My take on a couple of points raised.
RBS may well be part of a consortia, but financing a bid this large would likely be spread over a multitude of financial institutions - not just one - thereby reducing risk.
I’d also have thought that the majority of the 3-5Bn mentioned will be swallowed up on 25 years of wages, pensions and benefits, not the platforms.
The S-61 has an iconic reputation, so with some 600+ still in service the Carson blade makes sense for many operators, but I suspect that many military and civil customers alike would feel a whole lot better about installing a blade that had the backing and support of the platform OEM.
In my lifetime, UK Mil SAR has always operated on a ‘Hand-Me-Down’ basis (Whirlwind, Wessex and now the Sea King’s (MK3a’aside but still an old design back in 1996). This bid offers UK SAR an opportunity to acquire not only NEW delivery platforms built with the very latest designs and technologies and most importantly for the crews and passengers, safety features, so why in heavens would you consider going forward with a 50-year old design that is becoming increasingly difficult to support now, let alone in 20 years?
Regarding cabin size and in spite of my last comment the S-61 is King, but OEM’s design their platform size on market requirements and if the civil airworthiness authorities mandate restrictions on the number of PAX that an operator can carry before additional cabin crew requirements kick in, then that’s not the fault of the OEM for not building a bigger cabin with costly excess space.
NH90? I think not.
• There are currently some 5 production lines for the NH90 worldwide, yet only 20 to 30 or so have been delivered to date and all these were well behind schedule, so not likely to be ready for a 2012 ISD in any UK SAR role.
• Problems with the naval variant are leaving many to look elsewhere for a maritime solution.
• Unproven in Troop Transportation Role let alone in a UK Civ/Mil SAR role.
• Currently no civil variant
• Simply put, an unproven high risk solution