On your first point, do you not think in these times of tight budgets and limited resources that our newly purchased platforms should be as flexible and 'multi role' as possible?
Absolutely. however I don't see the Apache or Wildcat able to lift an ISO container or carry a significant number of troops. Not very flexible or multi-role; in which case the army relies on using RAF SH.
The Puma was never been designed to carry out ship-borne operations, and the upgrade was never going to change that.
Shame it'll miss out on the current op.
It's not over yet, and I'll believe the 2014 withdrawal when I see it. Governments have been known to change their minds.
Your last point does suggest it will limit SH involvement as whatever the Puma HC 2 cant do, we'll use CHF Merlins instead.
In the littoral environment, yes. And when the army require a covert insert at night into a small, urban HLS, I very much doubt JHC will send anything other than the Puma. No asset is able to do everything; find me one that can, and procure that instead.
Taking a completely independent point of view (ie as a taxpayer), do you think the cost to upgrade the Puma and its return of service is money well spent?
I'll head you off at the pass re Wildcat. My answer would be a conclusive 'No, Wildcat is not a sound investment!'
Find a replacement for less before the end of 2012 and you can ditch Puma 2. Until then, the upgrade remains a sound choice to prolong the life of a well-proven platform at minimal expense to the tax-payer.