F/Lynx all systems go at AW

[SuperDouper]

GKN Aerospace delivered the first complete, state-of-the-art, Future Lynx Airframe to AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, on schedule, yesterday. The Company has achieved challenging technological goals for this airframe including an 80% reduction in parts count when compared with the existing Super Lynx airframe.

AgustaWestland, as the design authority for Future Lynx, has worked in partnership with GKN Aerospace to implement an effective design-to-cost methodology which has driven the product design.

Marcus Bryson, Chief Executive of GKN Aerospace comments "Our goal has been to create a highly effective operational airframe with an extremely efficient design and a truly cost effective manufacturing cycle. We have achieved this through innovations across the manufacturing process and through a close working relationship between AgustaWestland and GKN Aerospace Yeovil and our UK-based supplier team."

GKN Aerospace has made extensive use of monolithic machined components, replacing a traditional fabricated detail structure, to realise the dramatic reduction in parts count. In addition, 3 dimensional digital modelling has ensured highly accurate part-to-part assembly, whilst state-of-the-art assembly tooling has been introduced which can rotate through 360 degrees and has vertical movement for ease of access. Assembly personnel then use a stand alone wireless IT workstation to apply digital assembly instructions developed by GKN Aerospace directly from CATIA. This has eliminated the need for hard copy drawings and will enable future configuration changes to be communicated instantly and efficiently to the required personnel.

Bryson continues: "Throughout the design phase and immediately following contract award by the UK MOD, in June 2006, we placed a dedicated team of engineers within the AgustaWestland design office. This allowed a fully integrated team to develop and this has been critical to our success, and to our meeting - and in a number of cases exceeding - some ambitious goals for the new airframe. Together, our teams have done a quite remarkable job."

GKN Aerospace is responsible for supplying the complete, assembled airframe for 70 Future Lynx helicopters for the Royal Navy and Army. The Company manages the supply chain and carries out airframe assembly, which takes place at its Yeovil facility. GKN Aerospace, Yeovil, has been supporting AgustaWestland through the supply of assemblies for the Lynx family, which now includes the complete assembled airframe, throughout the Lynx programme life. For the last 7 years GKN has supplied all Lynx airframes - including for a number of successful export programmes.

[phil gollin]

I know that the RN has announced that it is going to call its future lynx "Wildcat" - is the army going to use the same name (I assume so).

.

[barnstormer1968]

Can I please ask a quick question.

What was it about the WG30 that was not up to scratch?
I know virtually nothing about the proposed WG30 (other than the airframes littering the helicopter museum at Weston Super Mare), but can only assume that Westlands thought it would be the way ahead, and a possible Puma replacement.

Once again, sorry for thread drift, but the WG30 looked like it would have solved many of the lynx's shortcomings, assuming it had enough power/ceiling/lift etc.

[Hilife]

Costly, with poor range and performance spring to mind. If you want to know what became of the WG30, take a good look at the AW139.

[RotatingPart]

Well that all sounds very promising indeed :}. With all that 3D modelling going on, I wonder, has the Army version got a nose wheel that we can actually steer? ;)

[mutleyfour]

I wonder if it has a busbar, digital AFCS and a much larger cabin capable of lifting a full section of eight?

[jonwilly]

When I did my spanner benders upgrading course II-I back in 72 at Middle Wallop, we where told about the WG 13, the new heli for the AAC.
Two crew up front and Nine Fighting troops in the back was the line, a mini Huey.
No one ever said the AAC will get this cab because it's the Heli the Navy needs for it's Sub hunters.
The Lynx was a Navy Heli that was forced on the Army.
I understand the navy with their massive, by army standards, small ships crews considered their aircraft a Good Un. As a Nuc Sub Hunter it would have been high on the Spares Supply line.
Army helis where not high on the supply line, unless you where in NI on Operations or during the disastrous deployment of Lynx down to the Falklands, long after the shooting stopped.
it now seems that they navy's latest choice will be the AAC's latest do all.
john

[diginagain]

I wonder if it has a busbar, digital AFCS and a much larger cabin capable of lifting a full section of eight?

I wonder if you'll be able to fit a GS stretcher in it without having to hack the handles off each end?:rolleyes:

[penny pincher]

GS Stretchers? No bastardised AFCS? Next you'll want mast mounted ISTAR or nose mounted sights that have more than ten degree look down!!!!!:rolleyes:

[Bismark]

The Navy are getting what they want , because they know what they want. The Army are getting.....
......go figure!

[wg13_dummy]

GKN Aerospace delivered the first complete, state-of-the-art, Future Lynx Airframe to AgustaWestland,

I was wondering where one of our Mk9s went? We left it at Westlands a few weeks ago for a couple of 'minor mods'. When we went back to pick it up they said they'd 'lost it'. All is clear now. :cool:


Mutley, you'll fit a full section of eight in it no problems. So long as they are dwarf Gurkhas carrying no more than a small water biscuit each.


Bismark. The Army are getting what the Navy want because it suits the potential export market for AW. :E

http://boatangdemetriou.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/flogging-dead-horse.jpg

[I'm Off!]

The Navy don't want it - it's another white elephant. It is being forced on us by the government - "you can have whatever you want to replace the Lynx as long as it is made by Westland and called Lynx".

And it was never a sub hunter - no sonar.

[spheroid]

WRONG............... The Navy do want it.... it is not a white elephant and to be honest I wouldn't want to fly an aircraft built by the Japanese or the sceptics....


It is slightly wrong to call it state of the art though...... unless you mean state of the art for the 20th Century.

We need a Lynx replacement and this airframe is perfect for the job. The avionics however are a crock of poo and the Lynx IPT need to get to work and purchase a decent Radar.... an IO device that wasn't invented 10 years ago...and maybe some "state of the art" stuff..... The trouble is that the IPT are being driven by what AW will provide them. The Lynx IPT should be demanding a capibility rather than being provided with a solution....

[jim2673]

Spent 4 and a half years working in Lx IPT supporting in service.
Guess what, all this kit costs, new kit costs even more.
Buy it with guchi digital AFCS, Radar ETC not a problem.....but sorry for a fixed budget you'll get less airframes and that's when it gets non supporting.
Digital AFCS possibly as a MLU.

[Bismark]

The Lynx IPT should be demanding a capibility rather than being provided with a solution....

Spher,

I think you'll find that from the Navy's perspective that is exactly what has happened...ie a capability was demanded and it has been solved with FLynx.

[engineer(retard)]

Spheroid

You also need to do some research on the selected radar and EO, you are off the mark.

regards

retard

[spheroid]

Do you mean the Seaspray 7000E radar which was first placed on the open market in 2004 and so will be over 10 years old when the "future" Lynx comes into service....? And do you also mean the MX 15 which has been flying in operational aircraft for the past 5 years and so will also be over 10 years old when the "future" Lynx enters service.... (Please don't buy the MX 15...... please, please IPT....buy the MX 20 HD....its much much better)

The only thing "future" about the Wildcat is the airframe..... the avionics are all just collected from various lock up garages and shoved into the airframe without any thought of what the aircrew will do with all these old bits of kit. Maybe we should delete the word "future" and insert the word "yesterdays"..... there you have it..... Yesterdays Lynx.



That said, it will be an improvement on the current aircraft....although not a significant improvement....it could have been much better and it could have gone much further...... there is little ground breaking technology in this aircraft. The biggest problem the Wildcat will face is its introduction into service. Unless a home is found for this aircraft soon and unless the infrastructure to welcome it into the Service is developed soon, then we may well end up with hangars full of them but no one trained to fly or maintain them.

[engineer(retard)]

Spheroid

Same family as 7000E but a few more planks. The AESA system started development flying in 2004 and was not put into production until last year, for the USCG I believe. Given the gestation period of most aircraft programmes you will not get brand new technology the day it comes into service.

Do not confused with the model numbers for EO. Its a bit like like saying you have a Ford Fiesta. In isolation it means nothing unless you state a model and year. The difference between the 15 and 20 families is turret size, the important part is the payload and that is being continually upgraded. If you ask the IPT I think you will find the selected 15 has the toys you are looking for but again it will not be in service for a while yet.

regards

retard

[Bismark]

The biggest problem the Wildcat will face is its introduction into service. Unless a home is found for this aircraft soon and unless the infrastructure to welcome it into the Service is developed soon, then we may well end up with hangars full of them but no one trained to fly or maintain them.

What on earth are you talking about Spheroid. There is a place not 5 miles from the manufacturing base that currently operates more Lynx than will arrive new from the factory and thus should have all the space and people that Wildcat will require.

[spheroid]

Very true....but you are assuming that the Current Lynx Force will be responsible for the introduction of the Wildcat.....Not so ...... Not so... A poor assumption to make ...

You are correct in stating that VL has the space to welcome the wildcat....but it does not have the people...

[Bismark]

but you are assuming that the Current Lynx Force will be responsible for the introduction of the Wildcat.....Not so ...... Not so... A poor assumption to make ...


Why so? There seem to be plenty of people when I visit .....are there any Lynx people to comment?

[Mister-T]

Aren't we forgetting the bigger point with Future Lynx which is that it still languishes in the post PR08 twilight zone.

[airsound]

BBC Points West (and I think ITV West) have just reported that AW have got the order for, I think, 62 FLynx. However, I can't be sure ,because the news is so recent that, not only is it not on BBC Online, but it's not on the AW site either. (no surprise there then)

Anyway, I'm told it'll be on BBC Online news soon.

airsound

[Seaking93]

BBC Spotlight Southwest report tonight that the DefSec will visit AGWHL on Thursday to announce the conformation of the order for a reduced number of FLynx, 62 airframes, no details on the split though at this point.

[spheroid]

A reduction of 70 down to 62....? It was 40 to the Army and 30 to the Royal Navy..... I wonder what the numbers will be now?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Well surely the RN is going to need less helicopters for those quite useful frigates its not going to have as they are trading them in for quantity two, elephants, white, for the unlikely use of?

[spheroid]

Very true. As a serving member of the senior service I would like to sacrifice 8 of the mighty beasts in favour of the Army.... So thats 40 for the pongos and 22 for us....plenty


Mind you.... If that old duffer gets his way the AAC will be disbanded and the Senior Service will get the lot....

[The Helpful Stacker]

Which old duffer?

[airsound]

Here's the story
BBC NEWS | England | Somerset | New Westland order secures jobs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7776501.stm)

airsound

[spheroid]

So we have lost 8......the project is delayed 2 years.... and we still pay £1 Billion.....

I have to say that this doesn't seem value for money to me. Afterall, the F Lynx s hardly "F" at all seeing as a some equipment is already flying and most of the avionics are already in service. Indeed the TI camera will be over 12 years olf by the time the "WILDCAT" enters service.... So, which bit of it is "future"... (apart from the bill ?)

[Hilife]

Future jobs for AW, but little consideration for the end user.

[dangermouse]

or banks who would like the govt to spend billions to bail them out, but I guess its OK for a UK hi tech firm to go bust without complaint

EVERY defence procuement decision is a balance involving many involved parties, this one is no different, and I for one am happy that the money stays in this country insted of going abroad.

DM

[spheroid]

I for one am happy that the money stays in this country insted of going abroad.

Very true but you forget who owns AW. I agree that this contract will put some money into the back pocket of local Zummerset folk but at the end of the day most of the money is currently on its way to Rome.

[leopold bloom]

AGUSTAWESTLAND (http://www.agustawestland.com/communication_det.php?id_news=458&yy=2008)

[South Bound]

I am sure the troops on the ground are cheering and whooping that FLynx is a goer.This will clearly turn the tide of the conflict in Afghanistan. :ugh:

[dangermouse]

We sold off a national asset without so much as a whisper of objection.

At least something will stay in this country, thank god the MoD didnt buy the UH60, EC725 or AW139 then there would be nothing kept here.

WHL will do a good job on this aircraft and it will have a lot of new technology in it, but it's hardly their fault if legacy mission kit is specified by the customer is it?

The split is 34 Army, 28 RN and we can all hope thats the initial order

DM

[fallmonk]

Would they not be better buying a bigger fleet of EH101s?
something our troops can use to be ferryied to and from battle fields moving equipment ammo food etc !

[The Helpful Stacker]

At least something will stay in this country, thank god the MoD didnt buy the UH60, EC725 or AW139 then there would be nothing kept here.

Wasn't there a WS-70 version of the UH-60, licenced to Westland and would have been built in the UK?

Isn't the AW139 an Augusta/Westland design (it might be the AW part that gives it away) and were it chosen could quite possibly have been built in the UK too?

EC725, isn't that an evolution of the Puma design that, I'm sure but I might be wrong, was licence built in the UK by Westlands too?

A sort of recurring theme is appearing, can you spot it (apart from the aircraft you mentioned being too large for the specification)?

[Gnd]

I still have a problem with the aircraft. Some very experienced and knowledgeable people have been to do the ‘mock-up’ trials and found that it was to short in the cockpit. The seats are crash resistant in the back (admittedly not a bad thing) which means that you cannot store anything beneath. Great all cramped in the front and no kit in the rear – all these comments were unfounded and not true according to the contractor (who again presume that we only employ idiots who know nufing!!).
Still getting the feeling that we are getting shafted. Expensive with old kit and not fit for role – I would rather lose the wasteland stranglehold on us than fly another kipper from our commercial brethren.:{

[dangermouse]

How can crash worthy seats be in any way a BAD thing?

All crash worthy seats to the best of my knowledge preclude putting anything under them, allowing them to stroke (true in UH60, Merlin , NH90 etc). if we expect our aircraft to protect our troops in the event of a crash (which legacy aircraft such as CH47, Sea King, Puma and current Lynx DONT) there are some compromises that have to be made and a reduction is stowage space is one of them

Unfortunately in this case you can't have your cake and eat it.

And please dont make the assumption that contractors employ idiots, I am sure there are very knowledgeable people within WHL (ever heard of test pilots or the airframe design team for the last 35 years) who may be in posession of more issues regarding factors influencing the design than others outside industry. Every design is a compromise after all and you can't please all the people all the time.

Answers to the stacker

Yes, at one time (long ago in a galaxy far far away) there was an agreement to build UH60s in the UK, however that vanished after GW1, without the MoD placing any orders and with a change in the political landscape that made is acceptable for the US to supply kit directly to previously 'unacceptable' customers.

The AW139 is of course a AW product and currently there is no line in the UK, I conceed that it may have been necessary to initiate a line if an order had been placed but given the number of other 139 lines around the world I think it unlikely that AW management would pay for another line at one of their existing sites (hardly counts as an offset does it)

The EC725 has very little in common with a Puma, and in this case I am sure that Eurocopter would never give the UK a product line for those. In the past WHL (as it was) and Aerospatiale were partners (Lynx, Puma , Gazelle ), thats not true now.

why can't we be happy in the country for UK workers, we seems to have it in for ourselves...

DM

[engineer(retard)]

Spheroid

I assume you did not take my advice to talk to someone about the EODS, your slant is still wrong.

Gnd/Dangermouse

You are both right, if you put kit under the seat it will impact your chances of survival in a crash. Operational call I suppose.

regards

retard

[The Helpful Stacker]

...why can't we be happy in the country for UK workers, we seems to have it in for ourselves...

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe giving the troops the right kit for the task (and not change the task to the kit) at a reasonable price or whether keeping a few workers happy so that they'll vote red in the next election at a high price in both monetary and perhaps the lives of troops sense?

[Gnd]

Dangermouse,

Well done, nice speech but not interested. Let’s put crashworthy seats in the Chinny, reduce the payload by 1/2 and see if our troops thank us - no - didn't think they would.
I have no interest in people making money out of our misery and get very fed up turning away troops who are cold, knackered, fed up because the ac can't do what we want; how nice to say ‘yes, please get in but do leave your kit behind’. My point is - IT STILL WONT!!!!
I for one will take the risk of non crash worthy seats against op efficiency any day – and yes – the others do think it is a price worth paying; they also say they don’t really intent to crash anyway.

PSP or no PSP!!!!!! (in the desert!!!!)

[wg13_dummy]

How can crash worthy seats be in any way a BAD thing?

