believe me I really don't wish to get into another mud slinging session as in this case I don't think Nick and I have a problem. Like Nick I am an engineer with access to equivalent (or nearly so) data and also have conections with the VH71 team so I also speak from a position of 'authority' as he does, each of us is sure of their view point and 'spin' can be a wonderful thing. I freely admit my bias, given Nicks involvement with the S92 it would be unnatural not to expect some leaning in one direction from him as well (after all we are only human)
Whilst some of Nicks past assertions have been truthful (such as the delays in the programme, most of which have not been caused by a design shortcoming) others have been complete baloney (such as the lack of hover capability of the 101).
In all this it has been easy to naysay the 101 due to the fact that we will never know how much of a delay in an equivalent S92 based VH71 programme there would have been (although the Cyclone contract may give a clue) there is only hard information available for one side of that argument, so it is a moot point.
NAVAIR have not cancelled the Vh71 contract (nor are they going to, the USN review of a few weeks ago confirmed that the decision to procure the 101 was the correct one), new aircraft are being built/flown both in the UK and at Pax (see last weeks announcement) and the entry to service date has not slipped. I believe the 1/4 reduction was caused by a funding request ommission within the Navy budget rather than any technical problems with the aircraft.
The VXX specification was unique and some degree of baseline aircraft change was always going to be in order (regardless of the selected type) the thing that gets under my skin (and I suspect other UK posters as well) is the constant use of phraseology that implies the 101 is an
unsafe product, the fact that the 101 design is doing sterling service in combat and in SAR operations is proof that this is not true. The same argument could be made that the 747 is also not up to current design standards and therefore also shouldnt be 'trusted' so maybe a A380 should replace the presidents E4.
I am sure I have said this before
the decision has been made, get over it
DM