Armoured Ambulances

958

Samaritan is the armoured ambulance variant of the CVR(T) family.

FV 104 Samaritan CVR(T)

One of the variants/roles that would seem to have fallen by the wayside in the Ajax family is that of Armoured Ambulance.

AJAX family

The original line-up had Direct Fire, Bridgelayer and Ambulance but in the recent DSEi announcements, and details previously released, these variants will no longer be obtained.

FRES to Scout 1

 

Outside of the armoured cavalry regiments, Viking and Warthog have an ambulance variant, and six Warriors were converted to the role specifically for Afghanistan.

But beyond those, it is wheeled vehicles, Land Rover and Ridgeback.

Until a decision is made on the Warrior Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle (ABSV) and possible ambulance conversions, as Samaritan goes out of service, the antique FV432 will have to soldier on in the ambulance role.

FV432 Ambulance

What will support units with Ajax for medical evacuation?

A MERT Chinook or other helicopter cannot be relied upon, especially in conventional manoeuvre operations against an enemy with a competent air defence capability.

Given that Ajax is supposed to operate forward of the main battlegroup, conventional wisdom requires it to have organic ambulance capability with the same mobility, and for logistics simplicity, it should be based on the same vehicle family.

Looking forward to MIV, the main contenders (except VBCI) all have ambulance variants but it is concerning that for the Ajax family at least, the ambulance variant seems to not be on the order list.

Recent trends in civilian ambulances have seen them merging of fire and rescue vehicles. For road traffic incidents, a single vehicle with equipment that can put out a vehicle fire, cut the casualties free and then treat/transport is seen as the latest in good practice, the Telstar from Terberg UK being a good example;

I wonder if this civilian trend is transferable to a military combat ambulance responding to vehicle casualties?

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JamesF

There is an ambulance requirement under MRV-P; although I guess that’s an in theatre Landrover Ambulance replacement? Maybe Samaritan will have to soldier on, or re-role the relatively new and highly mobile Warthogs – most Warthogs have gone to the RA UAV regiments – not much use for an ambulance there? A combined recovery vehicle and ambulance is an intriguing idea.

Hohum
Hohum

At a guess, now embedded in ABSV following the FV515 conversion experience.

HMArmedForcesReview
HMArmedForcesReview

I thought with UV or MIV, the big brains of DES or DSTL will get a wheeled replacement for Ridgback. If not, why call the Army 2020 medical regiments armoured medical regiments?

Frenchie
Frenchie

I think a modernised Warrior would be good for this variant.

S O
S O

I think there are three sensible options
(1) MedEvac by helicopter, which is restricted by weather, terrain, threats and costs.
(2) MedEvac in ‘calm’ situations, which can be done with 4×4 vehicles easily (back in WW2, even underpowered 4×2 were used).
(3) MedEvac under fire. I suppose this should be as simple as using a standard (H)APC for a 2 km distance with nothing more dedicated than a combat medic onboard, then transfer to (2). This means the roof-hinged seats need to be foldable to ovver enough floor space for several wounded.
A dedicated ‘red cross’ vehicle wouldn’t enjoy much of a survivability benefit anyway because the hostiles will suspect it’s being used to supply ammunition.

Dedicated MedEvac AFVs don’t look sensible to me. They look like typical unrealistic peacetime thinking. I may be influenced by some astonishment about the many different specialist versions of SdKfz 251 – specialist versions in use while the basic and most valuable (life saving) basic APC version was in incredibly short supply (and useful or field-adaptable for the purpose of most specialist versions).

HMArmedForcesReview
HMArmedForcesReview

I don’t follow all the Army’s tactics but I thought the British Army uses a mix of forces to form its BRF–Brigade Recce Force? So doesn’t that mean Ajax plus 5 RA, plus foot scouts, plus other vehicles from other units/regiments? So a typical BRF would have a medical vehicle of some sort–not always equal to Ajax or the lead Scout vehicle, but something.

Observer
Observer

There is a big flaw in using a combination recovery vehicle and ambulance.