All crash worthy seats to the best of my knowledge preclude putting anything under them, allowing them to stroke (true in UH60, Merlin , NH90 etc). if we expect our aircraft to protect our troops in the event of a crash (which legacy aircraft such as CH47, Sea King, Puma and current Lynx DONT) there are some compromises that have to be made and a reduction is stowage space is one of them

With the size of those aircraft, compromise doesn't reduce it's capability too much. In the case of FLynx, it has the capacity to carry a couple of small Gurkhas with their lunch boxes. Again, this has meant any form of limited movement of men and material has been binned from role and left its primary as 'ISTAR' with a 10 year old EO and a 15 degree look down ability.



Unfortunately in this case you can't have your cake and eat it.

Just a crumb would be nice.


And please dont make the assumption that contractors employ idiots, I am sure there are very knowledgeable people within WHL (ever heard of test pilots or the airframe design team for the last 35 years) who may be in posession of more issues regarding factors influencing the design than others outside industry. Every design is a compromise after all and you can't please all the people all the time.

It is most certainly true that AW haven't exactly got their 'A team' on the program and the amount of business the program will attract means it's not given the resources one would like to see. There are some pretty elementary issues that just get swept under the carpet because it seems 'too difficult'.

I totally agree wrt compromise in the design aspects but the compact package that was a brilliant selling point for Lynx 35 years ago has meant that the whole package is a huge compromise now with little room for growth. One would think that modernisation has meant miniaturisation but due to us having very little money to spend, we get all the old, big chunky bits of kit which again means there is virtually no space.


The EC725 has very little in common with a Puma, and in this case I am sure that Eurocopter would never give the UK a product line for those. In the past WHL (as it was) and Aerospatiale were partners (Lynx, Puma , Gazelle ), thats not true now.

AW shouldn't have pissed Eurocopter off then. :=
Remind me where Somerset & Dorset Air Ambulance is located now? And why are the not still at Yeovil?


why can't we be happy in the country for UK workers, we seems to have it in for ourselves...

Isn't it true that no job losses would have occurred if FLynx hadn't been signed? You seem to make it sound as if it was a lifeboat chucked at Yeovil and if we hadn't gone for FLynx, thousands of jobs would have been lost. Is it not more the case that Finmeccanica have been looking at pulling all heli production from Yeovil back to Italy and giving Yeovil servicing and transmission work that Agusta currently do anyway?

As for being happy about UK workers. Mmm. Gone are the days of being proud of 'buying British'. I'd be happier if we bought something that was value for money, did the job required and didn't mean we were blackmailed into it.

[Hilife]

Here, here.

Earlier this year, a well known Conservative politician whilst in the Stan was chatting to a group of RAF/AAC crews relaxing by the OPS tent and pointed to what is without doubt the most successful and battle proven utility helicopter in its 20,000lb class range and asked the question “Why don’t you guys fly those?” “We’d like nothing more, but you politicians won’t buy them for us” came the reply.

Having listened to Sarah Montague on Thursday’s Today programme discussing the delay of CVF with Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter and Brigadier Alan Mallinson (both retired), Brigadier Mallinson made reference to a question Nick Clegg put to the P.M. back in May of this year.

Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates)

21 May 2008 : Column 315

Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. That being the case, does he share my concern that much of our defence expenditure continues to be misallocated on cold war priorities? For example, we are committed to spending £6 billion on the Eurofighter but are failing to deliver enough of the right kinds of armoured vehicles to our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. W ill the Prime Minister commit to undertaking the first strategic defence review in 10 years to ensure that our troops are properly equipped for the new kinds of conflict that they now face?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have spent £6 billion on urgent operational requirements in addition to the ordinary defence budget for the work that is being done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will also know that when it comes to giving our fighting troops the equipment that they need, we have made major investments now and for the future including in tanks and helicopters for Afghanistan. Eurofighters are strike aircraft, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that they are of use in the theatres of war in which we are operating. He will also welcome the announcement yesterday that the aircraft carrier order will go ahead, benefiting almost every shipyard in the UK.

It’s well known that the P.M. has little time for the MoD, but if proof were needed that he sees the MoD as little more than a job creation scheme for UK industries, then surely the last paragraph says it all.

[Gnd]

WG13, So glad you are onboard as I know you have a far better grasp of the money grabbing Southern company than me.

I am still convinced that we should sack the typhoon, take the cash and buy ac out of the desert in the US of A and do a proper job, not pamper to the money grabbing (foreign) company to get a few votes. How many lives is one vote worth - or have I got that backwards???

[The Helpful Stacker]

I am still convinced that we should sack the typhoon...

Penalty clause?

...take the cash and buy ac out of the desert in the US of A and do a proper job

What aircraft? A10's that aren't for sale as the air force of the US of A is currently christmas treeing all those it can't coax back into the air to keep those it can supported?

Something else in the desert? Something old and expensive to support?

Something even older and not even used by the US anymore so even more expensive to support, if you can get it supported?

I'm all for giving the troops the best support they can but canceling the Typhoons and having to pay as much as it'd cost to accept them in penalties, then having to scrape money from somewhere else in the defence budget to try and buy aircraft that aren't available to us, or buy something that is available but will cost a shed load to support to do the job that the Typhoons would have been able to is the kind of light-headed nonsense you can often read on Arrse.

[Modern Elmo]

Can someone please explain why Future Lynx is the size it is?

Why can't Future Lynx be a bit larger? It is a new helo, correct, not just a stretched and warmed over variant of current Lynx? Please tell me if I'm wrong.

[wg13_dummy]

Its exactly the same size on the outside as the current Lynx. The cabin is however slightly smaller. Its like a reverse Tardis.

[Modern Elmo]

wg13, how and why did the cabin get smaller?

Here's something I found from Google. I bet Mr. Beedall is a PPruner.

From Richard Beedall's Navy Matters:

http://frn.beedall.com/scmr.htm (http://frn.beedall.com/scmr.htm)

... The industrial (and political) requirement that SCMR and SABR aircraft must be manufactured in the UK made an interesting turn in May 2004 when it was announced that GKN was negotiating the sale of its stake in AgustaWestland to Finmeccanica for £1.06 billion, making the company entirely Italian owned. Completion of the deal occurred in October 2004. The sale price included £35 million to be held in escrow and repaid by GKN to Finmeccanica if the helicopter business was not awarded by the MOD the anticipated Future Lynx contract for SCMR/BLUH by May 2008. It was being reported that a full order for the required Royal Navy aircraft fleet could be worth up to £400M (part of a near £1 billion order when Army requirements are included) to AgustaWestland, as well as help protect jobs at the company's Yeovil plant.

Without FLynx work the old Westland Yeovil plant was expected to inevitably be closed, Finmeccanica consolidating any outstanding EH.101 Merlin work at the Vergiate plant in Italy. While any EADS offer in relation to NH90 might have involved the Yeovil plant building the NH90's, EADS was far from keen about this approach because it already had three NH-90 assembly lines in Europe and plenty of spare capacity for a large (perhaps as many as 100 helicopters) UK order. EADS believed that it would be able to offer a high enough UK content or offsets in its NH90 proposal for the industrial aspects to be acceptable to the UK government. ...

[mick2088]

It is exactly that, a "warmed over variant of the current Lynx". An adapted version of the current Super Lynx 300 basically with more take-off weight. Same engines, same avionics moreorless. It will even incorporate some parts taken from the Army and Navy's current Lynx fleet. Different tail section probably the biggest difference. Why can't it be any larger? Wouldn't that taken the Lynx down the route of the WG-30 all over again?

[wg13_dummy]

wg13, how and why did the cabin get smaller?

1. The 'broom cupboard' will be full. This is the useful space in the rear of the cabin, behind the three man seat , between the main tanks where one can store little bits of niff naff and trivia but is actually very useful to aid de cluttering the cabin.
2. The tubing that provides a poor mans version of an environmental control system will run through the roof sound proofing thus reducing the usable head room. Current Lynx utilises a window/fan HMI for environmental control. Or the heater vents for the cabin situated outboard rear under the 3 man seat.
3. Stroking crash seats. As has been mentioned, the aircraft will thankfully have full stroking passenger seats. The down side to this is nothing can be placed under the seats. Due to the minimal size of the cabin anyway, it proves to be almost impossible to have four fully equipped troops in the back (Osprey body armour, helmet, day sack, weapon). The CSW rear crewman has his own seat (unless you're from the IPT and you think its ok for one of the pax to operate the gun therefore negating the need for a door gunner!). The three crew members also need space to put their kit/go-bag/weapons (The crew seats don't have the facility to store the wpns). As it happens, the rear seats have a max weight of 90kgs anyway so the aircraft will be limited to carrying Gurkhas in their speedos. Not complaining about ensuring the pax are safer but it ensures the aircraft will pretty much only have the ability to carry the crew and their sarnies.
4. Front seats. Due to the front seats being full stroking seats, they impinge into the rear cabin more than the current armoured seats do.

To stick a fuselage plug in FLynx would have been very expensive. Westland played around with the idea with their private venture Lynx 3 back in the early/mid 80's. From what I can gather, the extra length forward of the control frame (in front of the cabin door. The front doors were lengthened and the cabin space was increased behind the crew seats) caused some 'interesting' handling characteristics. Its a real shame Westland hasn't revisited the Lynx 3 concept because it would have met some of the shortcomings FLynx has with its limited cabin space. We're not after an NH90 sized aircraft capable of SH roles, just something that gives us a bit more flexibility (as is the role of a utility aircraft).

http://history.whl.co.uk/images/lynx3.jpg

[dangermouse]

I am just hacked off with the perpetual slagging off of AWH. As a commercial company it is in their interests to keep the customer (which unfortunately in this country isn't the user it's the IPTs) happy. Now if the IPTs order the platform they think they want, and they think they can afford it would be commercially irresponsible to deliver anything else. As hard as it is for the Services to swallow, companies like AWH (or Eurocopter or any other aircraft manufacturer) are in it to make a profit and they are only obliged to be spec and contract compliant, you don't get anything for over achieving.

The pressure should be on the procurement staff to ensure what is actually wanted (and thats a difficult decision to arrive at to start with, how do you get three opinions.... ask 2 pilots) and that that is passed accurately to the suppliers and then explain to the users why whatever decision has been made, recognising that any public procurement is inherently a political decision.

I agree that Lynx 3 would have possible been a better starting point but again budgetry concerns almost certainly came into play, no doubt a Lynx 3 type was evaluated and costed along with other options but the decision makers arrived at what we now have.

GND The comments regarding seats in the Chinook back up my points exactly and highlights the lack of understanding between the operators and the design/certification/approval system, if the Ch47 had to be designed and built to current standards it wouldnt be anywhere near as capable as it is, but that current capability has (now unacceptable from new) penalties. Design cases now ensure that crew and pax are safer but the downside is a smaller payload fraction and seemingly 'less efficent' aircraft, the world has moved on regardless of you personally being happy to accept the lack of crashworthiness (you won't get a new aircraft into service without the current standards applying in any case if QQ are on the ball).

It is this discrepancy between aircraft of different generations that make meaningful comparison impossible, the intangible benefits of current design standards aren't summed up in payload/range/speed terms.

And a final point regarding voting Red in Yeovil, it's been a Lib Dem seat for years! (the chairman of the party was the MP after all) so I dont think the Flynx order is going to change that.:)

Interesting discussion here though

DM

[wg13_dummy]

Dangermouse, I completely agree regarding the IPTs and the procurement process. I too agree that at times, AW do get too much of a bashing and no doubt the IPT sits back quietly allowing certain misconceptions to perpetuate. It keeps the flack off them as quite a few of the shortcomings/issues fall squarely at their feet.

AW aren't in it for profit? Err, why do they bother then? Although with regard to FLynx, their profit margin is going to be slimmer than an Ethiopian sprog on Christmas Day. Maybe thats why there is an apparent lack of interest?

[Jackonicko]

Just asking, but would AW149 have been a better bet?

[wg13_dummy]

Jackonicko
Just asking, but would AW149 have been a better bet?

Yes (when it's built). Hopefully the shortcomings the Irish Air Corps have seen with the 139 would be ironed out.

I think the reality is that someone had to buy FLynx to help push its potential export market. Who better than the RN/AAC? Not AWs fault; again the rotten procurement system. The 139 already has a healthy order book so it wasn't seen as important to flog it to the UK. I believe the unit cost for the AW139 is in the region of $12-15 million. I know, I know. Apples and pears using a unit cost to actual cost (military) in-service but you have to admit, it's not bad value for money even if you double it and make it £'s.

[dangermouse]

WG13 man: I think you misread my post, of course AWH are in for profit, and good business sense is that you don't give the buyer anything he hasnt paid for, thus my comment : 'AWH (or Eurocopter or any other aircraft manufacturer) are in it to make a profit' etc

Although I believe a lot of AWH work is going on, the AW149 is a paper aircraft to the best of my knowledge at the mo (at least there is a FLynx in build at yeovil) and will likely have a whole lot of things to be investigated (think W13-W30, and now 139-149).

in any case the decision has been made and I can't see it changing (won't stop the 'what ifs' though.....)

DM

[wg13_dummy]

Sorry dangermouse, I could have sworn you posted 'aren't in it for profit'. Oops.

[nimby]

I'm sure soon we'll see some photos of the mock-up and perhaps 3D CAD drawings coming out. Those will highlight quite radical differences ...

Then maybe you'll see that FLynx is really quite a step forward from Lynx, using new techniques for manufacturing (ahead, I'm told of Airbus and their famous wings), far lower airframe costs, greater strength, completely revised weaponry and loads of avionics (which is where a lot of the space went btw).

149 will be a wonderful and worthy batlefield aircraft ... but as DM said, it's some way off.

If the UK wants its global shipping lanes open (tell little Johnnie his Wii got knicked by pirates), the RN really needs SCMR ASAP.

N

[wg13_dummy]

I'm sure soon we'll see some photos of the mock-up and perhaps 3D CAD drawings coming out. Those will highlight quite radical differences ...

Then maybe you'll see that FLynx is really quite a step forward from Lynx, using new techniques for manufacturing (ahead, I'm told of Airbus and their famous wings), far lower airframe costs, greater strength, completely revised weaponry and loads of avionics (which is where a lot of the space went btw).

Trust me, it aint the 'radical difference' you think it might be. Think of a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it.

It would have been a step forward 10 years ago but seeings how it's ISD will be 2014 at the earliest, it is as modern as a Morris Marina...with a CD player and alloy wheels.

Yes, it has lots of lovely new avionics but as you say, these have limited the already limited space.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned what its handling characteristics will be like? An aircraft that is a ton heavier than the current Lynx (high disc loading already) but will still have the same FCS, servos and flying controls. Those Lynx drivers amongst you will be more than aware that current Lynx is a 'sports car' until its up towards MAUM then it becomes a bit of a nightmare if not treated with respect. FLynx will be at that weight without much on board straight off. It will not be the super-dooper performance monster some think it will be because of the powerful CTS800's. Something to think about. NR control will be fun. :ooh:

[requiem1973]

Having worked on Brasilian,Danish,Korean,German,Omani,Thai,Malaysian and South African Lynx the airframe on build at the moment certainly looks a bit different to a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it .

[nimby]

WG13_Dummy,

Clearly you've not had access ...

[Jackonicko]

nimby,

I'm prepared to believe that WG13 may be a tad harsh about AW, but your dismissive one line contradiction doesn't add to the debate - and I'd love to see a proper rebuttal (if there is one, which I doubt) of WG13 Dummy's cogent argument that:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned what its handling characteristics will be like? An aircraft that is a ton heavier than the current Lynx (high disc loading already) but will still have the same FCS, servos and flying controls. Those Lynx drivers amongst you will be more than aware that current Lynx is a 'sports car' until its up towards MAUM then it becomes a bit of a nightmare if not treated with respect. FLynx will be at that weight without much on board straight off. It will not be the super-dooper performance monster some think it will be because of the powerful CTS800's. Something to think about. NR control will be fun.

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse - whilst I admire your defence of your employers, to use the customer as an excuse for producing a poor product (you get what you ask for) is possibly the reason that AW are viewed so poorly by many in the military helicopter world.

The rest of industry in the real world doesn't operate or think like that, mainly because it doesn't have the luxury of a seemingly bottomless pit of govt cash to exploit. AW doesn't have any competition either since it is the only British (or pseudo-British) helicopter company in UK and enjoys the same patronage as BAe. Imagine if the car companies of the world worked like AW - we would all be driving around in Trabants being told how lucky we were that we got what we wanted.

