Crab,
Might I add my congratulations on you running a provocative debate.
The point about SAR-H being a costly alternative to the present military SAR organisation might be more effectively made if the MoD truly understood the cost of operating this vital service. I would expect this calculation to include any remaining financing on these elderly machines, the cost of spares, maintenance outside the SAR bases, air & ground crew (including all overheads of employment including the very special pension arrangements), insurance, fuel, real estate costs etc etc.
Over the very lengthy contract envisaged by SAR-H, the initial cost of modern helicopters, will not be the most significant cost driver. Through life support costs, and personnel costs will be more important. Through life support does tend to be less expensive for more modern helicopters. I haven't done the sums but it might be cheaper to introduce modern helicopters rather than soldier on with old ones.
Whilst you might poo poo the benefit offered by the latest FLIR camera's, video distribution, EGPWS, TCAS, and even AIS, surely no one can really dismiss these modern devices as not assisting the modern aviator operating at the limits of capability. Otherwise I could hear you wishing for the return of the Whirlwind and disconnection of the computer (now called FADEC) when coasting out to rescue a maximum of 3 folk!
If the new helicopters are not properly equipped, and meeting availability requirements, it is entirely the fault of the customer's contract and contract enforcement. Sadly often the case with the public services.
An advantage conferred by the most modern helicopter is safety which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far. I imagine the Gnome is not quite so unreliable as it was when I worked with it in the '70's, but I doubt it has the reliability of modern engines. JAR/FAR 27/29 designed helicopters are much safer than earlier models, particularly in protecting occupants in the event of an accident. As another example I understand that the S61 (and presumably also the SK) are vertically challenged in the event of a single engine failure in the hover at much above empty weight. So the flattering press reviews, following flood rescues in 2007, might have had an entirely different spin had a Gnome packed up with a rescuee on the end of a winch cable over down-town Carlisle.
On the other hand I gathered during a merry evening in a pub with an RNLI crew, that they much regret the passing of the S61 for the AW139. I seem to recall, but it might have been a distortion in the alcoholic haze at the time, that they found civilian pilots in S61's to be more capable than military pilots in Sea Kings.
If I have to press my DSS button for real, I will be delighted to see any of you arrive.
I look forward to an aggressive reaction to some of these points.
Willantis (an ex-crab)