Despite the name, “recovery vehicles” sometimes do their recovery and repair near the front. Casevac on the other hand needs to move casualties to the rear where the field hospitals are. Combining the two gives you contradictory conditions. Evacuate casualties to the rear fast where every minute improves their chances? Or stay in the front to replace that desperately needed APC powerpack that KOed?

I would think helivac is more than enough, pilots on such missions into enemy territory usually fly very low to avoid AA systems anyhow, and by low, I mean *below* treetop level along roads or rivers. In fact, how is heli-vac different from rescuing downed pilots behind enemy lines? The US has been doing that for decades, heli-vac being one of the most famous roles for the old UH-1 Huey.

Engineer Tom

That is a point is there any armoured fire fighting capability in case of a vehicle fire. As I understand it basically they just leave them to burn whilst using fire extinguishers to escape the vehicle and rescue anyone trapped when possible.

Observer
Observer

@ET

Armoured vehicles usually have an engine fire extinguisher system inside that can be activated.

IIRC, there was one episode of War Wagons where a Warthog overheated and had an engine fire and the crewman yanked the extinguisher lever only to have it break off in his hand.

So basically, armoured vehicles usually have the system already inbuilt into them.

@TD

Toss a Jaws of Life into the ambulance. :)

Mike W

@JamesF and others

“There is an ambulance requirement under MRV-P; although I guess that’s an in theatre Landrover Ambulance replacement?”

I read a document published by the MOD a few years ago that listed listed some of the British Army’s priorities for new vehicles. To the best of my knowledge four vehicles were listed: the Multi Role Vehicle Protected (MRV(P); the NAV-P; the Light Recovery Vehicle and the Future Battlefield Ambulance.

I am pretty sure that the Future battlefield ambulance was listed as a separate development programme from the MRV(P), although he MRV(P) might well include an ambulance version. I was under the impression that the Future Battlefield Ambulance was going to be wheeled and the replacement for the Land Rover ambulance still in service.

I saw no mention of the future ambulance in the news from DSEI. Can anyone shed any light on the situation? Come to that I saw no mention of the NAV-P or the Light Recovery Vehicle either. Anyone know what is happening?

JamesF

@MikeW – I saw a MoD death by powerpoint graphic on MRV-P which showed the FBA as a variant of MRV-P. In fact it showed a 2+2 light liaison vehicle, a 2+2 (+ 2 dismounted under shelter) command vehicle (with space for comms), A 2+6 personel carrier, a 2+0 load carrier and a 2 + 2 Ambulance. Only the liaison vehlice seemed to be a differetn chassis – the rest a 4×4 7t vehicle. But who knows?

JamesF

Actually – I got that wrong – all of the variants are light except the personnel carrier.

Mike W

@JamesF

Many thanks for the reply. It looks as if the Battlefield Ambulance programme has been conflated with the MRV(P) then. I haven’t got a clue as to when we shall be getting them. These programmes seem to be pushed further and further back.

PhilEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
PhilEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

There’s a Ambulance design as part of the SV development phase. Just MoD have not yet chosen to purchase any.

General consensus is that old Warrior hulls will be used and turned into a Wambulance.

Lord Jim
Lord Jim

This doesn’t seem to be a major issue to me. As has been pointed out, existing platforms can do the job, especially the Samaritan, and we have a multitude of options for their replacement, be it ABSV, MIV or Ajax, the MOD just has to choose one. Replacement of the Landrover should be the top priority, but as yet I haven’t seen any timescales for either MIV or MRV(P), but I am assuming they are both post 2020.

Observer
Observer

What I find a pity is that Landrover is a very good vehicle, but the commentary from Afghanistan et al is going to push against any future purchase of the vehicle. It is hardly the fault of the Landrover if it was used as something unintended (mine resistanr MRAP), it can still be used in areas not involved in a COIN campaign, which is anywhere else other than Afghanistan and Iraq.

Chris
Chris

Also very important – the Landrover is tough, simple and (compared to modern usurpers) easy to fix.