Back to FLynx and no matter how you try to spin it or dress it up - the cabin is too small, it always has been and, it seems, always will be. It will fulfill a shipborne role courtesy of its compact size but is an utter waste of space (or lack of it) from a battlefield perspective. There is enough ISTAR available already (with much better capability) without trying to justify using another AW 'one size fits all comers' product just to save jobs.

[nimby]

Crab,

I wish we did ... enjoy the same patronage as BAE Systems (edited)

Jackonicko,

I think the argument from myself and Requiem was with the statement Trust me, it aint the 'radical difference' you think it might be. Think of a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it. ... which is just as dismissive of the list of changes in my earlier post. You'll see what I mean about the structures, etc., when the details become more widely published but it's visually quite distinct.

Crab/WG13,

With respect to cabin size, it seems that there is an assumption that this is supposed to be principally a volume trooplifter and not a flexible sensor and weapons platform with troop carrying capability (that extra mass isn't airframe). WG30 dropped off the list of things to do back in 1986 and what you're talking about is AW149. With respect to handling, I'll wait and see what the flight trials show but WG13 laid out the basics, based on earlier variants.

[Gnd]

possibly the reason that AW are viewed so poorly by many in the military helicopter world.

Mr Crab, me thinks you understate, unless you are including the ex-mil employees who now are AW employees who will obviously have changed their opinion!!!
Having flown it for many a happy hour, you are well aware of the very short comings, if we had the 800s it would be fine as it is. We could do a very good job but that was never going to happen without a massive penalty clause. “oooo, that’ll cost you”
By the way - Does anyone out there actually think that we will not put kit under the seats? :confused:

[dangermouse]

firstly to CRAB: I have never stated or implied that I work for AWH, why do you assume I do?

Secondly to CRAB: Meeting the spec doesn't mean a poor product it means one that meets what the customer asked it to (why should anyone EXPECT anything more than they asked for, its the same as ordering a pint and being offended you havent been given 2 for no additional cost, that's not the real world, no one gives capability away without something in return)

Thirdly to GND: of course you are perfectly entitled to ignore manufacturers and RTS advice and put stuff under the seat, just don't coming crying back to the suppliers when it all goes wrong, things are done for a reason after all. I am sure that manufacturers don't do these things out of spite!!

fourthly to WG13: Nr control should be fine as the T800 is isochronously governed to the best of my knowledge, the Gem sure aint!! There are already Lynx with this engine flying for years so the control laws should have been pretty well fixed by now I hope.

[nimby]

... and a UOR was annouced at the same time putting the CTS800-4N in 12 Army Mk 9s starting next year, so you should have all your wishes in at least one form.
37% more power than the current Gem engines that are fitted to the Lynx AH Mk.9 giving the aircraft a significant increase in power which will allow the aircraft to operate in extreme hot and high conditions.

[wg13_dummy]

Nimby;
WG13_Dummy,

Clearly you've not had access ...

......you assume. ;)


requiem1973;
Having worked on Brasilian,Danish,Korean,German,Omani,Thai,Malaysia n and South African Lynx the airframe on build at the moment certainly looks a bit different to a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it .

Ok, over simplification on my part. Maybe I should have said "Super Lynx with a monolithic.....etc". I'm sure you could list the components that are different? Remind me how much in % will be taken off our current Lynx to furnish FLynx?


Jackoniko, I'm not trying to be harsh towards AW as I fully appreciate the position they are in as a commercial company. The org I tend to be harshest against, is our own (MoD all the way through the process to ticking the boxes in the options brochure). We have no money and we want the 'gold plated solution'. Add in to that a procurement process that is as efficient as chocolate fire guard and the numerous requirement changes, lack of direction and general headless chickeness that is apparent then you see AW have their work cut out for them trying to come up with the right solution. Traditionally, it has been too easy to blame Westland for various **** ups concerning the issues we've had with our helicopters which makes it easier for the IPTs to slopey shoulder the responsibility.


dangermouse, I wholeheartedly agree with regard to your second point and that is quite often the crux of the issue (and something that is rarely advertised by the procurement and IPT agencies). Again, it's seen as easier to perpetuate the myth that AW are ****e. Don't get me wrong, they are a frustratingly arrogant company to work with but the base line is, they are a commercial entity and not a division of MoD Plc. If we don't get our ****e in one pile and direct what we want, why should they spend money on trying to answer a question we haven't asked?


As to your fourth point;
fourthly to WG13: Nr control should be fine as the T800 is isochronously governed to the best of my knowledge, the Gem sure aint!! There are already Lynx with this engine flying for years so the control laws should have been pretty well fixed by now I hope.

That makes very little difference to NR control. I'm on about the high end of control. Aerodynamic properties of the blades and disc loading does. Super Lynx currently has a MAUM of 5330kgs so its still a darn sight less than FLynx's projected MAUM of just below 5800kgs (with potential growth to 6250kgs with BERP IV). Heavy aircraft, high disc loading.


Back to you, nimby;
With respect to cabin size, it seems that there is an assumption that this is supposed to be principally a volume trooplifter and not a flexible sensor and weapons platform with troop carrying capability (that extra mass isn't airframe). WG30 dropped off the list of things to do back in 1986 and what you're talking about is AW149. With respect to handling, I'll wait and see what the flight trials show but WG13 laid out the basics, based on earlier variants.

Err, the initial requirement was as a utility aircraft and with this, came 'limited movement of men and materials'. That requirement is laid down as it was for current Lynx. We dont want it to do SH work but having knowledge of operating Lynx over the past 30 years, one of the big issues has been a lack of volume in the cabin to make it truly flexible. I'm not on about its engine lifting ability or lack of but just basic 'utility'. FLynx has less than current Lynx. Its role has been dictated by cost. An unavoidable consequence but there are other types out there that have a better value for money v compromise rating. Its a shame they weren't seriously looked at. We've got to the stage now where we may as well just get a rotary UAV because the nebulous 'ISTAR' role will be its only role.

(I seem to remember Westland promised that current Lynx could carry 8 fully armed troops as well as 8 TOW missiles for 2hrs 30 minutes). :hmm:

As time has marched on, that requirement has been dropped. Not withstanding the rear seat requirement, the requirement still cannot be met. Hence why that has now been dropped from the primary role and its primary has now become ISTAR. As for flexible sensor platform, again it's not really is it? Now, I know thats not the design fault as when we first got into this, we wished to use it in the low level recce (AH support) role and a sensor on top of the nose wasn't too much of an issue in the weeds. Time has seen the way we operate change significantly but unfortunately, the requirement hasn't kept up. As I said, not AWs fault. On the other hand, as has been seen on countless occasions, AWs drum beats to the RNs more often than not (geographic proximity to VL = lots of former matlots at AW or the FAA are a great R&D dept for AW?). Why on earth would the RN want a sensor anywhere else other than where it currently is? More to the point, why on earth would the export naval market want a sensor anywhere else than it is?

I think the RN are generally happy with their lot because current Lynx suits them down to the ground (or oggin) and FLynx is a nice progression. Lynx is a great little naval platform (as can be seen from the export market) but as was the case first time round, as a non naval platform, it is a massive compromise. The Qatar Police realised this. :8

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse - it's just your vehement defence of AW whenever they are criticised that made me think they owned you:) BTW the engine governing will have exactly no bearing on Nr control - it is in autoratation or harsh manoeuvring that the Nr control on a Lynx is exciting and, since the one that shed a blade in Germany many years ago was alleged to have been a result of persistent rotor overspeeds, it is a cause for concern amongst Lynx pilots which is why the Nr overspeed warner was fitted.
Meeting the spec has always been a Westlands excuse for producing a product that doesn't do the job since the spec is always bastardised to meet the limitations of the particular airframe that they have available.

Nimby - the limited movement of men and materiel is a stated capability of the AAC and the Lynx is the only beast they have to do it with. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect the FLynx to fulfill that role at least as well as the old Lynx (ie not very well) but it seems it will be worse.

What on earth do you need another sensor and weapons platform on the battlefield for when you have the Apache? This has been window dressing from the start in an attempt to justify the procurement of FLynx. Big deal - new structures and fuselage shape - it's still a Lynx with Lynx limitations which is now being over-engined in an attempt to make a silk purse from a sows ear. The airframe needs to be bigger - then add better engines and you might have a battlefield helicopter. Granted it won't then be a Lynx but it might be some use operationally.

The only reason the AAC heirarchy have backed FLynx is that without it, their sum total of helicopter presence is AH 64. Such a small but specialised capability does not need a whole Corps to sustain and support it and their very raison d'etre would vanish leaving them very vulnerable to cost-cutting takeovers.

WG13 - I think our posts passed each other in cyberspace:ok:

[Evalu8ter]

Crab, DH on the head of that nail...

Flynx (Wildcat) will be an excellent small ships flight helo, but the AAC version will be an expensive abberation. Why?

1. If the AAC need a "scout" helo it should be in the Squirrel/Fennec class, not the Flynx. Do they really need a "scout" anyway at the moment? Why have we spent nearly a £Bn on AH MTADS/MPNVS if we still need a dedicated "scout"? The role in Afg is already overtaken by a plethora of ISTAR UORs.

2. The AAC don't really need a "scout", what they want is a continuation of the corps structure to continue to feed enough non-AH 500 hr AAC majors into JHC. It also conveniently prevents the Colonel from having to get in a snatch landrover.....

3. As a small nation with limited RW budgets (as RW is not a core capability for any of the services) the Operational Analysis always tells you to buy the biggest lift platform you can. It is ultimately cheaper to use a big platform half empty sometimes than it is to establish and maintain a whole infrastructure for a new type (hmm, think Merlin Mk3 v Chinook...).

So in conclusion, what does Flynx (AAC) have going for it? Err, where it's built and that's about it..

However, despite all of the above, I'm actually glad the order has been confirmed. Why? Simple, this money would never have been recapitulated ( a la Commanche) into platforms we actually want (Chinook/Blackhawk/EC-725 etc) but would simply have been swallowed back into the treasury to pay for a tax break for some "well deserving" loafers at the next General Election.

So, better to have something than nothing. The bad feeling that I've got is that the Government are going to truly expect us to be grateful...

[wg13_dummy]

2. The AAC don't really need a "scout", what they want is a continuation of the corps structure to continue to feed enough non-AH 500 hr AAC majors into JHC. It also conveniently prevents the Colonel from having to get in a snatch landrover.....



Ouch. :}

Harsh but essentially fair.... :ok:

[Evalu8ter]

WG-13,
Sorry, on reading it again, I agree a bit harsh..I blame my man-flu and another day of dealing with the broken procurement system....!!

[Data-Lynx]

WG. I am sure that you are right about the RN appreciation of FLynx; the spin has certainly gone our way.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/100575_1.jpg

It is also true that, in the almost stony silence from informed sources within town or the Air Wing of HQLF, the speculators and media have raged across various fora pronouncing that the MoD is FLu**ed. It is certainly difficult to find a Land based picture as sensor and weapon rich as the glossy above.

Evalu8ter. Thank you, I must agree and 'harsh' did make me smile. It no longer matters what you can/cannot stow in the back or under the seat, what the look down angle of the optical/laser turret might be or providing enough blades in the air to keep the AAC going. As of last Thursday, 34 of these airframes will be delivered to the Army. So what are they going to do with them?

The US don’t appear to have a solution. Lt Gen James Thurman, US Army Ops Director said the war-fighting capability for a manned, armed, reconnaissance helicopter is crucial to supporting our ground combat commanders and remains a critical requirement for the Army (as the DoD cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter in Oct 08).

A number of us are struggling to understand what these stated TORs might mean: Future Lynx will be optimised for either the maritime or battlefield environments, with the versatility and flexibility to be able to be rapidly switched from one role to another. The aircraft will have a multi-role capability able to perform a range of tasks including battlefield reconnaissance, maritime surface attack and utility lift tasks.
Master of None is certainly too harsh.

Eval is probably right in that recent press statements will have to be satisfied: Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters that act as scouts, perform light close air support and escort other helicopters on dangerous missions.

Experts said an influx of Future Lynx helicopters would reduce the number of soldiers killed by roadside bombs by providing an alternative to ground patrols.

Future Lynx can carry out third-party designation of targets, particularly for the Apache AH Mk1 helicopter, by using the L3 Wescam MX-15Di stabilised electro-optical laser designator turret.

How is the AAC to respond? What weaponry do they seek and what will they call this Cat? Manx would suit many of the comments in Prune but I have to favour Toyger.

[wg13_dummy]

How is the AAC to respond? What weaponry do they seek and what will they call this Cat? Manx would suit many of the comments in Prune but I have to favour Toyger.


I prefer the name 'Sidrat'. ;)



Experts said an influx of Future Lynx helicopters would reduce the number of soldiers killed by roadside bombs by providing an alternative to ground patrols.

Would love to know who these so-called 'experts' are. Yep, we can insert troops but we will need to take all 34* of them to insert a platoon.



*Less the ones in the training system, RWTS, BDR, 847Sqn RN. How many BRH will actually be available to those troops? Ah, hang on. Its only an ISTAR platform....... :rolleyes:


http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-1/1138530/Sidrat2.jpg

[Modern Elmo]

What on earth do you need another sensor and weapons platform on the battlefield for when you have the Apache?

The the US Army is mistaken in calling for a 4/1 ratio of OAH to AH helicopters.


(as the DoD cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter in Oct 08).

That's going to get un-cancelled. The Army can't decide which helicopters to get, or what the ratio of manned to unmanned Observation Attack platforms should be. The manned choice or choices is probably going to be something more like a Lynx than a Kiowa, meaning more than two seats. However, Armed Observation will remain a distinctly different role from squad-sized assault transport.

[Modern Elmo]

Another possible outcome is that existing H-58's and H-6's get service life extended for quite some time before Army decides what to do.

[[email protected]]

Modern Elmo - I think you answered your own question - when we actually have a squad-sized assault transport so we can actually get some troops on the ground, maybe then we can afford the luxury of armed recce (but UAVs are so much cheaper).

[Gnd]

Thirdly to GND: of course you are perfectly entitled to ignore manufacturers and RTS advice and put stuff under the seat, just don't coming crying back to the suppliers when it all goes wrong, things are done for a reason after all. I am sure that manufacturers don't do these things out of spite!!

Dangermouse, Thank you for the obvious comment. I promise I won’t come 'crying' to the poor manufactures who are obviously, totally, unselfishly looking after my welfare - in a f/ing war zone, we are in the Military not the peace, sub group H&S, corps. We already know the response of the caring, conscientious, selflessly striving company when we go crying to them that it is a piece of garbage, as has been shown on so many occasions before. Tail rotor drive shaft, bendix tie bar etc............

I must say I have been unfair - I have no axe with the ground workers. The put wire B into loom A, as instructed. They have no idea that this is a) not the loom we need, b) likely to be totally incompatible with any new piece of kit we might want to add (thus requiring a new loom (C) at astronomical cost and weight penalty (have the TOW looms been removed???) or that if we decide to start the rotors, the vibration will probably null the effects of even putting the loom in anyway.

Do we have a castering nose wheel yet or is that still superfluous to our obvious requirement????

The rest of the argument is pretty good, it is the wrong aircraft that started out right - where did we 'the user' get it so wrong as it looks as if it (again) will be our fault that we don't get what we need.

[dangermouse]

this is getting interesting and I am glad it's not turning into another flame war:ok:

I am afraid I disagree with the comments regarding Nr control, surely when power on it is all down to engine governing. Assuming the aircraft isn't in autorotation then Nr variation can only be a function of either excess or inadequate fuel supply to the engines as thats what is making the blades go round (isnt it?).

A 'proper' control system should have sufficient response time and authority to prevent changes in the desired parameter (in this case rotor speed) now, accepting the fact that some manoeuvres off load (or load up) the disc the current engine governing sytem would seem (from comments here) to lack either or both authority and response time to do that well, hence the Nr variation mentioned. The increase in AUM means more pitch = more drag with an associated increase in the gain required to control the system, which if it does not have sufficient authority to do appears as more instability in rotor speed control. I would expect taht the FADEC in the T800 can only improve the situation and the current Nr variations experienced will be reduced (at a given weight).

Are there any Lynx drivers who have flown Legacy and T800 engined variants that can comment on any differences?

GND just editing this in light of your post (I was typing as you were).

