The capability of the S61 with its equipment fit does not match the RAF Sea Kings in all areas and the crews get a third of the training hours - these facts are conveniently forgotten when the mud slinging starts.
I am still not quite sure what you are getting at here. There are differences to each because they are different types. The S61 has nose radar but not 360 degs. The Sea King doesn't truly have 360 either because of the blind arc (that's why the Norwegian Air Force stuck nose radar on their cabs). S-61s have had FLIR/TV for many years but the RAF has only just got them. S-61s have twin hoists (one electric and one hydraulic), the Sea King has one plus the heave-ho hoist as an emergency back up. The Sea King crews have helmet mounted NVG and NVG compatible cockpits, which is better than the S-61, although the crewmen can use hand held units in the latter. Whether the CAA and MCA will see fit to have NVG cockpits in the S-92 and AW139, I don't know, but let's hope so. Avionics and radio fits are similar with both having VHF/FM and HF, I assume the Sea King must have GPS now that Decca has gone (one or two?). Engine performance is better in the Sea King than in the S-61. Both aircraft have an AFCS system and the S-61's is more flexible than the Sea King 3 and similar to the 3A. Both aircraft have AHT (or AMC as it is known in the S-61). The S-61s winch is behind the pilot, not half way down the fuselage and therefore makes the cabin more spacious. As for medical kit, I would say that both aircraft have similar levels.
While the RAF may get more training hours, I suspect they have a bigger turnover of crews. I do not know what the present manning levels are on a military SAR flight these days, but they were bigger than MCA units. Perhaps another reason for more training hours (more people to keep current).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I seem to remember that training hours per pilot (apologies to the crewmen here) for the RAF was 10 hours, two hours of which was IF and GH, so 8 hours for SAR training. That is a similar level to MCA units (about an hour difference max probably) given that they have less personnel. Civil units don't have dedicated hours for GH and IF, and IF flying is either part of the low level IF when doing FPC work, or approaches are carried out on return from SAR training sorties. Saying that the MCA units have 6-monthly base checks for aircraft and IF, plus annual winch competency and FPC (AFCS) checks. It doesn't matter what standard you are, you do the same checks at the same intervals, unlike the Cat system in the RAF.
Having lots of hours to train is great, but you also have the possiblilty of over-training where it becomes tedious and boring. That can be as dangerous as not having enough training.
There isn't any mud slinging here, just trying to make sure that there is a balanced argument. Unfortunately, those who have not had the benefit of seeing both sides of the equation tend to only see one side. I remember that view from my time in the military where there were all sorts of stories going around about civilian SAR. I have now seen how biased and unfounded they were. IMHO the civilian crews for CIVILIAN SAR are as good as the military, despite the incorrectly perceived lack of training. However, if you were to bring CSAR in to the argument, then the military have that laid down good and proper, where it should be.