Somewhere over the last 50 years we seem to have lost sight of the benefits of designing things (of all varieties) as simple as possible. Simple is good: Simple means a minimum purchase price. Simple means easy to understand. Simple means easy to diagnose when things go wrong. Simple means easy to fix. And in the military context if something is simple enough for the User to diagnose (essentially ‘Where’s that smoke coming from?’) and repair with a hammer, pliers, steel wire and gaffa tape, then simple means staying alive.

I hate the idea that the future soldier will be put in situations when their vehicle refuses to operate but displays a Big Blue Screen of Death to them informing them there’s a Fatal Registry Error and telling them to contact their System Administrator. Not at all useful when bullets are flying. But it is the direction even simple role vehicles seem to be going – if its not really sophisticated then it fails the Gucci Gold Plate test and is not worth procuring, it seems.

Back in the 1980s, the Quality Manager at work had an interest in the way language morphed as time passed. He kept a Victorian dictionary in his desk which he’d dip into at tea-breaks. One time I went to see him on business I found him peering at the book; “Listen to this” he said, “This is the definition of ‘Sophisticated’ – complicated, compromised, bastardised, unnecessarily complex…” I couldn’t agree more.

Lord Jim
Lord Jim

As has been pointed out many times in other topics, warfare today means there is no frontline etc. Even states have seen the effectiveness asymmetric operations, and not playing fair. In theatre every vehicle need to be protected to some extent or other.

I fully agree about keeping things simple but we, like many other western nations have decided that technology is the way forward. Maybe the way forward is a half way house where key systems like the drivetrain are kept as user friendly as possible so that even if the high tech comms and sensors go U/S the platform can still get out of trouble. Another would be having a manual back up to a RWS so although a crewman has to expose himself he is able to operate the weapon, dependant on type.

Looking at the MRV(P), I think the Troop Carrier should be 2+8 and the transport should use the same chassis, increasing its cargo capacity. I believe the British Army still use four man fire teams so a capacity of eight dismounts would provide an APC able to carry a section, ideal for the Infantry in the Adaptable Force for example.

HMArmedForcesReview
HMArmedForcesReview

But a AI section dismounts 7 men and I thought the 1st Div section is now reduce to 6 soldiers? Increase to 8 is fine but that would cross over the 82,000 mark.

Maybe.

In my view, Bulldog will stay for the long long future.

Observer
Observer

@Chris

Damn straight, the LR’s rugged simplicity is one of the reasons why it is so good.

@LJ

I disagree. The *last 2* conflicts you fought showed that there are no frontlines, specifically because they are COIN “wars”. This does not mean that there will not be any conventional conflicts any more and neither does it mean that every part of the world would be in a state of insurgency (if it were, you got one hell of a PR problem). It is in these non-hostile areas where the LR would be used along with rear areas in a conventional war. You never heard of Jeeps being called deathtraps in WWII did you? And they had a lot more men moving around than anything we can scrape up today.

The problem isn’t the vehicle, the problem was using it where it was not meant to and maybe an underestimation in the IED threat ramp up time, IIRC during the early years in Afghanistan, IEDs were not as prevalent and the insurgents only turned to them later when they realized they could not go toe to toe with the coalition forces.

JamesF

@TD, I was also thinking about something that could get to a vehicle hit by an IED and extract the crew, so some elements of a recovery vehicles – e.g. get to a vehicle down a ravine or into one on its side (a smaller winch maybe), plus as you suggest tools put out fires, get in and cut the crew out. You might need someone with some basic counter-IED training as part of a multi-disciplinary rescue team.

Frenchie
Frenchie

I had read somewhere that the British Army was interested by our future Griffon for his ambulance version, it is just a rumor.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven

‘it can still be used in areas not involved in a COIN campaign, which is anywhere else other than Afghanistan and Iraq.’

Our experience in numerous operations from Bosnia, Rwanda, Angola and Kosovo says that you assertion is mistaken.