Regarding the staff at AWH, knowing many of them I honestly believe that they have your best interest at heart regarding the products they produce, they are definitely not cold hearted money grabbers and support (as best they can) the UK forces. Unfortunately to err is human and there are inevitably been some problems (but then again that's true for any product). Of course you are working in a war zone but that deosn't change the fact that some rules now HAVE to be met, they are non negotiable regardless of the operational impact you percieve because of them.

I wrote the 'come crying' statement that's all that seems to happen on these pages, everyone blames the supplier who does only what he is paid/contracted to do (for reasons that should by now be painfully obvious), at least throw the 'blame' wider, to the IPTs, the evaluating authority who provided the MAR and the RTSA who all underwrite the suppliers deliverable product. Remember that all those people get to approve it before you see it.

DM

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse - I am afraid your comments regarding Nr control rather expose the difference between theoretical design parameters and the real world experience.

I am sure in one of your books somewhere it tell you that the engine governing system maintains the Nr inside strictly defined limits - that it does when power is applied but the droop law slope of any helicopter governor will have to shallow off at the bottom to prevent hunting in low power situations and, once the Nr is being driven up by other factors ie disc loading in manoeuvres, the throttle can only back off so far.

Low Nr isn't generally a problem in the Lynx since the engines are quite powerful and the governors work well - it is high Nr that can only be controlled by the pilot raising the lever that is the problem. A rapid, tactical descent followed by a flaring turn to wash off speed and make an expeditious arrival in an LS is the type of manoeuvre that regularly tries to wind the Nr off the clock in a heavy Lynx - adding to the AUM will just make it worse.

Your answer will probably be to train the pilots better! The condition is manageable at present AUM but will require even more pilot input and control (when he is trying to concentrate on not getting shot down) if you make the FLynx heavier. Helicopter designers are supposed to make each generation of military helicopters easier to fly so that the pilot can use the aircraft as a weapon of war to its best effect.

I would not for a moment exonerate the IPTs in the flawed procurement process but AW have been guilty in the past of presenting the IPT with a 'solution' to a problem in meeting the required capability which leaves the IPT with the choice to either accept the compromise or face further delays/costs in getting the product to the front-line.

[dangermouse]

and the cogent argument.

however;

Modern engines (T700/RTM322/T800 etc) are isonchronously governed using NR as the prime control law which means they have no droop characteristics down to 0% Tq and sit at the governed Nr in autorotation (same as when power on). The case you specify is akin to an autorotation and I agree that in that case rotor speed is just down to rotor pitch control, (the engines by definition not doing anything) but that's true in any autorotation scenario. It may be that the specified target AUM for the Flynx using the existing rotor system is too high for that type of manouevre to be carried out, I guess only time and flight testing will tell (from a quick search the Flynx AUM is beyond any existing variant AUM)

It would appear that the only thing to do would be to;

a) train the pilots better (!!) or

b) to increase the inertia of the disc to prevent a rapid split off (this may happen if the blades change in the future but that's not going to happen soon).

c) limit the aircraft mass until b) happens if a) doesn't work because as Scotty says 'Yae cannae change the laws of physics' and converting descent energy into rotor speed MUST add kinetic energy to the disc.

The improvement in helicopter technology is there (BERP4 for instance) and some is being incorporated (crash worthiness, FADEC) but again the MoD arent prepared to pay for it all yet (the spectre of limited funding rears it's head again).

I dont follow the statement 'presenting the IPT with a 'solution' to a problem in meeting the required capability' as being a problem, surely that's what they are meant to do (my underlining) and as long as the requirement is met (which means it isn't a compromise, it's spec compliance)then it's good business practice.

DM

[Gnd]

DM, Thanks, I do actually agree with your last. It is not a one pointed 'jab' at AW and there is a wider villain here. From the ground, I can assure you that it is very hard to get any honest empathy from the non mil side, I have tried.

It would seem that AW can just wait until, because we can't any more, there is no option to accept second best . It is defiantly a monopoly with a .gov.uk cheque at the end - it is SO VERY frustrating.

I am wrong to berate the H&S instructions and blame others for doing their mandated, ill advised will. I can assure you I am not the only person who WILL ignore them if it saves life or gets a very important job done (I could also say that I would use them to my advantage if it had the same effect - fickle or what!!) but do get annoyed when they are used as a weapon to NOT give us what we want - eg - tough, you got the seats as against OK, we will adapt it so you have enough seats, can you see the subtle difference?

On the Nr, I can verily easily over speed the head with power applied, if heavy. Heavy being a lot less than the predicted weight of the Mk 11 Lynx, sorry the all new FLynx - not able to comment on the 800s. The 800s being another point, if we didn't accept the Mk11, we were not going to get the 800s, how was that acting in our best interests??

[dangermouse]

It's nice to see that on this discussion at least we are all staying grown up and not getting personal, even if we disgree with some posters.:ok:

I think what we are seeing here is a reflection on the lack of understanding between users and producers (interestingly this same thing has been highlighted on the A400 thread as well). Unfortunately this always comes back to funding, no doubt the Lynx could have been adapted to meet ALL the different users requirements but in that case the cost would have been unacceptable (either in monetary terms or political terms if something else had been selected). What you want often isnt what they can afford!!

By now everyone must recognise that protecting UK jobs is part of the UK goverments responsibility whether any us of like it or not.

It is probable that the final weight of the Flynx will only be with a new rotor fitted which no doubt will go some way to alleviate the current problems. Again overspeeding the head whilst power on is down to engine governing not backing the throttle off quickly enough (maybe the actual condition was really in autorotative flight but the engine didnt react quickly enough)

DM

[I'm Off!]

DM,

No-one has ever had a big problem with overspeeding a head with power on. Unfortunately it is a much less effective and therefore much more dangerous tactical descent and approach if you have to keep the Tq high enough to govern NR. And limiting the AUM is not an answer - your 3 troops that FLynx could put into that LS is now 1, and the aircraft will need to go for fuel before it can pick up the next solitary troop for the LS.

[Gnd]

No, came thundering round the corner, the mighty Gem roaring, lots of troops and off she jolly well went, nothing on the clock but the makers name - as they say (pointer being far to right in this case).
I still believe that there should and could be more joint pressure on - whoever, Gov, Mod, IPT or AW to try a little harder to compromise, not just cold business profiteering. Who knows, I might be able to get my job done quicker and spend Crimbo at home instead of – umm - not there!!!!

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse - my point about providing 'solutions' is that if there is an IPT/customer requirement that AW can't meet then they often offer what they have available on the shelf which is usually far less capable than was actually required. Then, when the IPT/customer complains they are told that if they really want the required capability then it will cost more money and take longer. The inevitable result is that the IPT/customer ends up having to concede capability because the manufacturer can't actually deliver what they promised.

This is not the same as producing a product which fully meets the IPT/customer requirements.

You don't seem to understand, despite several pilots telling you, that the Nr on the Lynx is lively, ie any venture into the low power end of the spectrum when manoeuvring results in rapid increases in Nr - far more than most other helicopters. It is completely irrelevant to isynchronous governing. Overspeeding the head with power on is not a function of the throttle not backing off quickly enough, it is a function of the powerful accelerative forces in the rotor system (which is in fact quite high inertia already) during flaring and turning manoeuvres.

It would appear that the blades and rotor system on FLynx will be exactly the same as on the present one so any increase in AUM brings handling penalties. And as we have already stated, increasing the AUM doesn't achieve anything unless you can fit troops into the cabin or weapons on pylons - what system is FLynx going to be fitted with for the battlefield variant?

It is a persistant AW myth that simply increasing the AUM of the aircraft will bring new capability to the battlefield - window dressing and hyperbole to disguise the poor suitability of the platform to the task.

[dangermouse]

I don't get where you are coming from CRAB, you seem very confused with terminology

my point about providing 'solutions' is that if there is an IPT/customer requirement that AW can't meet then they often offer what they have available on the shelf which is usually far less capable than was actually required ( that's the way of the world, not everything is available off the shelf). Then, when the IPT/customer complains (it's hardly fair to register a complaint because what is wanted isn't available off the shelf) they are told that if they really want the required capability then it will cost more money and take longer (what's wrong with that? development to meet a specific requirement does take time and money, why should the manufacturer pay for that, it's the customer placing the requirement) The inevitable result is that the IPT/customer ends up having to concede capability because the manufacturer can't actually deliver what they promised. (there has been no promise made or broken!! the manufacturer said what he can deliver off the shelf, or what could be delivered if funded to change what is currently available, there is no promise anywhere until a contract is placed but I guess you are assuming that manufacturers always lie about deliveries in any case)

If you think that a response to a request stating 'we cant do it' is a Promise to say 'we CAN do it' you have a very poor understanding of the English language.

If AW (or anyone else) don't have anything available to fully meet any requirement of course it will take time and money to arrive at one that will, it's naive to think anything else. If what is available is acceptable within any given timescale and budget that's what is delivered, if it's not acceptable it's either not bought or incurs costs to make it acceptable, theres nothing new in that.

I also completely disagree with the assertion that a power on manoeuvre has nothing to do with engine control authority, by definition a power on state requires energy to be put into the system (by the engines) to maintain rotor speed and therefore it all comes down to engine control providing more energy than needed for any particular manoeuvre.

As I said a few posts ago a governing sytem without adequate authority will exacerbate the inherent trend of a highly loaded disc to accelerate during a disc off loading manoeuvre, that's basic physics:-

If energy demand at the time is lower than the sum of (the energy transfer by the manoeuvre plus energy supplied by the engines) = the rotor speeds up,

so

If the engine energy supply is lowered in time the energy sum balances = rotor speed won't change (or you are in auto), conversely if due to low authority control engine energy supply is not lowered in time the rotor upspeeds.

I am not confusing power off rotor control with power on and fully accept that the Lynx has a lively rotor when unloaded, however all the input so far appears to be from people experienced in Gem operations, not T800 so any comments made regarding Flynx Nr control are based on false assumptions.Theoretically as the T800 is isochronously governed it should be possible to keep the Tq at a very low value and still have the Nr governed (again when power off it's all down to the rotor) so that a nearly autorotative descent can be flown, that's one advantage of newer engines and their governing systems.

I agree with the views regarding compromises, but any 'compromise' in this case will be expensive as there is very little that can be done cheaply to change a rotor discs behaviour, a higher disc loading means a quicker rotor response when off loading the disc.....over to Scotty again I am afraid (at least the Flynx won't have the Gems governing to worry about)

DM

[penny pincher]

Hi Peeps,
I have followed the thread with a bit of interest as i do have a background on the mighty Lynx, Since i trained on it from squirrel i found the Nr loading to to be a real horror show, exploring the AW system in the process just to make sure!
DM your point is well made about the power on /off issue with loading, and actually, through real experience of the conditions required to catch you out on a daily basis, there realy is no replacement for training and practice. It was the transition from power on to off, either intentionally or otherwise that would effect the need to have your left hand cupping the collective as the AC Comd.
I'm must admit that i find the comments about having low Tq values and still having the ability to control Nr a bit confusing, it requires pitch to create drag to slow the rotor down...i think! So fadec would not have an input, unless through an AFCS function?
With that in mind the beasty i am floating about in does have FADEC and still has the same issues as ANY other AC that is big and heavy. The Lynx, with a Fadec'd engine and greater AUM will IMHO have the same issues as now, but with good training it will be no more than another trait on a great flying airframe. Pity it is just that, a good flying machine, not necessarily a fighting machine.

If i am mistaken in any of this then please feel free to correct me, I am utter ****e at Gnd School!!:O

[[email protected]]

DM, I will try to make myself clear. If I want a house built, I will choose an architect who will listen to what I want, possibly amend or adjust a few things for the sake of cost, style or expedience and then produce the drawings. Then I will choose a builder who will build said residence for x pounds.

Having agreed the price the building is built to my satisfaction within the required timescale or penalties are invoked.

With AW, they are the only architect and the only builder in town so I have a choice of 1 with no competition. Then AW will look at my ideas for a house and then try to shoehorn a design they already have drawn up for a different project and try to convince me that this house of theirs is exactly what I want.

Since they are the only architects/builders in town I have little choice because I want my new house next year so I emphasise what I want and they promise that what they will deliver will be to my liking and a contract is made.

Somewhere along the line, AW realise that the bathroom design I have specified (and they have agreed to) is not going to work because their plumbing doesn't fit it. Then they tell me it will be OK because they have a very similar bathroom suite which does fit their plumbing but hasn't got the bidet, power shower and walk-in bath I asked for.

I create merry hell and ask why they said they could do the job when it was obvious from the start there was a plumbing issue. They reply by telling me I can have what I originally wanted but it will mean redesigning their plumbing rig which will take time and cost more money because it wasn't included in the original quote.

Because I am under pressure from the wife to move into the new house I have to agree and the end result is a house with a bathroom I don't like and didn't want and AW go away happy, with their profit intact and promising that an upgrade to the bathroom may well be available in a couple of years as long as I am willing to pay for it.

I think that sums up the AW experience:)

Back to governors - unless your 2 engines are mechanically or electrically joined, you need a droop law to allow the engines to load share. In a constant Nr (I think this is what you mean by isynchronous) system with no link between engines, one engine could idle and the other be flat out and both governors would be happy because the Nr was correct.

Back to manoeuvring the Lynx - because of the CAC (computer acceleration control) when 'G' is sensed, it offloads the rotor head by reducing collective pitch (and thus torque) - it is a clumsy system designed to minimse the effect of a cyclic AFCS runaway in pitch.

If you are in a high-speed tactical descent with say 20% Tq (ie power on) and you then flare hard, the 'G' will cause the CAC to reduce pitch and Tq and coupled with the normal flare effects due to the change in the relative airflow presented to the disc (pitch-up, increase in rotor thrust and NR) will suddenly put you in effectively a power off regime which even the cleverest governor in the world can do nothing about. Unless the collective is raised pdq, the Nr will accelerate fast and probably overspeed. We do teach pilots to lead with lever btw but it can still catch people out.

The higher the AuM, the more flare required to arrest the rate of descent and the more 'G' experienced.

The point to note is that, to use your terminology, the boundary between loaded and unloaded head can be crossed very quickly when manoeuvring hard and your clever governors won't cope.

[Gnd]

DM, I am starting to get the same felling about this thread as I do when AW start talking - it is going nowhere unless we agree with you.

Crab is in no way shabby when it comes to the tech and PoF required to prove that the Lynx at 4875 is a handful, T800s are great and are meant to let us actually get airborne in moderate temps (something that is embarrassingly missing at the moment) but will not stop the problem of an old, slow AFCS being re-installed on a modified bathroom thus adding the same bidet characteristics, regardless how you redecorate it. If I add gold wallpaper to the bathroom, increase the overall weight, the Pooh will still go down the pan in the same way!!!! You could narrow the pipe to slow it a bit but it will still go down.

I Think the bathroom analogy is the correct one for the Mk11, and no redecoration is going to make it actually do the job we, the poor, stupid users want or asked for.

Again,
have we been allowed to have castering nose wheels?
Can we have enough room in the front to actually use it (or remove the PSPs if they are the problem)?
How are we going to get the troops out of the places they NEED to be got out from?

All questions that were asked well before the 1st mock up was built and seem to have been re-interpreted.

[dangermouse]

CRAB, thankyou for clarifying with your analogy what you were trying to say in your earlier post. Obviously in the scenario you postulate the supplier has broken the contract agreed on (ie not supplied what was agreed) and you should quite rightly be agrieved (no argument there).

I find it difficult to believe that with MoD contracts this happens without the supplier incurring penalties as legally they will be in breach of the contract (hardly good business sense). It may appear from your position that doesn't happen but I remain to be convinced.

Back to engine control....

Engine governing systems have different 'priorities' when it comes to control. The prime (but not the only) one should be to maintain rotor speed at all times within an agreed tolerance, and if the propulsion system uses more than 1 engine a secondary consideration (for obvious reasons) should be to share the power evenly whilst maintaining adequate rotor control, I believe that is what current mechanical or digital control systems do as well as other clever things like temp and speed limiting.

I have never stated that when 'power off' rotor speed control on the Lynx is anything but challenging and I agree that an increase in AUM can only make things worse in that case, however until that point is reached (ie autorotation is entered) a more modern engine governing system WILL control Nr more tightly and reduce the tendency for the rotor speed to increase as power demand is reduced and may well prevent a split off being achieved.

