conduct during bidding for the £6bn privatisation of the search and rescue helicopter service. It has brought the deal to the brink of collapse…. The main elements are:

– MoD police are investigating the access to information given to bidders and the relationship between a military officer, who has since left the forces, and CHC, a Canadian helicopter operator that is part of the Soteria consortium chosen as preferred bidder.

– Royal Bank of Scotland have pulled out of the Soteria consortium because their concerns over the allegations. It will make it much harder for the deal to be revived, even if the concerns over improper conduct prove to be unfounded…..

from http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/01/exclusive-military-police-investigate-6bn-privatisation-deal/

So maybe the SAR Sea Kings at least will be around for a few years more.

Sorry, in many cases Carrier and Land Based Aircraft will not be available. Especially, in the case of the former. As the USN will not operate Larger Carriers in or close to the Littorals for any period of time.

As a matter of fact the F-35B will be the only options in many cases. To provide continues Air Cover for Allied Amphibious Forces.

Two questions:

1. How far out do “the littorals” extend? Even if a CVN was a couple of hundred miles offshore, would its aircraft not still be able to provide cover for the Marines?

2. Part of the problem is that the USN only has “Larger Carriers”. Maybe it should also operate a class of light/medium carriers (20,000 to 40,000 tonnes), rather than exclusively 100,000 tonne nuclear supercarriers, to provide greater flexibility of deployment and operation?

You mean like this?

A more affordable alternative to the P-8

8 x C-295 Maritime patrol aircraft (with ASW capabilities?) – cost approx. £400 million in total?

Something of the size of a CVF if there is to be efficient deck management. This of course was I understand what the USMC wanted first off, as the RN did, the failure of the F35B to meet a number of important project milestones etc meant that the RN changed to F35C and CATOBAR.
The message to me is that if you want an F35B to take off with a decent fuel and weapons load you need a CVF sized vessel with a ski jump. If you want your F35B to be able to land back on without having to jettison unused weapons you need a CVF size vessel, to allow for rolling landing.
So if you need a CVF sized vessel for an F35B to operate efficiently from, or to have an arrestor wire setup on, remembering that if you are going STO this cannot be across the whole deck. It would seem far more sensible to just have CATOBAR F35Cs or F18s, simpler aircraft, ability to cross deck, longer range and cheaper.

Wouldn’t your deck management requirement depend on the number and size of aircraft and the required sortie generation rate etc.? Smaller and mid-size nations may just want a dozen or so fighters aboard.

You have to add the cost of the catapult systems to enable the operation of aircraft such as the F-18 and F-35C. Short take-off using a ski-jump avoids this extra expense. (The Russians can launch Su-33s and MiG-29Ks this way, both much heavier aircraft than the Gripen.)

Are the F-18 and F-35C “simpler aircraft” than a Gripen?? Cheaper?

How about one of these with some rocket pods?

Why?? Might as well go back to these (proven technology, carrier-capable, cheap….:diablo:)

Interesting arguments about Marine procurement policies in this Flight article on the AH-1Z attack helicopter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/20/351056/cutaway-ah-1z-viper-enters-production-as-substantially-new-aircraft.html

For example, (referring to the UH-1Y/AH-1Z programme) “..The H-1 programme originated largely because the Marines wanted to avoid ever taking any [Sikorsky] H-60s,” says Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, a Washington DC-based consultancy.

“Taking H-60s would have been enormously sensible in terms of costs, capabilities and intra-service commonality, but it would have jeopardised the [Bell Boeing] V-22 requirement, which was the Marines’ highest priority,” Aboulafia says…”