Observer
Observer

@DN

And your experiences in the UK? How many landrovers were destroyed in the UK by IEDs since GW1? Just because an area is not in the news does not mean you are not operating in them. Besides, need to ask RT if the LR was a liability in Bosnia, he was on site there and should be able to tell us if it was as bad as you assumed it to be. IIRC I never heard about Bosnia being hard on LR, mostly because they were using mostly infantry and shoot and scoot instead of mechanized and IED access denial tactics.

stephen duckworth

I do believe we are still in the market for a 4×4 thin skinned vehicle for running around just as you state , in non-combat areas doing all those little journeys/tasks a Foxhound would be 1) unavailable for as we have so few , we are looking at buying 10,000’s light skins. 2) a complete waste of the Foxhound mileage allowance.

Hohum
Hohum

The LR is a piece of junk for any sort of protected patrol and should have never been used in that role, it’s chassis is just too light. There is a reason why the Humber Pig lasted so long and its an instructive vehicle. The Pig took a proper truck (in the British rather than US sense of the word) chassis, suspension and powertrain and turned it into a PPV. That is basically what every good PPV design has done subsequently, upto and including M-ATV which the Oshkosh JLTV evolves.

The same thing is now happening with open-topped patrol/recce vehicles now too with those same PPV’s losing their roofs and gaining roll cages instead. Jackal is really just a bespoke ground-up approach to achieving the same thing; something heavier and tougher than a commercial light 4×4 chassis can ever offer.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven

@Observer

We don’t need Landrovers in the UK we could just lease commercial vehicles if we wanted. What’s one of the biggest threats facing peacekeepers and units involved in post conflict ops? Look up the composition of the emergency response teams in Bosnia (forerunner to MERT) and it might give you a clue, in addition ask yourself why we deployed Mamba vehicles and in some cases Snatch landrovers (which were found sub optimal for the role). IED’s in Afghan and Iraq are just the final culmination of what we have been learning since the early 90’s. Incidentally one of our first casualties in Afghan was by a suicide bomber in Kabul and two RE were killed as part of a convoy during the very early stages of the conventional invasion of Iraq.

Observer
Observer

That is the problem DN, you are looking purely at conflict zones. There are a lot of other areas where it is “not” a conflict zone, and stephan pointed out one of the reasons why you use non-IED vehicles in those areas.

As for rental, it’s usually more expensive and I doubt any commercial rental company can supply the whole military on a daily basis. Supplement, yes, take over? That is a lot of vehicles. I think there was a chart of IED attacks posted once, in the first 2 years, IED attacks were almost non-existent then there was a sudden upswing past that. I think that corresponded to the shift in tactics, training and material by the insurgents after they realized going head to head was a losing proposition. I’ll try to look for it.

Hohum
Hohum

Observer,

The UK already “rents” such vehicles through project Phoenix. In such a scenario the LR is just another 4×4 and frankly offers nothing special these days, in fact its not even suitable/the best vehicle for a lot of non-combat roles.

Observer
Observer

http://csis.org/publication/afghan-and-iraqi-metrics-and-ied-threat-afghanistan

Afghanistan

The situation is very different in Afghanistan. IED attacks have continued to increase, both in terms of WIA and KIA. The updated data shows this increase through September 2010. The data show a dramatic increase in both KIA and WIA beginning in mid-2009 and continuing steadily throughout 2010.

So the upswing was around 2009.

Hohum
Hohum

Observer,

I am not sure what your point is, that IED activity in Afghan picked up as Taliban operations against the coalition escalated (and the coalition increased its presence), well no excrement.

I don’t really get how that justifies using a crappy LR instead of a real PPV for patrol and recce work though.

Jonathan
Jonathan

Sorry had to say. The hybrid ambulance Fire rescue vehicle would seem to be one of the most stupid ideas I’ve come across in a while.

Not sure how it could work. You don’t tend to see the ambulance service and fire service leave an RTC at the same time…….They have different jobs and at the point the casualty is secured in the back of the ambulance need to be differing places ( fire service making safe on scene and ambulance service heading as quick as you like to definitive care). So you would need two hybrids ( bet they cost more and are not as good as dedicated vehicles) to replace two dedicated ( best at what they do) vehicles…..

