Jim671: thank you.
Dmanton300: Of course there is no equivalent of the 101...don't you get it? Don't you understand why no-one has built another like it or why none of the civvy SAR operators operate it?
Can't you see where I am coming from?
Look: You are a private company answering to shareholders, or a governmental operator holding the public purse strings. Your task is to provide a SAR service for the military OR the general public (doesn't matter).
You have a clean sheet of paper. What would you do Dmanton...what would you select that is out there ready built and available????
IF you were totally honest with yourself AND me, you would never ever purchase a fleet of the most expensive helicopter in the world to do another run of the mill operation [SAR is run of the mill - it doesn't require special equpiment like supercomputers/guns/laser finders/stealth/supersonic flight/huge endurance]. You want a machine that can do MOST jobs MOST of the time for the budget. This is called a COST EFFECTIVE solution.
Of course the 101 ticks all the boxes - but this in itself is a problem, because you'd look a right prat turning up for a couple of stranded kids in a lilo in the middle of a lake, or to a bloke with a twisted ankle on the side of a hill in snowdon - in a 101 wouldn't you??? Of course you would hit the headlines as heroes rescuing a fisherman with broken ribs 400 miles off Sumburgh once every 2 or 3 years.
Someone has to weigh up the costs of rescuing someone.
An analogy: The 737 has (had) an inherent rudder problem with its screw jack, once in every "x" flying hours. When it happened, everybody onboard would crash and burn. The cost of the litigation was "Y". The cost of replacing the part was "Z". As long as Z>Y, don't fix the problem...it's not worth it.
The same goes for the 101. If someone did a cost based analysis they would conclude that the 101 is way over the top for the job.
Those who choose to proceed of course are entitled to do so, but their processes for proceeding are flawed from a financial perspective.
The S92, NH90, EC225, AS365, Mi-17, are all capable of doing most long range tasks most of the time. How often will anyone want to go past 450NMm? And yet each of these are substantially cheaper than the gold plated 101.
You have to remember that outside of the M.E, Norway are the richest country (per capita) in the world. As far as Portugal goes: from an economic perspective they are bankrupt, so how or why they bought these suggests foul play at work
. The same could be said for another country, like, er, let's see, um: ah yes: India, perhaps. Now what was the problem there then with the 101 purchase
