Hilife's kneejerk anti-Westland prejudice ignores the fact that the manufacturer's product line does includes a suitable aircraft - the AW149 (which is the militarised version of the 'best-in-class' AW139, so all of this negativity about AW is clearly misplaced!
Sorry Jack, but a couple of home truths for the blinkered.
AW139 - ‘
Best in class’?
• In hindsight, do you think CHC would have selected the AW139 for interim SAR?
• Ask the Irish Air Corp why they restrict max speed to 115 – 120 Kts?
• Ask yourself why some large operators don’t want to take delivery of the remainder of their orders and options due to low dispatch reliability.
• Inquire as to just how many cockpit windows have popped out in flight.
• Serious tailboom cracking..... let’s not go there.
The brochure states 15 pax! Body bags maybe, but not breathing and upright as 10 to 12 civil is a much more realistic figure and therefore even fewer fully equipped mil pax.
As for the AW149, this is an unproven paper helicopter, so please explain to me and any other disbelievers why this makes it the ideal candidate for the AAC?
The AW139 has bags of power (although the PT6A/C-67 series GG is heavy and thirsty and utilises old technology) and has the potential to be an excellent civil helicopter, but with no proven front-line experience behind her, I cannot see how you consider this or its big brother as a ‘Best in Class’ solution for the AAC.
I’ve no doubt you’ve already read the
‘Danish report on EH-101 procurement and introduction’ thread on the Mil forum. In spite of the errors the Danes openly admit existed in their procurement process, there is a common theme and not even hidden in between the lines.
Put the brochure down and take a good look at the world around you.