O yes and ambulances carry lots of oxygen………fire service vehicles tend to go a bit more oxygen lite…..

From the picture they look stupid cramped…… Casualty, Basis Dr and a couple of paramedics in the back of that…. Someone’s going to get a needle stick injury……

They don’t have tail gate lifts…. This is modern ( could I have a side of fries with my Big Mac) Britain, you need a lift…or you work force all end up off with bad backs.

AndrewB
AndrewB

Sorry can’t agree that the concept is stupid.
The vehicle as shown is in the livery of Devon and Cornwall very rural.
‘m sure that if the fire service get there first it’s a good capability to be able to deal with 90% of the fire service roll and still be able to deal with a casualty.
With budgets stretched across the NHS the ambulance service is often at breaking point. Many ambulance services cannot cope with the demands placed on them with the budget cuts. It’s not uncommon to have to wait a long time for an abulance. Recently I waited over an hour for the Amulance service to attend to assist someone with the most painful looking dislocated shoulder I have seen in a long time and this was West London. Now it the fire service could have attended and treated him that would be a massive advantage.

Jonathan
Jonathan

Hi Andrew
Understand you comment and to a degree you are right, integration and flexibility is good when you have roles that work across an interface and have close skill sets/knowledge base. The problem with this concept is that medical and fire services are apples and pears. They are at the same place but the roles and training are completely different. Also the key cost and limiting factor on resources is well trained bodies. Yes you could give the fire service hybrid rescue and ambulance vehicles but they would still be crewed by the fire service, unless you strip the ambulance service of paramedics. The limiting factor for ambulance services is not vehicles ( they have those), it’s the number of paramedics they can recruit/train within their budget each of which takes 3 years to qualify and cost around 50k to employ per year.

It’s also inefficient, if you have a hybrid vehicle and crew, half the calls you will have a paramedic who’s not needed and being wasted ( he could be in a fast response car or crewing an ambulance) the other half of the time you will have a fire crew hanging out while the paramedic is checking over someone with minor injuries.

You must remember its only a very small number of 999 calls that will need both services.

Then you have what I mentioned in the other post.

I honestly spend most of my working day trying to developed integrated working within health, emergency services and social care. When it works it’s great at improving the quality,but you need to first understand the benefits against any potential loss of efficiency.

Where you could have gains is in joint call centres, budgets, management structures and some common very basis training elements.

Observer
Observer

@AndrewB

A dislocated shoulder is hardly a life threatening injury, if you combined the vehicles, what happens if you get, for example, a house fire threatening to spread to the neighbours…. and a casualty with 70% burns that need immediate evac to a hospital? Leave the casualty and hope he’s still alive after you put out the fire? Or evacuate him and hope that the fire can be contained without you on the scene? If you have an ambulance waiting time, that is not the fault of the vehicle, it is probably the fault of the process or distance.

And an hour is already quite good, 1 hour is usually the “international standard” upper limit for response times. At least until they invent the teleporter. STAT lab tests for A&E are one hour, no matter how hard you scream, some things can’t be rushed.

And a dislocation isn’t fatal.

What I think TD was aiming for is an ambulance with casualty extraction capabilities, which is basically a DART (Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team) or HSAR (Heavy Search and Rescue).

Brian Black
Brian Black

The Americans recently aborted a plan to use Stryker variants as the new ambulance for their armored brigades. It was eventually concluded that they needed the same protection and mobility of their IFVs at the front end.

I thought the British Army had identified the need for an SV ambulance variant, and the repurposed Warriors were going to fill other roles. So I guess the 432 ambulances and half dozen Afghan Warriors will do the job for the foreseeable future.

