Dangermouse, I see you have used the classic defense of blaming Qinetic and the IPT for the delays bring the Merlin into service, how stupid of me not realise that WHL are completely blameless.
You have rather dodged the issue of cracking in the airframe - yes I know composites are different but when a Sea King cracks (station 290 or the I beams for example) WHL issue a repair schedule so that the military (MASU for example) can repair the airframe themselves. Now your super composite aircraft is cracking, please deny that any work has to be carried out by your firm at extra cost to the military (more work, more profit).
I am sure that the aircraft can be safely landed on severe slopes with significant crosswinds but I suspect your WHL lims document just says it can be done - not that shutting down on slopes will cause the airframe to distort - anyone from 28 Sqn care to comment?
As far as the Canadians go, 2 of our flight are planning to visit Greenwood next month so we will see if they really are as ecstatic as you claim. The Canadians were so desperate to get their politicans to stop fannying about with procurement decisions they would have jumped at the chance of any new helicopter - they didn't exactly have a fly off of different contenders, did they?
I know you will argue that the Danes assessed the aircraft fully before they fdecided to go for it, unlike the RAF who had the SH version forced upon us instead of something useful like more chinooks. As for the landrover in the back, providing you take the windscreen off (particularly excellent thing to do when you are being extracted under fire) you might just squeeze it in but don't pretend this is an SH aircraft, it is just not squaddie proof.
As for being an improvement on the Sea King - I would love more range and more speed as well as better icing clearances but a SAR aircraft has to be first and foremost a stable and effective winching platform where the winch wire doesn't foul the airframe and the downwash doesn't trash the survivor.
Nick had some very well presented arguments about the wisdom of 2 engines v 3 that he gave to the SAR conference last year which WHL really didn't have an answer to but according to your logic the more engines the better - dead weight is carrying around spare engines as a back-up to an engine that is statistically very unlikely to fail!
I did fly in an early EH101 and was particularly amused when my boss asked to see how the ac behaved with the active anti vibration kit to be switched on - it already was.
Try to find someone in the military who is actually pro WHL and it's products and you might go some way to understanding that as much as you soft soap the IPTs and the MOD procurement chain, the guys who actually fly the stuff are not impressed - even if none of it is your fault (yeah right!)