Mention has been made of the fact that the Wessex is not a 4-axis acft, and therefore the B412, with it's 3-axis system, will suffice. So, what you're saying is that 84 cannot reasonably expect their new and EXPENSIVE aircraft to be any more capable than the 40yr old one that it is replacing?...interesting point of view. By that logic, I imagine you advocate the use of some ex Aeroflot Illuysins to replace the VC10?. .. .What did 84 want?. .. .Seakings.. .. .The Seaking has its problems when it comes to reliability, and the UK SAR force has a significant challenge on its hands to maintain a viable rescue force with them. BUT, UK flights have 2 aircraft, and must keep one going, and ideally two. They find this difficult. 84 need to run a two line program, but would have got 4 aircraft to meet this commitment. The aircraft in question were low time Ex-Navy aircraft which were to have been refit to RAF SAR Spec. The Seaking is known to the RAF. We have a vast pool of experience and expertise on this aircraft, both in terms of aircrew and groundcrew. It carries more troops than either of the civvy options. It flies further. It has greater endurance. It has a 4 axis autohover system...etc. .. .AND WE ALREADY HAVE THEM!!!. .. .If a pilot (for example) goes sick etc., we have a pool of people who could replace him quickly, with no need for training.. .. .Oh, and it's cheaper.. .. .All of this has been studiously ignored by the IPT. They finally decided to re-evaluate the military option only when they knew that it was too late for the required conversion work to take place before the Wessex out-of-service date. It seems that the decision to go with a COMR solution in Cyprus was taken long ago. To some, the outcome of this selection process has never been in doubt.. .. .This is the thin end of the Wedge. Once it works here (Or is 'Seen' to work, after some major spin), the UK SAR Force will be next.. .. .Oh Dear.. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 17:57: Message edited by: LambJalfraezi ]</small>