I can’t see the British Army picking up Griffin ambulances, Frenchie. That type of hybrid MRAP/APC would probably be practical for the heavy protected mobility battalions, and perhaps command or mortar carrying variants for the light protected battalions too; but I don’t think all those Mastif and Ridgeback will disappear anytime soon. They may well be replaced in the protected infantry battalions, but I doubt that they will have dramatically deteriorated between leaving Afghanistan and their supposed out-of-service date in the early 2020s. There’ll be some of those still knocking about in the 2040s probably, and I expect in the near term they will make perfectly good protected ambulances. If they bought Griffin, an ambulance would be way down the list of priorities.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven

@Observer

As I have pointed out we have not come to the conclusion of needing a requirement such MRV-P etc from Iraq and Afghanistan alone, I gave you a list of deployments that the UK armed forces were involved in from 1992 up to the invasion of Iraq which have informed our thinking let alone adding the experience of the troubles as well. Anyone who still believes in frontline and rear areas is thinking in decades old scenarios which are purely based on a defensive posture, the UK on the other hand since the end of the cold war have deployed our armed forces in support of peacekeeping, peace enforcement and post conflict stabilisation. So why would we bother with the ownership costs of a vehicle that we are probably going to leave behind?

Observer
Observer

@DN

To save the running hours of the vehicles you are not leaving behind? Not everything needs a MRAP-vehicle. For example, driving the range safety officer to the range, shipping food to the troops on exercise, moving administrative stores like GS tables and picnic lanterns and map boards for the exercise CP? If you needed MRAPs for everything like that, it starts to look ridiculous. Can you imagine a needing a Husky for the cookhouse to ship food for the troops on field exercises? In the UK? Or using a Warthog to show a VIP around Devron? That is my point, not every place is a warzone, and for every country you intervene in, there are a lot of others that are peaceful. You don’t need to wear down mileage and running hours using vehicles in armour there, having a vehicle lug around armour is not casual, it is hell on the drive and suspension. That is one of the reasons why a lot of training vehicles are not loaded to the gills with applique on exercises.

Right tool for the right job. Peaceful areas: thin skinned, non-armoured 4 wheeled vehicles (pickup trucks/UTEs), COIN: MRAPs, All out war: CR2, Warrior etc.

Come to think of it, didn’t Bastion use 4x4s to move stores around?

Hohum
Hohum

Observer,

As has already been explained to you there are plenty of commercial vehicles that can and do fulfill that role. The LR not necessarily being suitable to the given specific role.

A Caribbean Perspective
A Caribbean Perspective

I think the concept of providing medical assistance via the fire service is used in other countries – the USA and France come to mind – primarily because they are the first responders to a lot of incidents and are actually the ones that call in the heavy backup, if needed. Having the capability to perform triage at the site and then determine the appropriate level of medical assistance needed is at least worth trying (and being able to treat and transport minor casualties actually frees up other equipment)

Observer
Observer

Found a blast from the past

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/springer-when-uors-go-bad/

This was what I remembered reading about, stores vehicles from helipad to FOB. None of the proposed solutions are mine resistant, yet no one can say they are useless.

Frenchie
Frenchie

Thank you for your explanations Brian Black ;-)

Jonathan
Jonathan

When looking at what ambulance you want you do need to ask yourself what is its purpose.
1) the traditional transportation to a definitive care centre.
2) the provision of out of hospital care, then potentially transport to definative care.

This change in role from task one ( scoop and shoot) to the the delivery of front line care (task two) is why we moved from the nippy little leyland DAF ( loved by its crews) to the the big wide boxes on wheels ( turned over on many occasions by ex DAF drivers).

If you are happy with task one a converted landrover or other space restricted vehicle is fine. If you want your medical teams to be treating the patient as soon as possible and on the move you need space. If you want it protected that means one of the larger map vehicles on the market.

From personal experience landrover based ambulances are S@&t, there is no space for more than the casualty and one medic, you need at least two in your crew to manage a trauma case one at the head managing airway, one doing everything else. O yes and they roll around, but that’s 4x4s I suppose.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven

@Observer

‘None of the proposed solutions are mine resistant’

No but Springer was protected and not used for any general role you are advocating for a soft skin 4×4.