Thanks for the input from Penny Pincher regarding FADEC control and piloting techniques, his points are well made.

PP: to clarify if the engines are required to supply power at any level they also have the capabilty to throttle that power and control the Nr, newer (Digital) system have a higher reaction time and higher fidelity than legacy systems and that is why the governing laws are tighter. A rotor will slow down any pitch angle otherwise it would require no power at all to get the thing to rotate in the first place (profile and induced drag plus inherent friction within the drive train have to be overcome if nothing else)

I am not saying that rotor control at high AUM will be perfect but it will be better than now and I can only assume that the MAUM number arrived at for the Lynx rotor system with T800s driving it has been modelled and assessed as suitable for service otherwise that AUM would never have been agreed, surely.

GND: The bathroom analogy is a bit harsh in this case, AW (to the best of my knowledge) havent changed the contracted design and then demanded more cash, they are contractually obliged to deliver what was agreed, yes you are right you might not get what YOU want but you will get what was ordered and that won't be AWs fault.

I dont have access to the design deatils but from the CGI pictures it looks like the undercarriage is common between RN and AAc aircraft and I am sure the RN will mandate a castoring nosewheel so you will get one as well.

It is likely we won't see eye to eye on all points in this discussion but where I know things are wrong I will continue to correct them. I wish you well and keep your head down and yourself safe wherever you are.

DM

[wg13_dummy]

dangermouse, how many hours do you have flying Lynx?




I dont have access to the design deatils but from the CGI pictures it looks like the undercarriage is common between RN and AAc aircraft and I am sure the RN will mandate a castoring nosewheel so you will get one as well.

At present, the u/c is common for both. ie- the same as current naval Lynx. The Navy have (or had) no requirement for a castoring nose wheel as they feel there is no need to ground taxi the aircraft. The army failed to clearly specify that they required ground taxiable aircraft although the requirement intimated it. To 'cure' this error, it may be deemed that it is out of contract thus meaning extra cost to stick a castoring nose wheel on (both versions). With this extra cost, it means further capability will be lost as we have to remove something to pay for the change. Even if we do get a ground taxiable aircraft, it is doubtful whether AW will 'clear' the aircraft to anyway as they don't have confidence in being able to record head stress through life. How come we can ground taxi Mk9 Lynx with the same head without this problem?

[dangermouse]

but I don't need to have to understand control theory.:=

just for clarity in this part of the discussion, by 'castoring' do we mean powered (like the Merlin) or free castoring? (like the Puma) as the Puma can ground taxi without a powered nosewheel so the Flynx should be able to.

Currently doesnt the RN Lynx have a free castoring nose wheel to allow turns on the deck, same reason as the main wheels can be toed ? nd isnt that analagous to the puma situation, or am I getting my knickers in a twist?

WG13: the 'problem' comes back to (from the users point of view) a poor defintion of the requirement, once more not the suppliers fault, you should get EXACTLY what you asked for, nothing more or less.

Without a detailed involvement in the design and qualification process (which I also dont have) why makes you think a release for a new aircraft with dedicated trails assets isn't achievable, it's pure conjecture (but I suppose this is a 'rumour' network after all)

DM

[Master Live]

Been flying RN Lynx for a while with over 3000hrs in them. It can get off the deck in 5 minutes with a big gun and a missile and wreak havoc (the Merlin can't). The present airframes need replacing soon and there's nothing better at the job. If the the AAC don't want FLynx then perhaps they can give them to the RN.

[wg13_dummy]

but I don't need to have to understand control theory.

Theory and reality are two entirely different things. ;)

Seeings how you have never flown Lynx, I shall pretty much ignore your 'theories' regarding NR control on that airframe if you don't mind?

just for clarity in this part of the discussion, by 'castoring' do we mean powered (like the Merlin) or free castoring? (like the Puma) as the Puma can ground taxi without a powered nosewheel so the Flynx should be able to.

As in free castoring like a Puma or err a Lynx Mk 9. :rolleyes:

Currently doesnt the RN Lynx have a free castoring nose wheel to allow turns on the deck, same reason as the main wheels can be toed ? nd isnt that analagous to the puma situation, or am I getting my knickers in a twist?

Not really free castoring as it is unable to steer by use of yaw input whilst taxiing. The axle is situated directly below the nose oleo as opposed to a dragging wheel arrangement like the errr Lynx Mk9. :rolleyes:

Look at the position of where the wheels are in relation to the oleo;
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2292/2941956034_7e68864dc9.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2646373373_7909150797.jpg?v=0

WG13: the 'problem' comes back to (from the users point of view) a poor defintion of the requirement, once more not the suppliers fault, you should get EXACTLY what you asked for, nothing more or less.

If you reread my post, I did say the Army failed to clearly specify that a helicopter with wheels should be able to ground taxi. I think some in the army thought that was a 'given' seeings how our current helicopters in the Army with wheels can ground taxi.


Without a detailed involvement in the design and qualification process (which I also dont have) why makes you think a release for a new aircraft with dedicated trails assets isn't achievable, it's pure conjecture (but I suppose this is a 'rumour' network after all)

DM

Its not pure conjecture, I can guarantee you of that. ;)

[Gnd]

yes you are right you might not get what YOU want but you will get what was ordered and that won't be AWs fault.

You are so right, it never is their fault, we get seen off again because of pure profit, no concern or empathy with their bread basket - you wonder why we hate them?????

[[email protected]]

And, if I recall, it was the Westland boys who created the fantastic rear undercarriage for the Mk 9 Lynx - you know, the one with the radius arm design that means you can't land vertically without peeling the tyres from the wheels. Oh no! that must have been the customer's fault as well.:ugh:

Probably a bit like the Main Rotor Head Vibration Absorber (MRHVA) or 'bonk' as it was christened. This was Westlands genius solution to high vibration levels generated by the rotor - they just happend to have a box load of 'bonks' on the shelf because they had been intended for the WG30 - so they sold them to the AAC and invented a 'tuning procedure' which was only valid for one specific Nr (it varies in flight due to the droop law). The MRHVA reduced next to bugger all vibration and took many kilos of useable AUM - another fantastic Westlands bathroom solution.;)

DM you clearly don't want to listen to pilots' opinions on the Lynx handling - and you wonder why I thought you worked for AW:)

[I'm Off!]

DM, you are missing the point somewhat. Again - no-one has a problem with NR control due to the governors not coping. No-one thinks that there is a problem with maintaining a constant NR power on. The point is that due to the rotor design, both head and blades, the NR is extremely challenging when in a low power situation. Not necessarily power off, but low power. This is because the aerodynamic effects of disc loading has more power to increase NR than the governors have to decrease it by backing off the power. It is very easy to get into a low Tq situation where the NR is rising rapidly, and the fanciest governors in the world will not change that. The fact is that to get the aircraft down through a threat band requires a high ROD with manouevering. This means extremely lively NR at a time/altitude when the pilot has lots of other things to focus on. An increase in AUM not only results in exacerbated NR rise, but an earlier onset of disc loading and therefore NR rise. I'm not complaining about it - it is managable if the pilot is competent, current, well trained and aware. But it is hardly progress, and the governors will not help this.

And by the way, just how many advanced autos or tactical descents have you done in a Lynx at 5330Kg?

[Jucky]

DM - On the point of nosewheel castoring if it is the same as the current Mk3/8 arrangement, it won't be much use to the AAC. It is hydrualically actuated and will only rotate 90 deg to the right to allow the aircraft to pivot around the deck lock harpoon with the mainwheels towed out at 27.5 deg. The wheels don't have brakes either they have locks which are either on or off! Great when you are onboard and want take off into wind and the fish heads can't give you a decent flying course. Not so great for taxying around an airfield! As for NR control, I concur with all the other Lynx pilots on this thread, it can be extremely lively at high AUM in low Tq manoeuvres and no governer will change that. FLynx (Wildcat) will be great for the RN not so sure about the AAC! I only hope that it will be as capable as the current MK8 CMP.

[dangermouse]

I feel that I have to summarise my postings for clarity;

Suppliers are only required to deliver what is requested by the contract and that is what is done. If the contract placed differs from the end users requirements, blame the specification writers not the suppliers (GND please take note)

I have never denied that with the current control system (ie GEM)Nr control at low tq is challenging (but please conceed that all posters here only have experience of that configuration), so as no one here has flown a Lynx with T800s fitted any comments on its Nr control are theoretical on both sides of the argument and no one will know until FLynx flies (or a T800 equipped Lynx pilot cares to comment)We are all entitled to our own views on the subject.

Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is.

Modern aircraft design rules placed on manufacturers mandate change to airframes that some users disagree with, but it's a non negotiable point.

I freely admit not knowing about the various undercarriage configurations and thats why I asked (terminology can be misleading so I requested clarification), the FLynx undercarriage may not be what the user wants but the point has been conceeded by WG13 that the design meets what was asked for. (see a pattern here?)

regarding the Mk9 undercarriage something rings a bell that the design evolved so that a Mk7 could be converted to a Mk9 without a substantial structural rebuild, therefore the loads had reacted through existing structure and that drove the geometry of the legs. If such constraints are placed on a design team we are back to Mr Scott again and there are few options available.

I think that summarises what I have been saying. It may make uneasy reading for some in the services but that's the reality of a cash strapped procurement environment.

DM

[Gnd]

I do not know if you really do know the 'reality'. It is now blatantly obvious that you are more interested in either promotion within a useless company or trying to prove that you know best and the SME's are all lying.

Crab has politely, succinctly and truthfully tried to tell you that this piece of sh1t will have the same dangerous trends as the Mk1-9. We were conned into having the 800s on the 9's which will cost a fortune and take a year - should use the REME as they can change an engine in 12 hours or less; sorry you probably have a very good reason why you, sorry AW, have to take a year to mess this one up as well.

There are 'watchers' on this thread who do seem to know what they are talking about and I am 'told' that the Army will get the castoring wheel, a good and logical move - so you think they did that out of the goodness of their hearts or actually listened, unlikely as it seems and has been in the past.

If someone actually believes that it is the owners fault that the product doesn’t work might find that the owner is so fed-up with the product that they just keep putting in fault reports until the company get such bad press that they fix it - been done before and will be done again. God forbid that one of our friends comes to grief as there is so much documented evidence that this will not work or what we wanted then the nails will be driven home and the last AW stronghold will go the same way as the IoW, can’t wait.
If you think this is vitriolic and personal, it is nothing compared to some of the posts that will no doubt follow. You are very stubborn and obviously uninformed or not experienced enough to take on the real Lynx experts, good luck: I yield to the real experts.

[[email protected]]

DM, I think I have to summarise your postings for clarity:

I believe I have illustrated how the specification writers can be forced into accepting change that the end user doesn't want, simply because the supplier can't (or won't) supply what was contracted. Any attempt at penalising the supplier is met with 'we can't afford to lose money or all those jobs in Yeovil will be at risk' and the politicians are rolled out to defend British industry.

There is meeting the contract and there is meeting the contract - when the first AH 64s were being delivered there was one serviceable Multi-Function Display (MFD) available but the contract stated that each aircraft had to be delivered complete and functional or penalties would be awarded.

AW flew each aircraft individually to MW where each one was inspected and confirmed to be complete - then they took the MFD out, drove it to Yeovil and installed it in the next AH64 for delivery. So the AAC got a hangar full of unuseable aircraft with no MFDs and AW got to keep their profit having failed to deliver the goods:ugh:

T800s wil not change anything with regard to lively Nr on FLynx but you seem very unwilling to concede that point - there is no magic spell that can be cast but you keep wishing anyway.

Everyone understands the implications of modern airworthiness regulations but don't hide behind them to justify why the aircraft won't be able to do its job on the battlefield - if the cabin was bigger you could have crashworthy seats AND enough room for 8 troops!

The Mk 9 undercarriage could have been designed much better without compromising the aircraft structure - AW just used the cheapest and easiest option they could and were then surprised when it didn't work well.

I think this summarises what you have been saying - it might make uncomfortable reading for some in AW and the procurement business but that's the reality of a government supported industry that doesn't have to compete to stay in business.

[ianp]

I will probably regret this as this seems to have become quite a heated thread and I have only just glanced at the end. Feel I ought to chip in on something DM just said :

"Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is."

Absolutely correct but this is surely only part of the problem. Also of critical importance are the flying control mechanical characteristics used to control that Nr and the presentation of rotor speed cues to the pilot, be they visual, audio or by other means. You will never make a silk purse out of a sows ear and sometimes I wonder if it is worth the bother but there are often multiple solutions that can go into mitigating a particular problem.

[BossEyed]

We were conned into having the 800s on the 9's which will cost a fortune and take a year - should use the REME as they can change an engine in 12 hours or less; sorry you probably have a very good reason why you, sorry AW, have to take a year to mess this one up as well.

Blimey, that's clever. Different types of engine are plug'n'play these days.

I never knew that.

[Gnd]

Sorry Boss, it was meant as a metaphor for a crap company that will take far too long, charge far too much and then blame us for asking for engines that work. I also stupidly presumed that someone would have considered the compatibility issue and deemed that it would be capable of changing the engines and so not take a year to put 2 in for first delivery end 09 (if I read the official mouthpiece for AW – the Government-correctly). I was just trying to infer that the REME, or any Military technician, would have empathy with the dilemma we have found ourselves in when the temp rises above 12 deg C and do their absolute best to help out and give us, the user, as good a service as they could. Not just count the pennies after they have put us over a barrel and shafted us.
I am so stupid- bad boy:ugh:

[dangermouse]

If people are not prepared to read what is written (I've never said that the rotor will behave power off any differently) when it opposes their blinkered views and when biased assumptions about future aircraft behaviour are made there is no point in continuing (no T800 lynx epxerts have posted here)

I hope that you keep yourself safe and well GND and I am sad that you think an improvement in the current Mk9 is seen as a 'con' job, you will never be happy it seems.

Merry Xmas to all, I'm off to continue living in the real world


DM

[[email protected]]

And as DM flounces off into the sunset, the high-pitched whine of the FLynx Nr overspeeding can be heard........ooooooooh it wasn't supposed to do that - are you sure you are flying it properly?Don't you know you have T800s now?:)

You can polish a turd as much as you like but it is still a turd when all is said and done and you can reasonably expect every turd to exhibit similar characteristics since they are made from the same materials by the same mechanism.

[Gnd]

DM, do not even presume to tell me when to or when not to be happy, if you get out of your nice little EH101 armchair that you seem to have been in for the past 15 years and come to my nice sunny, hot (well not so much at the moment) base and actually put yourself in the seat then try and tell me that I should be happy with a ‘polished version’- I will shut up. Until then I shall think of you as a cantankerous, self opinionated know all - who obviously doesn’t.

I thought someone "closely associated with" would abide by the AW dictate - don't post on here as you 'may' be quoted as 'selling the party line' - you have and I hope big brother is watching. I bet the Lynx fleet are and I don't see too many on your side.

I hope you have the same Christmas as me!!

[wg13_dummy]

DM. I have a few hours with the T800 on Super Lynx (as well as a few thousand on various marks of current Lynx) and NR control is still as fruity at the lower power settings as it is with the Mk3, Mk7, Mk8 and Mk 9. Remember, the Super Lynx MAUM is 5330Kg so is only a little bit more than current Lynx but still quite a bit shy of the in-service MAUM of Sidrat. Unless you know different and have defied physics, using the same main rotor assembly and flying controls (and AFCS) and increasing the weight of the aircraft will not improve the NR control. You have all but admitted that it is a design flaw (of sticking highly aerodynamic blades on an already highly loaded disc).

I can tell you work for AWs marketing department. :rolleyes:

[Jackonicko]

Assuming that the answer had to be a Lynx or at least a Westland type (for all of the political/industrial/employment reasons) then what would you experts (and I mean that without a trace of sarcasm) have done differently?

Changed the rotor head and AFCS rather than the monolithic tailboom?

Lengthened the tailboom and increased the length of the MRBs?

Stretched the cabin (as on the Lynx 3 and civvy Lynx - the Type 606)?

Fitted an AW139 type nose gear?

Procured Super Lynx 300 for the RN for the SCMR part of the requirement, and an AW139 derivative for the Army's BLUH requirement?

