I am not a spy
however I do know people at WHL (who really resent the term Wastelands, all the guys I know always have the best interests of the boys and girls flying the stuff in mind) and am sure that if a WHL designed SK blade had been chosen it would probably beat the Carson design and be fully Def Stan compliant as well, but the UK MoD didnt appear to want that and went for a quick off the shelf solution. I understand the timescales involved but replacing a major component like a blade that the airframe designer has no knowledge of (and isnt leading the testing of) seems a little risky to me, especially if the standards that are now being accepted for service are not those imposed on the original component.
I was interested to know what the blade was certified against as it starts an interesting line of thought regarding compliances for military front line operations, as my previous thread tried to say (poorly I guess), it opens the door for a quicker acquisition route for equipment as full Def Stan compliance no longer appers to be compulsory, which can only help UK industry and the end user.
Actually the fact that a piece of equipment has been determined to be 'safe enough' for one role doesnt read across to others. The IPTs accept levels of risk that change dependant on the mission involved. A cargo carrying sortie may well have more acceptable risk than a passenger carrying one due to the lower potential loss of life in case the worst happens. The civil world is different, there are levels that are just unacceptable regardless of the 'mission', the Military dont work that way.
DM