The AW press release says assembled not built so the important jobs will still be in Europe.
The 139 wasn't proven in SAR before it made it to gap-SAR - it was poorly introduced with inadequate FCS modes and lighting and the cabin is too small for a great many UK SAR tasks (not to mention needing the rearcew to be on their knees all the time - and there was no icing clearance either.
The 139 hasn't been a success in UKSAR but, because it was showcased as such, it has persuaded other buyers to take it on - what they subsequently think of it I don't know but for this country it is not suitable.
The 189 is the same aircraft with a plug in the fuselage to make the cabin longer, not higher or wider, so any limitations will be the same.
It might just save the rearcrew having to stow all the SAR role kit down the tail boom but that is it.
MRTs will struggle, stretcher entries will be difficult, 2 stretchers will be very tight, ECMO and babyvac incubators won't fit, it still won't have decent ground clearance for sloping or rough ground landings - the list goes on but we won't have a choice.
It is not a 21st century Sea King or Wessex - it is an executive transport aircraft with a SAR role bodged into and onto it - at least the Sikorsky products have decent sized cabin where the real work of SAR is done.
The S-92 isn't too big for the mountains - it's dimesions are not dissimilar to the SK/S61 which have proved themselves over many years in the harshest of environments.
I am under no illusions that it is what we will get and that we will get on with it regardless but let's not pretend it is either the best choice or the saviour of AW at Yeovil.