[wg13_dummy]

There is no assumption that it had to be Lynx. It was pretty much a done deal as soon as Westland printed the glossy brochures for Sidrat all those years ago. ;)

Unfortunately, Lynx development is moving into a cul-de-sac and has very little realistic room for improvement or growth. Sure, you can strap on awesome engines and stick in a really nice avionics suite but as turds go, its as highly polished as it can be for future use. Thats the problem. We are rewriting role and requirement to fit that particular aircraft which in my mind is taking quite a large capability leap backwards. Its akin to trying to improve or 'future proof' an Austin Maxi.

This is where the problem lies. To improve Lynx, you actually need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Unfortunately, that costs a huge amount of money. If we had the money, we could go elsewhere (or at least away from Lynx) to get an aircraft that is designed to fit a requirement and/or a capability. As I've said, we have no money and are having to pretty much go with what we are being offered. It really is a choice of 'get Flynx or get bugger all'. Seeings how we have that wonderful choice, we have to make it fit. Or should I say, make us fit what Flynx can do. Its only role in the 'BRH' guise is ISTAR....and that was an after thought.

What could be done realistically to improve Lynx? Well, if we had the budget, it could do with being a bit bigger. The Lynx fuselage plug would go some way to meeting that. At least it would mean the future aircraft with crash worthy seats would have a similar troop lift capability as the current Lynx (with the advantage that it could do this in hot/high environments). This gives flexibility in a utility platform. The problem with high disc loading would unfortunately increase with the current MRH/blade configuration. One would need to redesign this to ensure the MRH/blades could keep up with the increase in mass.

The design of the monolithic tail boom is a factor of easier/cheaper manufacturing and maintenance as opposed to some wonderfully special handling artefact. Lengthening the tail boom and MR blades would unfortunately make the handling akin to sticking remoulds and coil springs on an F1 car.

The CMRBs (BERP) are the issue. They fly too well. Afterall, thats what Westland designed them to do (for naval aircraft). The sales speil went along the lines of;

Sell Point 1. The Composite Main Rotor Blades will allow a higher cruise speed.

Reality. In the TOW role, the Army Lynx had a max speed of 140 kts due to the TOW booms. The entire Lynx fleet had a limitation of 140kts (down to 120kts for a while) due to vibration issues and tail gearbox issues. A higher cruise speed was irrelevant.


Sell Point 2. The CMRB are all exactly the same therefore meaning that tracking and vib'ing the blades becomes a thing of the past. Maintenance is reduced as they all come out of a 'master mould'.

Reality. It is impossible to manufacturer two components exactly the same especially when it comes to large rotable parts. No two blades are the same and due to no adjustment at workshop level (no tip washers, no trim tabs), it means that tuning the blades is nigh on impossible therefore ensuring the aircraft have more vibrations meaning all other components have shorter lives. (Dont worry chaps, the MRHVA ('Bonk') will 'cure' this) and gluing bits of rubber to the tips will helps the engineers tuning. :rolleyes:

From what I'm led to believe, FLynx will have a bonk. Well, when asked, the AW bloke didn't know but said 'probably'. Super Lynx (T800s) currently wears a bonk.


Sell Point 3. The blades are more aerodynamic, lighter and agile than steel blades meaning the aircraft are more manoeuvrable and will give you a higher MAUM.

Reality. The above factors ensure the head flys away at the drop of a hat.....or to be precise, at the drop of a collective. This causes un-noticed rotor over speeds and contributed to over stressing of tie bars. Result= Large smoking hole 3kms outside Mendig in 1994. Tie bar failure.


Sell Point 4. Due to the shape of the tip paddles, the onset of tip transonic compressibility is increased meaning the advancing blade experiences a lower relative tip speed. Tip vortices are sent outwards and downwards therefore not disturbing the following blades air flow.

Reality. Who cares? 140kts is all we can do anyway. See point 1. The 'Cobble stone' effect has the boffins at Westland scratching their heads a bit. A rumbling effect of the aircraft when hover taxiing between 14-17 kts or if sat in the hover with the same speed of air over the disc. Plays havoc with the previously stable TOW or PID sights. More vibration.


Sell Point 5. All you Lynx boys will be wanting these blades. They are awesome.

Reality. Err, no we dont (Army). Plastic tipped blades are a bit of a nause if you are landing in a clearing. If you get so much as a twig touching the tip, it fecks off and makes the cab wobble like buggery. At least with the old steel blades, you could do a little bit of foliage trimming and fly the cab out of it without bits of the aircraft falling off. We dont actually want/need CMRBs thank you very much.

Westland - Tough. We dont make the steal blades any more so you're going to have to spend £40k a blade for them whether you like it or not. Do you lot not realise you're the R&D department for BERP/Merlin/Super Lynx?????



I like the idea of sticking an AW139 nose gear on it though. We could also stick AW139 main gear, AW139 doors, AW139 cockpit, AW139 fuselage and whilst we are at it, AW139 MRH, tail rotor and engines on it too. That would get my thumbs up.

To be honest, as has been said, the SCMR fits the FAAs needs to perfection. Unfortunately, to get the 'deal', commonality with the pongos cab was required and to that end, to enable the Navy to afford SCMR the AAC had to buy into the BRH too. Without one, the other couldn't happen. It just means that the AAC will have to make the massive compromise yet again for the next 30 years (if it lasts that long).

[Jackonicko]

There was a political assumption/requirement that it had to be Westland - and I suspect that meant Lynx, exactly because of the need for a common platform for BRH/BLUH/SCMR/FRC Find etc.

I know that the AAC all had hard-ons for the Blackhawk, but if we ever got H-60s (or NH90s, or Super-Duper Puma/Cougars) you know as well as I do that they'd go to the crabs.

There may have been a window of opportunity for the Corps to get a 139-sized machine, but no bigger than that.

But in the event the AAC was forced to take a Lynx (and the AW139/149 would have been better?)

Should it have been a T800 powered aircraft with metal blades? How easy would it have been to reduce the disc loading? Would a longer boom/longer fuselage, bigger main rotor really have been so very disastrous? Why?

Would you want an optimised wheeled gear, or do you really drool for skids?

What could be done to sort out this disc-loading related NR problem?

Go easy on me, I'm a rusty fixed wing PPL, so the intricacies of RW handling are a black art.....

But I am a generally friendly, pro-Defence journo who is struggling to understand this.

[penny pincher]

Seems like we could do with those forthright, and absolutely spot on points of view further up the chain, where someone would listen...oh and maybe a few years ago, so some thing could have been done. Like you said WG, sorry for the drivers that will be sat on the end of the O Groups like a spare prick at a wedding, saying "sorry boss can't do that (but i can do a back flip!)", and watching the crabs roll their eyes....again. Thank god we have Apache, just to stop us looking completely untaskable. Just a thought, instead of lengthening, why not widen the cabin, a la 412, blackhawk etc..

[Jackonicko]

They've designed, stressed and flown a longer Lynx cabin

[Tourist]

Jacko.
The Nr thing is just a rabbithole.
Yes the lynx has a lively Nr, and the FLynx will be worse but it is not a real issue in the big scheme of things. It won't be any worse than some others that we have had over the years.
If I had to pick things to improve, it would not be on the list.
Cockpit visibility, wet hardpoints, bigger in every way, flotkit that occasionally works, engines that don't feel the need to share everything "hey, he's on fire, why don't I try that" etc would be.

[wg13_dummy]

Jack and penny pincher. The problem is anything that is done to adjust the fuselage or dimensions of the Lynx package is going to cost a huge amount. The whole idea of going with the Lynx yet again was because we were told we had bugger all money so whatever we got needed to use as many components from current Lynx. The first few prototypes of FLynx will be new(ish) builds but the remainder of the production versions will use most of the bits from our current cabs when we hand them back to AW. At this stage of the game if we decided that we wanted to increase the volume of the cabin, it would make Typhoon look like a bargain. Just look at how much it is going to cost us to have a castoring nose wheel fitted! Fiddling with the MRH or doing anything that requires a massive redesign is a no go.

Penny, you've hit the nail on the head regarding how the crews are going to be quite embarrassed due to their shiny new cabs not being able to do bugger all.

Jack. The current Lynx design is as far as it can go. There really isn't much more that can be done to it without a massive redesign. There just isn't any growth left. The WG30 demonstrated that it was a step too far for the head, blades and transmission. They had a bit of a tendency of falling out of the sky. As I've said, Lynx has proved itself to be a very capable naval platform and long may it reign. Its just pants as a utility solution. And remember, that was what was required - a battlefield utility helicopter. When it was seen that FLynx had less utility than a plastic flick knife its role was hurridly changed to the nebulous 'ISTAR' and with that a complete rewrite of the AACs core roles. 0-1 to the crabs.

No one has had the balls to actually prescribe what 'light utility' means and how important it is. It just means that Merlin and Chinook will take up the slack to fill that role. Of course, we have hundreds of them just knocking around spare dont we?

[Jackonicko]

You speak with such obvious authority that I can't resist asking:

"Would the AW149 (which I understand to be a militarised AW139 in essence) be a better bet for the AAC?"

If that's a stupid question, I'm sorry. But please humour me!

And (right or wrong) surely in the UK context, for the Corps, Light Utility means anything that requires a small, light helicopter. A single Milan team, a few AH reloads, a small squad of soldiers or a dog team - all of the kind of things that a Lynx could do, but way less than a Puma load.

Pre-Lynx, remember, the AAC was in Scouts and Beavers!

[wg13_dummy]

I personally believe that something akin to the AW149 would give the Armed Forces more flexibility for little extra outlay. Not only that, it has plenty of future growth. Something FLynx doesn't have. And it wouldn't tread on the SH toes either. The AW139/149 would fit quite nicely below Makila Pumas in role terms plus give the battlefield a useful utility platform.

[Hilife]

Sad thing is we won’t learn anything from this saga and I’ll bet interoperability didn’t feature anywhere in the Flynx presentations a few years back.

When the MoD finally decides to replace the Sea King and Puma fleet – and please let’s not waste already inadequate MoD funding on any end-of-life upgrades – I suspect that the likes of Eurocopter, NH Industries, Sikorsky and other will refrain from entering any competition as the eventual winner will almost certainly be any AW militarised (that’s a civil helicopter painted green for effect) product from Vergiate – sorry, I meant the West Country.

If Flynx is the best on offer, then let the whole shop go to the wall and let’s promote export offsets in successful UK businesses in return for a capable and proven platform for current and future demanding operations instead of just delaying the inevitable for those in the West Country.

Proud to be British as I am, some things in life are far more important that job security and votes.

[Jackonicko]

It seems that it's not entirely Westland's fault - FLynx probably IS the best choice for the small ships SCMR type role. This should hardly come as a great surprise - the T800 engined Super Lynx has been selected on merit in a number of competitions and clearly meets the requirement very well.

That the same aircraft is not necessarily best for the AAC is perhaps even less of a surprise. The AAC has aspirations for a platform that can do more than the very light utility role that it did with the Scout and original Lynx.

Hilife's kneejerk anti-Westland prejudice ignores the fact that the manufacturer's product line does includes a suitable aircraft - the AW149 (which is the militarised version of the 'best-in-class' AW139, so all of this negativity about AW is clearly misplaced! ;))

The problem is surely with the knuckleheads who decided that SCMR/BLUH could be met by a single common platform.

With the exception of the heavy end (where the Chinook has no real competition) there'd be little wrong with an AW equipped SH force - AW149 for the AAC, and lots of folding marinised Merlins for the Commando Squadrons.

[Ian Corrigible]

There was a political assumption/requirement that it had to be Westland - and I suspect that meant Lynx
Wasn't the FLynx buy also forced on the UK as one of the conditions of the sale of WHL to Finmechani...Finnmecani...the Italians? I seem to remember a clause requiring a 'penalty' payment if the FLynx contract didn't happen.

I/C

[wg13_dummy]

Very much so Ian. It may well prove that in their insistence they may have poo-poo'd the opportunity to flog the 139/149 to the UK. I think they may have realised that no other mug would have bought FLynx in a non naval role. To be honest, even in the naval role it won't be terribly attractive in the future. Why would a navy spend more on FLynx when Super Lynx can do the job for less? I really cant see an export market for FLynx and certainly not for BRH. The order books are pretty buoyant for export Super Lynx at present and for the foreseeable future so who else would buy FLynx? Ah, thats right - AWs R&D asset - The UK MoD. Nice shot in the foot UK procurement, nice shot in the foot. :rolleyes:

It's truly bizarre that we would have been forced to pay a company (Finmeccanica) for not buying something. The wops must be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Hilife]

Hilife's kneejerk anti-Westland prejudice ignores the fact that the manufacturer's product line does includes a suitable aircraft - the AW149 (which is the militarised version of the 'best-in-class' AW139, so all of this negativity about AW is clearly misplaced!

Sorry Jack, but a couple of home truths for the blinkered.

AW139 - ‘Best in class’?

• In hindsight, do you think CHC would have selected the AW139 for interim SAR?
• Ask the Irish Air Corp why they restrict max speed to 115 – 120 Kts?
• Ask yourself why some large operators don’t want to take delivery of the remainder of their orders and options due to low dispatch reliability.
• Inquire as to just how many cockpit windows have popped out in flight. :eek:
• Serious tailboom cracking..... let’s not go there.

The brochure states 15 pax! Body bags maybe, but not breathing and upright as 10 to 12 civil is a much more realistic figure and therefore even fewer fully equipped mil pax.

As for the AW149, this is an unproven paper helicopter, so please explain to me and any other disbelievers why this makes it the ideal candidate for the AAC?

The AW139 has bags of power (although the PT6A/C-67 series GG is heavy and thirsty and utilises old technology) and has the potential to be an excellent civil helicopter, but with no proven front-line experience behind her, I cannot see how you consider this or its big brother as a ‘Best in Class’ solution for the AAC.

I’ve no doubt you’ve already read the ‘Danish report on EH-101 procurement and introduction’ thread on the Mil forum. In spite of the errors the Danes openly admit existed in their procurement process, there is a common theme and not even hidden in between the lines.

Put the brochure down and take a good look at the world around you.

[Jackonicko]

Or you could put the predictable, tired, anti-Yeovil prejudice behind you?

Nah, that would never work.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Westland has quite a good record for licence building designs and improving on the original.

Such a shame they didn't go down this route rather than flog a dead horse.

[gremlin 030]

Having a few hours now on the S Lynx with the T800 and glass cockpit I can add that the engines are Very Capable. 1000 deg + on a single engine, cockpit that is designed to reduce pilot workload and a MAUM in excess of 5300kg.

The Mk 9 refit is a UOR needed to fulfill required tasks. and I would suspect that once fitted to the first airframes then the operators will be asking for the rest of the fleet to be fitted.

F Lynx build will be lower base weight, higher AUM and improved performance all around. Nr will always be an issue with the CMRB but tell me an Aircraft that has not got its quirks???

The F Lynx will operate very well from small decks and I am sure that the Army will adapt them to the task required.

My only concern would be availability of spares and support for the fleet. AWL have yet to get that bit right but they are aware of the shortfalls, it will be interesting to see if they rise to the occasion.

NH90.....My experience is that they don't start when they should do and once again they come with the company demanding that too many concessions are accepted on delivery.

Just my thoughts you understand ;-)

[wg13_dummy]

Such a shame they didn't go down this route rather than flog a dead horse.

Who with and what?

Eurocopter? I think not. They don' seem to be friends at the moment.
Boeing? They don't have anything that fits the bill.
McDonnell-Douglas? As above.
Bell? I don't think Agusta would be too keen on building the competitors aircraft.
Sikorsky? As above.
Mil? Interesting. :\
HAL? Only if you like flock wallpaper inside your aircraft. And the Dhruv makes FLynx look like an X Wing fighter.

Sort of narrows the market place down a bit doesn't it?

I think the days of kit built licensed aircraft are a thing of the pre Agusta past. It was a matter of necessity to glue other aircraft together prior to the life line chucked by Finmeccanica/Agusta. There aint a lot of 'love' between helicopter manufacturers nowadays. Westland in the GKN days used to be a reasonably 'neutral' asset for manufacturers to reach into the UK.

[wg13_dummy]

gremlin,

I agree the engines are very good and the cockpit environment is none too shabby either. In fact, its rather good. More so for the FLynx. I have to take a bit of an issue with you on a few points though;


F Lynx build will be lower base weight, higher AUM and improved performance all around.