Observer
Observer

DN, that was why I keep saying you’re fixated on the “combat” portion, my point was that you need the soft skinned vehicles for operations other than patrols, like logistics in non-hostile areas to save up in time and cost for those armoured ones you wanted.

As for Springer, you seen the structure? If that is protected, a band aid is armour.

How is the “LR” different from the Jeep in WWII? And that was an even larger scale conflict than anything now, yet people don’t call them deathtraps despite mines and artillery. Maybe because they were not usually used where they were not meant to be?

Observer
Observer

Missed Jonathan’s post

@Jonathan

I kind of have fond memories of the “safety rover”. Especially considering whenever I was injured, it was “there now” instead of having to wait for the ambulance. That might bias me. :)

AndrewB
AndrewB

@Jonathan
@Observer
Guys.
I hear what you say but from my experience I didn’t agree.
The house fire as described is a multi pump fire so the hybrid could be used with the other appliances still on scene.
Yes a dislocated shoulder isn’t fatal. But you can’t move without some pain relief.
Tonight I was at an RTC which took two hours for an ambulance to arrive.
Blame government cuts lack or trained staff what ever. But it was two hours that a casualty could not be extracted as there was no where for them to go. Yes a paramedic was at scene shortly after the three fire appliances. But if one of them had been a hybrid the casualty could have been transported.
It’s a better use of fire resources to assist an over stretched Amulance service.

Observer
Observer

Ah, but Andrew, what happens could easily be the reverse, your ambulance service being used as fire engines! Which would increase your medical response times.

Jonathan
Jonathan

Andrew

The key message is that there will only ever be the same number of paramedics that is what limits the total number of vehicles hybrids or ambulances. You can’t just turn firemen into fully qualified paramedics, therefore you would end up with the hybrid crewed by basic life support trained first aiders,no disrespect to firemen, their job is skilled but in the medical aspects that’s as far as you can realistically train someone who is not a focused ( practising every day/ week) health care professional.

We used to crew ambulances with basically trained drivers, all the evidence base suggested that a lot of people died needlessly. So going back to that ( which is what hybrids would be) is not a great idea.

The problem is mainly over use of 999 services for minor medical ( how many time have I seen a football play a match on a sprain only to get to the end,sit in the changing room and call an ambulance, then ask for the ambulance to take them home after) we need to get across the message ambulances are there to save your life or treat you if your so broken you cant move. Not as we see them now as free taxis ( yes people do call ambulances an get taken to hospital so they can go shopping). This is compounded by a freeze on funding ( but demand is the killer)

Observer
Observer

Which once again I point out, a dislocated shoulder is hardly life threatening. :)

Even if you did get into A&E, we’ll just shuffle you to the back of any cases which are.

Dislocated shoulder, minor burns, twisted ankles, just take a cab. Who knows, your ambulance response time might improve because of that.

@Jonathan

I know for a fact that you can squeeze 2 comatose patients, one (sole survivor) recon trooper, one very worried OC and a driver into a land rover. :) Hornet attack.

Jonathan
Jonathan

Observer

Blimey ! That’s an than impressive achievement.

Observer
Observer

Always thought it was a matter of motivation. :)

Reminds me of a little snippet I read in the past in Reader’s Digest. An old Sgt was sharing that in Vietnam, he and an officer were inspecting the men’s positions when he told one of the men “Murphy! That foxhole is too small for you!”. A NVA sniper opened up at about this time and amazingly, the officer, Murphy and him all managed to fit inside the foxhole. :P

old110
old110

The point of the Terberg vehicle is that all Fire crews are trained in basic first aid.
There wil be no paramedic on board, only Fire crew.
In rural areas where Fire fighters are on scene first then they can provide stabilising first aid and a ‘safe haven’ until an actual ambulance arrives.
This is based around the fact Fire Services are having funding cut and the NHS Ambulance Trusts will happily pay the Fire services to be first responders and achieve better response times as all Ambulance funding is based on response time.
Its a win win in more rural areas.

↓