Afghan -
Yes, I know about the "late" bid by Sikorsky. However, I would be very surprised that the recommendation changed. HOWEVER, as I left that part of Defence in early 04, I can't definatively say that the recommendation changed, but seeing that AIR 5046 Phase 2 (from memory) had by that stage recommended the first buy of up to 12 NH-90's, I find it hard to believe the change did occur. And I'm sure that the civilian who headed up the area that prepared the Cabsub's (Ralph) would NOT have allowed the change to occur!!! And given that AIR 9000 (at that stage) was aiming at reducing the number of types, accepting that NH-90 would be acquired for AIR 5046 Phase 2, it is highly unlikely that a mixed buy would have been considered. DCA at the DCC meeting that discussed the initial 12 purchase also spoke about likely fleet numbers if NH-90 was selected and how many would be required in the "follow-on" phase (and I was in the room during this discussion). And certainly, when the follow-on buy went to DCC (or DCSC as it had become then) in early 2006 - the recommendation was NH-90 - the major points for discussion (IIRC) being what blade folding capability if any on the follow on birds and total numbers (and how that number was arrived at).
I'd argue about the availability of the latest threat libraries from the US always being available. There is also the danger that the US library MAY NOT hold details of all the weapon systems that may be faced. No definative info here, but it is an issue. I'd not die in a ditch about this, but an issue nevertheless. As to the avionics etc on birds in the battlefield - I didn't get a good look at the avionics fit of the US birds I travelled on in Bahgdad early last year, but they did seem pretty well equipped.............
Oh - and to whoever asked about blade folding - the recommendation for the first 12 NH-90's DID include manual (as against auto) blade folding, as these birds were earmarked to be used off the LPA's. Auto-blade folding is not only expensive, but also adds weight.
Bell UH1-Y's were considered (Bell was the first place the assessment team visited) but could not meet the ARMY requirement to carry an entire infantry section in crash-proof seats in one airframe and had limited growth potential. In fact, I understand that BH struggles to meet the requirement (from memory - being able to lift a section in partrol order all in crash-proof seats), and that the NH-90 only just meets it - I'll stand corrected here - it's been 4 years since I was invovled.
A GCA? Mate - where have you been? Precision Approach Radar (PAR - the radar you require to do a GCA) was phased out of ADF Military service in the mid 90's.........................