From what I understand, the base weight will be lower but that will be without 'role kit'. For example, the IRCM exhausts and particle separators. As you know with the Omani Super Lynx, the intake package is integral to the engine unit so its not really 'role kit'. As with the IRCMs. The base weight doesn't take into account the kit that will pretty much be permanently bolted to it such as the EO etc. The real base weight will in fact be higher than current and does actually give an ever so slightly higher margin than we currently have. But, as has been said already, volume is the issue not mass lift ability due to a cabin thats smaller than an SO3s desk space.


Nr will always be an issue with the CMRB but tell me an Aircraft that has not got its quirks???


Quirks are fine but when the quirks outweigh the benefits, it may be time to ask some questions.


The Mk 9 refit is a UOR needed to fulfill required tasks. and I would suspect that once fitted to the first airframes then the operators will be asking for the rest of the fleet to be fitted.

Completely agree as it will at least give us a much needed capability that we currently can only dream of. However, it still doesn't remove the fact that the Lynx isn't a useful platform for today or the future in an army role.


The F Lynx will operate very well from small decks and I am sure that the Army will adapt them to the task required.

Nail on the head there. Fine for the Navy but the AAC will just have to make do with a limited platform because someone couldn't be bothered to demand a proper role for it. Or realistically; make the aircraft fit current/future doctrine and roles. Ie; the core roles of the AAC. Instead they just rewrote it to fit what we were given. Not cricket and will imho, spell the end for the AAC.

[Jackonicko]

What won't an Army Flynx do that a current Lynx can?

[The Helpful Stacker]

What won't an Army Flynx do that a current Lynx can?

From what I can gather you won't be able to get as many folk in the back for starters.

[wg13_dummy]

What won't an Army Flynx do that a current Lynx can?

Fit more than four blokes in it.


Granted, current Lynx with wheezy Gem engines can't if the temp is above freezing but you get the idea.

[the funky munky]

I was at the FLynx launch in 2006 when Guiseppe Orsi said all Military AW helicopters would be built at Westland including the AW149! so how come all those lovely AW109s are being flogged to the likes of the Belgian Air Force and Suis Afrikaans from Northenr Italia or are they civvie cabs? how come no shiny/matt AW149s have not rolled out of AW's Yeovil site yet!?

I am prophesising here; the AW149 will not be bought by the MoD because:
a) even with the backing(!) of AW it STILL hasn't even reached the drawing board yet and doesn't have a launch customer! even the Algerians bought SuperLynx!
b) the MoD will not buy another Rotary Wing Battlefield Helicopter post Workstrand 13/options/PR08/PR09/etc in fact there are too many types already AH, Lynx, Merlin 3, Puma, SK4 and Chinook. Yes retire SK and Puma but there ain't a replacement around yet!.

So AW149 out of contention, Now the MoD will not be allowed to buy ANY thing built by any one other than AW BTW the Blackhawk is a very maintenance hungry SH so you Army chaps pipe down in the cheap seats we heard you whingeing about no Blackhawk and looked at it honest its ****e, the only way the septics keep it goingis that the US Army Air Corps is bigger than the RAF with pots and pots more money! The unit price cost is only achievable if you buy them in the hundreds & hundreds and also we won't get an Israeli discount. So, if you think AW are bad hello Mr Sikorsky! Its this or a Koala!

Now the the might King can hack the Medium lifty bit with the Beautiful Carson fit now paint the grey Mk 6s green and give em the right mods and they are good to go. However the Air Force SH types will not give up Pumas which now cost three times the cost to extend a similar fleet size (well they were similar till the PUs started to be trashed!) £300M compared to £100M. Puma LEP BARGAIN!. So we await FMH eh? Aint gonna happen till 2017/18 oh f**k so what can we do in the mean time? Answers on a postcard to the Right honourable Buff Hoon, Larry Grayson, present incumbent Labour sycophant Quentin Davies!

The FLynx is a compromise but we could have bought 120 A/C back in 2002 for the billion quid discussed now with data fusion and all sorts of whistles and bells. However our lords and masters, and I lay ALL this at the foot of the DEC caught a cold and mucked about with the budget till eventually we are now buying half the original A/C but a hell of a lot less capable. Oh thank you DEC ALM and maybe in future when you rock up to the party bring a requirement rather than say oih yes just what the Navy want but don't put a radar on it. Yea that happened I was there.

So stop stabbing your steely knives at AW or the IPT chaps/chapesses they only buy what he DEC says get.

SO get on to him that Customer 1 in his high up Ivory tower the ****!

[[email protected]]

Funky - our procurement system is awful, mainly because the staff officers involved seem to have little or no relevant operational experience and are often unlikely to disagree with those further up the chain (you don't go to MoD cos it's fun, you do it to get promoted).

The Danish report shows that their procurement system is equally flawed - they believed AW when they assured them that 80% availability was the norm and didn't question that the same AW were unwilling to put that claim on paper.

AW walked all over the Danes in terms of contract negotiation (they are really good at this bit of business) and now the Danes have an aircraft that might be able to do the job but just isn't serviceable long enough.

If the defenders of AW think this shabby, deceitful way of doing business is worth preserving just to save a few West Country jobs then I've got a car you might like to buy:ugh:

Jacko - the AAC got away with using Scout and Lynx because the lack of lift capability was masked by the anti-tank capability (however thin the veneer on that one). Now the Apache has that bit of the battlefield sewn up, the shortcomings of the Lynx are brought into sharp focus.

Unless you make the Lynx bigger to increase it's cabin capacity (and I mean doubling it not squeezing one extra bloke in), it will NEVER be any use on the battlefield.

We have been crying out for more medium and heavy lift helicopters for years and even the NAO recognised the problems. What have MoD done about it? Continued throwing money at the West Country Pirates to produce a helicopter optimised for all those decisive naval battles we are engaged in:{

[Tourist]

munky
"paint the grey Mk 6s green and give em the right mods and they are good to go"

Those airframes are probably the hardest used airframes in terms of fatigue in the fleet. Hovered at 21.4 for just about every hour of their lives. They also have no decent personell load when converted to 6C. If they are the answer, then the question is wrong.

"Blackhawk is a very maintenance hungry"

I am not an engineer, but I did fly SeaHawk, and it didn't seem that way to me......

[Evalu8ter]

Crab, I would also add that the majority of our staff officers in procurement use the revolving door of 2 OJARs to get in and out as quickly as possible. It permits the rapid ascent of the greasy pole and ensures sufficient distance from any subsequent fall-out. In my experience the DECs have got some very capable people, they just don't stay there long enough as it is harmful to their careers.

Anyone that thinks the DEC has real power is delusional; they have to answer to the CMs who in turn answer to higher ups. The DECs are given insufficient funds to match the unrealistic requirements (military and political) that are imposed upon them. They have to massage funding lines in order to support other types, even more so as arbitary budget cuts are imposed from above. What would you have sacrificed to buy 120 Flynx? Chinook? Apache? They make some difficult calls, consequently, they are always the fall guys.

Interestingly, my friends at AW cringe every time the Danes are mentioned. Something about actually wanting stuff to work as per the contract-bit of a novelty for them!

Funky Monkey,
You are quite correct, the MoD needs to streamline the number of types, not increase them. Interesting comment re Puma LEP. However, the LEP is rather more intrusive than some spiffy blades and a lick of paint, hence it costs more. The rationale is that Puma 2 will have to last to 2022 (at least) whereas the Carson SK4 will be OSD in 2017 (yeah, sure...) therefore it has to have a number of obsolescence upgrades in addition to new cockpit, engines etc etc. I can't disagree with your statement that the crabs don't want to give up the plastic pig, nor, more importantly, the command positions that go with them...

I've got a bad feeling that FMH will go the same way as SABR and that both types will soldier on well into the 2020s.

[engineer(retard)]

I've been involved with a couple of support contracts in the past based on "hole in the wall" and "avaliability" requirements. In theory it is beautiful, with a single availability requirement you throw the entire risk over the fence to industry and have a fixed price for support as far as the eye can see.

What happens in practice is the contract is is signed before the aircraft is fielded. Meanwhile a new defence initiative is announced, oh the number of operating bases has changed, kerrching - contract amendment. Oh you want to fight a war, that was not in your SOIU, you are supposed to be doing 25% training flights in nice flat level circuits only operating some of the kit. You want to operate all the fleet in baking hot temperatures, fly them 15 hours a day with max loads, fitted with a stack of UORs that industry does not recognise; kerching - contract amendment. What do you mean you want to sustain the surge requirement for 5 years, kerching - contract amendment. Now the support budget is not big enough because it has been trimmed to fit the availability requirement.

The beautiful theory is beloved by accountants and only works in theory because no-one has a crystal ball good enough to cover a 10 year contract.

regards

retard

[Jackonicko]

"Unless you make the Lynx bigger to increase it's cabin capacity (and I mean doubling it not squeezing one extra bloke in), it will NEVER be any use on the battlefield."

Double the capacity of a Lynx would be a Puma, surely - and that kind of medium SH has never been an AAC role.

Isn't the whole point of Lynx that it's there to mop up the smaller jobs - a Milan team, a dog team, transporting a force commander, or a single small group of soldiers?

The vanilla Lynx marked a massive improvement in capacity over the Scout, can it be that the AAC are aiming for another similar shift, muscling in on what has always been an RAF/RN role?

[HaveQuick2]

Surely if it has capacity to deliver a pizza and a box of Celebrations then jobs a good 'un?

I reckon even FLynx will be able to manage that eventually.

Happy Hogmanay all.

[wg13_dummy]

Jack, the AAC don't want to creep into SH roles (we'll just sit tight and wait until the crabs hand them over later on ;) ). All we are asking for FLynx to do is carry a handful of chaps and be 'utility'. Ie; with current Lynx (notwithstanding the high temperature limits) we can carry 6 blokes plus a Door Gunner. To do that with FLynx, you would need to strap two of them to the outside. Can you see that current roles and useage of Lynx cannot be fulfilled by FLynx hence its primary role now being 'ISTAR'. Procurement is about ensuring the package you buy now fulfils future roles and requirements. Its great giving the aircraft engines that actully work in hot/high temps and allowing a dedicated aircraft to carry out ISTAR but these are pretty short sighted and really only fix a gap that we currently have in theatre. God forbid if we ever pull out of Afghanistan, we might need an aircraft that has a bit of flexibility.

Happy New Year.

[[email protected]]

Jacko - that's the whole point - the AAC has continued the myth that they really do limited movement of men and materiel around the battlefield - the Mk9 Lynx was christened the Soup Dragon as that was all it ever delivered and it never went near the battlefield proper.

As I said before, if you peel back the veneer, you find that the AAC has only ever been about anti-tank and obs and recce and now they have one aircraft that does it all brilliantly they don't need Lynx. The answer is more SH but then the battle for power begins and the AAC recognises its vulnerability especially as now everyone is in JHC and so many command/staff posts are held by AAC officers. If the AAC is drawn down to just AH 64 then there is no need for all those staff officers and the AAC grip on JHC power disappears followed shortly by the AAC itself.

If one can break through the party politics it is clear that the AAC has been struggling to justify its existence for many years but could claim superiority in numbers of helicopters over both the RAF and the FAA. The Gazelles are gone or going and the Lynx is hardly serviceable and has no hot or high performance( its anti tank performance was shaky 10 years ago). Unless they get FLynx and perpetuate the pseudo SH capability myth they have 2 Regts of AH and that is it (yes I am ignoring Belize and Brunei - anyone going to put FLynx there?)

[penny pincher]

"As I said before, if you peel back the veneer, you find that the AAC has only ever been about anti-tank and obs and recce and now they have one aircraft that does it all brilliantly they don't need Lynx. The answer is more SH but then the battle for power begins and the AAC recognises its vulnerability especially as now everyone is in JHC and so many command/staff posts are held by AAC officers. If the AAC is drawn down to just AH 64 then there is no need for all those staff officers and the AAC grip on JHC power disappears followed shortly by the AAC itself."

Without a shadow of doubt, the reality seems to be biting that this is the truth of our predicament, I would suggest that in these times of high operational Tempo, aircrew would not care which uniform they wear as long as they are providing they user with what THEY want, rather than some mish mash of capabilities that just so happen to suit an airframe. As has been said, with two airframes going in the very near future, I fear it IS too late to change the inevitability of being absorbed in some way, shape or form.
What delayed the inevitability was cosiness of N Ireland, (a whole Regiment!?) and Germany with it's Anti Tank,and Boz on the doorstep. Times have changed, I just wonder what political will in DAAvn will be flexed to effect or fight the change. Depends on what Jobs on offer in the S West I suppose.
I wash my hands of FLynx, I moved on cos the only people that will be flying it are QHI's and a handful of aircrew supporting ops, that's about as much as can be expected from a Regiments worth of helicopters. Good luck to them. I sincerely mean it.

Happy New Year All:)

[KENNYR]

As an ex-AAC QHI I have to agree with Crab. There is no place for the Corps within the current Armed Forces now that conventional Obs and Recce are obsolete (thanks to the excellent systems on the AH64). The Lynx has proved itself to be totally useless in hot and high conditions and even the Flynx looks like it may have problems and thats before all the delays, excuses etc are factored in. I believe that one central helicopter force is preferential (the navy would have to look after their own) and under one controlling authority. As to who would control the single force is up for debate but if the RAF could change its policy of being a Reluctant Air Force then they would be the obvious choice.........I cant believe I just said that:ugh:

[Jackonicko]

I hesitate to express anything resembling an opinion on this, as it is almost entirely uninformed.

But didn't the six-man load carrying Lynx have a role (a sub-Puma, sub Support Helicopter, role)?

Doing all of those little tasks for which a Puma was too big, and for directly supporting the AH of the day (delivering TOW reloads for armed Lynx) - and all the rest?

Isn't there still a place for that?

Wouldn't a modernised, properly equipped, hot and high capable Lynx still be a useful tool for the Army and for the Corps?

We were all blown away, I'm sure, when Apaches took in the rescue team hanging on the outside to recover the fallen soldier - but if they'd had a FLynx capable of hot and high ops, wouldn't it have been a useful tool?

[HEDP]

Jacko,

You are very much correct. Especially with airmobile/air assualt operations there is certainly a requirement to deliver and recover small teams of 4 (approx) in all sorts of roles into the forward area where a puma and certainly a Merlin/Chinook would be considered too large/valuable an asset to be risked.

I think the problem is that having seen the AH capability be so succesful the Lynx community are desperate to be given the tools to deliver meaningful capability in a similarily professional manner and that was always envisaged at front line to continue with the small lift capability.

Lynx has always struggled in this regard as despite the 9 seats in the back, the combination of poor cabin space and lack of hot/high performance always frustrated the execution of this role. The limited movement of men and materiel no doubt improved from Scout/Gazelle days however when you do a job you always want to do it better. Not unreasonable therefore for the crews to expect a future aircraft to improve your capability in this area. Not so however; the cabin space and seating is to be reduced to perhaps that of the Scout (or less) so we lose the capability altogether as the roles are rewritten.

I think rather than Apache replace Gazelle and a new aircraft replace Lynx as was stated we have a situation where the Apache is more of a Lynx replacement with the Lynx now about to take on the Gazelle roles of direction of fire and recce/Istar.

I have no doubt that it will be better 'kit' loosely speaking but the point is it could have been so much more. This is before you start to talk about poor design for the battlefield and a whole host of other issues with Lynx; low speed handling springs to mind with the same disk but higher AUM.

Navy Lynx tick VG; Army Lynx remains a massive compromise, competes with unmanned ISTAR and will not deliver men, materiels or direct firepower to the battlespace. A retrograde step I fear rather than introducing a broader or more capable contribution to commanders.

As an aside, it is difficult to maintain the comitment to Ops for Apache with the current fleet; how many operational aircraft does 38 Lynx allow you to deliver to PJHQ?

No doubt there are many other opinions on this debacle, these are just my own,

HEDP

[Bismark]

The problem here seems to be that the Army doesn't really know what it wants in an SUV helicopter. The same is true for many other armies, including the US Army. I think the RMs have a better understanding of their needs. A light attack and recce helo that can also lift a bit, that can move within the littoral,that can act as a mini airborne command post - basically a SCMR painted green. Perhaps this is what the AAC needs as well? How much more useful would a BRH with rockets/MR IR missile and an ISAR radar,data link.....and an Observer (RN version) in the LHS.....now there's an idea! But would it get past the "Bah, Humbug" brigade?

