SARsum - nice idea but the S92 doesn't actually have a long range fuel tank fit that is cleared for use. Not only that but if it is in permanently you lose cabin seating capacity and if you have to put it in for a job, it takes so long you will never make your response time.
By comparison, the role equipment on a Sea King that is not needed for the job is easily removed (generally the Jock's Box and superfluous medical kit) and you still get 250 nm RoA, the seating capacity for 17 survivors, a minimum of 30 mins on scene and a comfortable fuel margin (usually about 45 mins extra flight time) to boot because of the way we are required to do our fuel planning.
The reason the Carson bladed Navy cabs are having problems is because they should be fitted with the non-folding head and the bi-filar vibration absorbers which would improve the track and balance issues presently being experienced. However, someone must have baulked at the cost and the Navy got half the job (nothing new there in Military procurement terms).
Spanish Waltzer - the Sea Kings may be old (although the 3As are only 12 )but they are still very capable and fly far more hours than the equivalent civilian aircraft in the same role. Our serviceability might not be perfect but nor is anyones and, as has been mentioned, we do have a second aircraft at each of the 6 flights plus 3 at the OCU - not to mention the ones presently stuck in the congestion of Fleetlands and those undergoing HUMS fitting.
One thing I must correct is my use of the phrase 'no lesser capability' which should read 'at least as good as the current service' as per the IPT statement.
On present form the phrase 'fat f888ing chance' is how I would rate the chances of SARH actually complying with the statement.