Future Lynx to be cancelled ?

[HUMS]

£14m !?!!

The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/29/narmy229.xml)

UK helicopter industry 'will die in MoD cuts'
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:32am BST 29/04/2008

A £1 billion helicopter project has been "offered up as a sacrifice" for defence cuts as the Ministry of Defence struggles to manage its funding crisis, it was claimed yesterday.

Army stretched to 'dangerous levels' as troops are deployed in Kosovo
The termination of the Future Lynx deal would herald the end of major helicopter manufacturing in Britain if Gordon Brown decides to go ahead with the reductions.

A decision on auditing major defence projects has been delayed to the end of next month with the Government attempting to avoid embarrassing job losses just before local elections on Thursday.

But defence sources said it was now "highly likely" that the order for 70 Future Lynx utility helicopters, which were to be bought for the Army and the Royal Navy, will be axed.

The decision could lead to the closure of the Westland helicopter plant in Yeovil, Somerset, with the loss of 800 jobs.

Douglas Carswell, a Tory MP who has written a paper on scrapping the Lynx deal with the Italian firm Finmeccanica, said: "This is a bad deal and the sooner we get out of it the better.

"We could announce, for example, that we would buy the same amount of helicopters from Sikorsky - and still have £580 million to spend addressing funding shortages elsewhere in the Armed Forces."

He added that the Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters would be available within 12 months. The Lynx is not expected in service until 2013.

The American-built Seahawks would cost £6 million, or the MoD could buy the well-regarded EADS Eurocopter at £4.5 million each rather than the £14 million for each Lynx.

The likely cut will be part of an "examination" of major projects as the MoD faces a £1 billion hole in defence spending this year.

Questions over the future size of the Navy will also be asked.

The auditors will look at whether six of the highly advanced Type 45 air defence destroyers will be sufficient for the Navy rather than the eight that senior sailors believe will be the "minimum" necessary to protect aircraft carriers and landing ships. Also vulnerable will be the Astute hunter killer submarine.

But one programme that defence sources have confirmed is certain to go ahead will be the two aircraft carriers being built for £4 billion in Scottish constituencies with strong Labour Party ties.

The issues are expected to come up on Thursday when industry chiefs meet Baroness Taylor, the defence procurement minister .

[MOSTAFA]

Bye Bye Air Corps then.

[[email protected]]

About time we cut loose from the Lynx fiasco - it has never had a proper battlefield role and the Flynx would have been more of the same when we really need SH lift capability. I believe the Naval variant has been capable in role as long as it doesn't end up in the water (Lynx - it sinks).

Great fun to fly but cock-all use for our present or likely future ops.

[nimby]

You notice no-one's pointing to the massive Typhoon/JSF role overlaps, overspends, gold-plating, delays or that the RAF continue to burn thousands of hours (and tonnes of carbon) supporting a huge Tornado fleet which does .... what exactly?

... what do we actually need so many FW assets for?

:ugh:

[[email protected]]

Nimby - the cynical answer is that RAF procurement is based on keeping BAE in business rather than providing the aircraft we actually need for the ops we are involved in. That's what comes of letting fighter pilots run the RAF. When was the last dogfight again???

[Lt.Fubar]

When was the last dogfight again???14th September 2001

[nimby]

so, one dog fight seven years ago versus how much useful helicopter flying, both on front-line operations and in support of civil authorities.

[Lt.Fubar]

Mind you that was Israeli F-15s fighting Syrian MiG-29s. Crab didn't tell who's dogfight ;)

The thing is, RAF jets have to protect quite a big sky over the islands and its seas - there goes the Typhoons and F3s, than it have to provide Close Air Support for the troops on the ground, on missions in Iraq and Afghanistan - there's where Tornados, and Harriers come in... you need lots of jets to maintain full operatibility in 3 places on the world at the same time. It's not fair saying RAF have too many jets, heck, do you want to end up like we - with only 48 really useful ones... or like New Zealand, with... none ? Would you be happy then ?

And can someone explain to me how canceling order for 40-45 aircrafts will doom the AAC ? That's what the AAC order was - 40 + optional 5... how those numbers go with what it have now - almost 300 helicopters in service ?

[Staticdroop]

None of the operators in the AAC could ever understand the reasoning behind the order for flynx. It was supposed to have been ordered using the "Smart Procurement" system where a role and requirement were stated and a solution put forward. Even the most pro-Lynx jockey, and it was fun to fly, pointed out to DAAvn that regardless of how powerful the engines and gearbox the airframe would bulk out before hitting MAUM, therefore not meeting the "Smart Procurement" statement of being able to ferry, i think,8 fully equipped troops over a distance of ..., whatever it was.
Political decision to preserve points not a decision based on what was best for the military.

[nimby]

I think if you check it was about airframe life ... it couldn't be extended forever and the original idea was simply "re-airframing". At the time there was no acceptable replacement on anyone's drawing board.