Why shouldn't the MoD specify what design features they would like in a product. I mean, what would be the point of buying a helicopter to fly to and from ships, if that helicopter couldn't fit inside the hangar?
The process is simple:
1) MoD puts out a specification for x helicopters with y features costing £z.
2) AW design a helicopter that meets the spec and cost assuming that a certain number are to be made. If it's got to be cheap they pitch a simple helicopter with bolt on features, if the MoD want to splash some cash they get something more custom.
3) Helicopters built and delivered, everyone is happy.
What actually happens:
1) MoD puts out a specification for x helicopters with y features costing £z.
2) AW design a helicopter that meets the spec and cost assuming that a certain number are made. In Lynx's case a nice design update because the MoD have set z quite high.
3) MoD run out of cash/change the spec/change number bought
4) AW to adapt to these changes on the fly and costs sky rocket.
5) MoD decides its all too expensive, drops the project.
6) AW get the blame because step 2 wasn't a competitive tender.
Is it too much to ask that a battlefield helicopter has some built in protection for the aircrew that fly it on the battlefield? Is it too much to ask, that if a helicopter is going to be sent in harms-way, then it has its vital systems protected by some sort of armour, and have built in redundancy where ever possible? I mean, the US Army demanded all these things when they ordered UH60 and AH64.
It's not like the MoD are asking for these features and AW is saying no, MoD lay down the spec. If they don't ask for armour that's their own dumb fault.
If they did ask for armour then there are two possible reasons it's not there:
1) AW have messed up badly
2) MoD have messed up badly
Were it 1) I have no doubt there would be elements of the armed services/MoD who would be rubbing it in AW's face in it (so to speak). Instead it's been all quiet, so i'm guessing 2).
In my opinion Westland helicopters are a cottage industry, kept alive by successive governments, they have never had to compete on the world market, and haven’t. Consequently the Army have had to make do with a Navy helicopter, great design for small ships at sea level, no good for moving troops in the mountains of Bosnia in the summer, (I hear the same is true in Afghanistan). Development costs are reduced by the services sharing a common airframe. Think about it, the only reason the Royal Air Force is now flying Merlin, is because the Canadians cancelled their order, if the twenty airframes weren't sold on, then the development costs would have been lumped onto the Royal Navy, making the fleet so expensive. The answer was to sell the Canadian airframes to the Royal Air Force, who needed a Wessex replacement. It doesn't matter which service it is, you all make sacrifices in capability. I do accept the Merlin is doing a great job in Iraq and the lads and lasses flying it think it is a great airframe.
My opinion is that while historically the protectionist strategy has helped Westlands, now they're AgustaWestlands they don't need hand holding or deals for the boys, they need customers who play with a straight bat and don't have eyes for things they can't afford.
The merlin is an interesting example as in spite of being specified for quite a specific role it can do a bit of everything. It's probably because that specific weight point and the engines available forced the 3 engine configuration. That in turn has a very useful effect on the performance envelope both hot and high and in the OEI case. Plus of course having a little too much load/space capacity is never as bad as not having enough.