[HEDP]

I wonder whether the powers that be ever listen!

Navy Lynx = Seahawk
RM Lynx = Blackhawk
Army Lynx = Blackhawk
Puma = Blackhawk
Sea King = Blackhawk

Would this have not reduced types across JHC, improved capability, streamlined the training pipeline and produced a purple fleet.

I know this is simplistic and there may be small issues but I cant be that far off what was required. All conversions carried out at Rucker for a lot less than we can followed by an LCR/CTR organisation in UK

[Jucky]

HEDP,

A Seahawk is quite a different beast to a Blackhawk. It's not a Blackhawk painted grey as a lot of people believe. It's deck handling qualities aren't even close to the capabilities of the the Lynx. It is more complicated to recover to the deck and has lower deck limits. In my experience of operating alongside Australian, US and Spanish Seahawks they also seem to be a lot less serviceable than the Lynx which is hard to believe I know! The Seahawk is also primarily an ASW helo with an ASuW capability whereas Lynx is an ASuW helo with an ASW capability (albeit a fairly gash one, but who wants to do ASW anyway?:E).
Whilst I agree that the FLynx is a poor choice for the Army anything less than FLynx would not suit the RN.

[Jackonicko]

Only the second of January and I'm starting to feel that I'm 'larning'. Thanks so much, chaps.

(Sounds as though a 606/Lynx 3 plug would have been an invaluable addition to FLynx, though....)

[Front Seater]

Some interesting thoughts indeed and I am sure that the next few weeks will be enlightening to say the least.

As a 'brown job' I remain totally perplexed by the whole requirement and procurement. AH had a very strong requirement clearly articulated with policy and doctrine at all levels that saw AH play its part across the entire spectrum of operations. There is no doubt that AH would have been just as useful in a Sierra Leone style crisis as it would have been if 3 Shock Army had come through the Horn Gap.

FLynx, BRH/Wild Cat does not have the same underpinning requirement I feel. The only valid argument that I can see for BRH is to provide a 'find' capability to cue the limted 'strike/attack' resources. Naturally I include cueing all Joint and Combined offensive assets, but from an AAC perspective I can see mileage in arguing for a force mix of AH and BRH akin to the legacy Cold War force laydowns that mixed Lynx and Gazelle.

Sadly though we as a Corps appear to be doing everything possible to remove or water down that justification. Not only have we neglected to update our policy and doctrine in the light of the developing BLUH/BRH/Wild Cat procurement, we have also neglected to integrate the current Lynx force into AH operations. Therefore they have been seen for a number of years as the 'wheezy boy on the sidelines with matron'.

Allied to this we have elected to allow the REME and logistics chain to wag the Corps capability tail - brigading our assets in 'hubs' to ensure serviceability and availibility. If we as a Corps were truly serious about a find capability for AH then we would have retained mixed Regiments and dare I say Squadrons to ensure that as in the Gazelle and Lynx days there was a synergy (in training, in SOPs, in C2 etc etc) that would have truly delivered an effect.

I fail to see the operational capability enhancement or the requirement to brigade a Regiment's worth of Lynx at Yeovilton over 2 hours flying time from the AH that it is meant to support? The first week over any exercise will be a 'getting to know you' shake out phase and both fleets will conduct peace time training from their own base location 'pretending' to interact with each other.

What in effect will happen on real operations (where it counts) is that the AH community will complain about 'Lynx drag' as they can do both jobs (find and strike/attack) with much higher Op Tempo than the BRH/Wild Cat crews.

Just to knock the limited movement of men and material on the head - yes in 24 Air Mobile Brigade days the rapid movement of a Milan Post could be achieved by a Lynx. However, I do not think that there is anyone in the Corps that even with the wildest stretching of the imagination sees BRH lifting anything.

Except - and this is a key fact that the Corps has 'owned goaled' in its establishement and hub philosophy - the limited movement of men and material from its own Regiment. The REME teams to support u/s aircraft, the movement of Command teams, the movement of Rebro teams - that is where the Lynx has proven invaluable in the past and added value. Another task that potential adds to overburden on the SH force. Yet again I remain confused why we as a Corps just didn't make it perfectly clear that was what we as a Corps required the 'lift' capability for rather than trying to pretend that we were adding to the SH tactical lift capability.

But no, we removed Lynx to a dislocated base away from our own cap badge that is now having to bid for 'lift' of our own assets.

The other area that is receiving some concern on this thread is of course the potential for the demise of 847. I must admit as someone that has seen u s not honour theAH 'Double Earmark' capability and as per the initial concerns of the Fisheads in that they knew that come the crunch AH would always be used (and more importantly train with/for) Land assets - I too would worry if the true Amphib capability of 847 was to be watered down in a wishy washy sop to try and maintain more AAC airframes and crews.

If we try and 'blend' the amphib capability into a mix of Army and Fishead crews away from the umbrella of the Commando Helicopter Force then another Amphib capability goes out the window and will be 'taken on risk' for a work up in transit to an area of operations.

Although it grips me that 847 use our airframes their wheel ain't broke and therefore I wouldn't try and 'fix' it - I would try and get a few more exchange posts without changing the role of the Squadron. If BRH comes fitted with all of the points for weapons that SCMR does, then it does not take the brains of an archbishop that feasibly 847 will be able to UOR themselves with a Find and Strike/Attack capability that will return the Commando Helicopter Force into an organic Amphib capbility rather than having to rely on the promises and best wishes of the AH fleet. With the heavy training and currency requirement for operations at sea if AH is removed from having to deliver this capability/role (or even try and pretend to as we are currently doing) then this frees up vital scarce AH assets that are over tasked/worked just with support Army tasks and roles.

Therefore I do believe that we as a Corps have a future with a mix of BRH and AH. Firstly we need to clearly articulate what the real requirement, policy and doctrine is for the capability (not the pretend requirement to make us look good and gain funding),secondly we then need to look at what will deliver that policy and doctrine and ask ourselves the big question regarding co-location or dislocation and the associated integration. Thirdly, we need to restore some 'honour amongst friends' as it is widely known that our backs are up against the wall and we are fighting for our survival - do we need to accept that our numbers have been cut significantly and adapt and balance accordingly, or do we become very aggressive and go down fighting taking as much as we can and screwing over other (perfectly functioning) capabilities in the process?

[wg13_dummy]

Jack, a fuselage plug would have been a start.

Think of the Lynx as a Land Rover Wolf. Look at the huge amount of jobs and roles the wagon fulfils. If you took the Wolf out of service, what would you get to do its numerous jobs? A 4 tonner? A DROPS? An Oshkosh? Can you imagine an MAN 15t truck doing a close recce job or a DROPS delivering a half section of blokes into a FOB? Very, very simplistic I know but the Lynx really is akin to the Land Rover and unfortunately, FLynx is more akin to an RB44.

[Bismark]

There is no doubt that AH would have been just as useful in a Sierra Leone style crisis as it would have been if 3 Shock Army had come through the Horn Gap.

I doubt the politicians would have permitted AH in Sierra Leone...they would not even allow the 105s of the LPH. Should have had Super Cobra anyway to satisfy the AH reqt.

[Door Slider]

Front Seater,

Some very good points.

We in the RAF have gone down the 'hub' route of operating in a big way. I think its a good thing, but the points you make are very valid for the way you invisage Lynx and AH to operate. Are you sure its the REME thats waging the tail and not JHC in cost cutting measures?

I take your point about being on excercise and spending additional time 'getting to know each other' At Benson we have the Merlin and Puma, we very very rarely operate in the UK together and dont in theatre. If the SH superbase comes along having all SH together would have huge benefits. But again we dont work that closely in theatre. I guess it boils down to weather your fighting the war or a war. With the draw down in Iraq this year will things get better? Potentially, but equally with the economic climate money is going to be even more scarce!

[KG86]

Considering that this thread is supposed to be about Future Lynx, I guess the recent posts could be described as "thread drift".

But, I must congratulate these contributers on sound, logical, informative and, most importantly, non-partisan discussion. The early posts were marred by mud slinging, both Service/industry and inter-Service. At last we are having an open, informed discussion.

[Front Seater]

Bismark,

Just to clarify, I used the term 'style' referring to the Peace Enforcement end of the spectrum of conflict and could have used a number of other examples - however although the 105's weren't allowed off the LPH, I am sure that every local knew that the capability was in the boats bows somewhere (big stick conviently hidden) - Deterrent/poise/demonstration etc etc.

As to Super Cobra your point may be valid if we (UK PLc) could support 2 aircraft types and if the RN could have funded a separate AH/Super Cobra line, but for some reason they accepted/allowed the 847 TOW capability to be replaced by a Double Earmarked Army AH Sqn rather than putting up the requirement or funding to replace 847 themselves.

[wg13_dummy]

rather than putting up the requirement or funding to replace 847.

It may well prove that that decision will bite them in the arse and they could be left with bugger all. As you alluded to; CHF could lose their Amph support/offensive capability. That would be a real shame.

[Jackonicko]

It sounds as though FLynx will be an excellent replacement for grey Lynx HMA3/8.

And for the No.847 Squadron 'Commando' Mk 7s.

You might even think that 70 FLynx would be about the right number to do the above (expanding the amphib attack/ISTAR/utility capability by a squadron, perhaps).

And it sounds as though FLynx isn't a bad way of augmenting the over-tasked and under-strength Apache force. (Mixed FLynx/AH Regiments, anyone?)

What's lacking is an AAC light utility helicopter to replace AH.Mk 9.......

AW149?

How is the size of the Flynx order rationalised? How many squadrons is it supposed to sustain?

[MaroonMan4]

Jackonicko was quicker on the keyboard than me and essentially asked the same question as why AH and BRH will not be integrated in the same Regiments/geographical location.

I did expand by saying that with the Middle Wallop 'hub' an hour up the road and AW/Yeovilon the doorstep then why not 'press to test' on true Jointery and have a true amphib capbility mix of AH and BRH at Yeovilton?

This should satisfy those that are concerned about the demise of a true amphibious capability and also those that wonder what BRH will actually do by assisting with true AH/BRH integration across all Lines Of Development.

With a little bit of lateral application Wattisham and Yeovilton could be the 2 AH/BRH locations - Wattisham (Colchester) 16 Air Assault Brigade focussed and Yeovilton (Plymouth) 3 Commando Brigade focussed. As we are finding on current ops the demarcation line between 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault is a blurred one, but one thing is for sure and that is that there is certainly 1000% more deck ops, amphib exposure and ethos taking place at Yeovilton than is taking place at Wattisham.

From the AAC's persepctive this option could be the selling point and ultimate saviour for Middle Wallop as it could retain its AH/BRH training hub specialisation with both Simulators and tactics trainers already in place, with the associated airspace to facilitate night training.

If not, and Wattisham remains as the AH hub and Yeovilton becomes the Lynx hub, then from a military and financial viewpoint I would have to question why Middle Wallop remains open and why AH training is not re-located to Wattisham and Lynx training to Yeovilton.

So I agree, mixing the AH and BRH capabilities makes perfect sense - but I will scuttle sideways back to my SH comfort zone and mince pies.

[wg13_dummy]

It sounds as though FLynx will be an excellent replacement for grey Lynx HMA3/8.

And for the No.847 Squadron 'Commando' Mk 7s.

It's an excellent replacement for grey Lynx. You've missed the point re 847 Sqn though. It will not be a good thing for them. If anything, they may get the BRH not SCMR. Unarmed (fitted for but not with) with a limited cabin space. Hence why 847 may have a shaky and uncertain future.


You might even think that 70 FLynx would be about the right number to do the above (expanding the amphib attack/ISTAR/utility capability by a squadron, perhaps).


62 airframes. 34 BRH/28 SCMR. Expanding? Nope, it's a reduction. Its half the current fleet of green Lynx (apples and pears comparison though as one hopes serviceability will be a bit better and not so many will be christmas trees).


And it sounds as though FLynx isn't a bad way of augmenting the over-tasked and under-strength Apache force. (Mixed FLynx/AH Regiments, anyone?)

That may be all well and good for current ops but again I dont think so. If anything, it will ease the load on other platforms currently being used in the ISTAR/MAS role.

Totally agree regarding mixed regiments (some very good points from Frontseater).


How is the size of the Flynx order rationalised? How many squadrons is it supposed to sustain?

If you break it down on the BRH side, not very many. Possibly no more than a few fielded squadrons. If (and its a big if) 847 use BRH, that leaves even fewer for the JHC.

Anyone know what the Lynx crews are going to do in between current Lynx out of service date (2012) and BRH ISD (2014)? I dont think eight Mk9GTs will cover the gap especially as we have to give the engines back to AW to stick into FLynx.

[[email protected]]

Being a SARboy and a very long way from the sandy ****holes where battlefield helicopters are currently earning their keep - do any commanders actually want a helicopter than can lift 6 troops any more? It seems to me that the bigger the helo, the more flexibility it gives you and someone much better paid than me said that flexibility was the key to air power!.

The 847 capability came from the TOW system, not the Lynx's ability to deliver a pathetic number of troops - trooping is the Sea Kings role. In Sierra Leone it was a weapons platform not a troop carrier - has it ever delivered troops (other than in NI) in a front-line role? Moving the REME around for aircraft support is not an adequate justification for a new helicopter!

It is near to impossible to justify any role for the Lynx on the modern battlefield - it is not even a jack-of-all-trades - no matter how you equip it.

Front seater made some excellent comments - I think most in the front-line think it is about time the petty inter-service rivalry with each trying to justify its existence was ****canned and we merged into a truly joint force (since JHC seems to be anything but joint). Then the customer and the poor buggers paying the bills might get what they want and not what the staff officers and bean counters settle on as the best compromise that perpetuates all the outdated structures that we presently have obstructing the delivery of helicopter capability to the sharp end.

[Front Seater]

Crab@SAAvn

My reference to moving REME to support u/s aircraft was one of the many internal Regimental tasks that were once absorbed by the integral Lynx fleet.

In isolation moving REME may be a lame requirement when fulfilling the 'limited movement of men and material' role, but when this potentially lame task is added to limited movement of Regimental and Brigade planning teams, and Regimental re-bro teams and the other internal limited lift tasks then I can buy into the limited lift concept.

The main reason why I buy into this limited movement of men and material role/task is that FLynx/BRH/Wild Cat is a recce/ISTAR capability and therefore anything lift orientated should be a by product secondary role when it isn't employed with Finding stuff for the AH to Strike/Attack. And any lift capacity that we do have should (and will) be taken up with lifting our own organic requirements.

And although Brandnew you appear to claim to be informed I sense that you are defending your lords and masters stand point and may possibly be protecting your corner?

Each one of your points could easily be provided with a counter argument/point. You actually answer your own question and I agree with you, FLynx does have a place on the battlefield:

You cannot judge an airframe solely by the amount of disposable weight - the capability for LUH is well established - the US Army have realised this and invested in ARH.



And that is the key (as the US Army found out), but look at your words - they have procured an ARH and not an LUH. As per the 101st, the US LUH/small lift is conducted by their integral Blackhawks - but their Blackhawks do not do Recce/ISTAR, hence the US identified and articulated requirement for an ARH. This is where I feel as though you may be over enthusiastic with the AAC FLynx Lift/Utility discussion and miss a key point:

FLynx was procured as a Battlefield Recce Helicopter (BRH)

The clue is in the title - it's job is supposed to be recce and ISTAR. Why are we as a Corps even trying to pretend that we will satisfy some of the NAO reports SH lift shortfalls, why are we trying to be the jack of all trades? Where is the doctrinal requirement and Main Building request for us to focus our roles and tasks on lifting men and material around the battlefield, when our true job, our real role is recce and attacking.

The moment we start saying that we are good little mini SH's then we lose our identity and our true role and it would be an easy natural step to wear the same uniform and cap badge as the other SH aircrews.

Brandnew, forgive me for saying this but I believe that you are trying to make our FLynx/BRH fit todays and recent conflicts (i.e. Peace Enforcement/Support) without looking at potential (and highly possible) future conflicts and crisis. You may be trying to do this to resolve the NAO report on the dearth of SH lift, you may be doing this in an attempt to win the current media battle that is constantly crying out for more lift helicopters in Afghanistan (and therefore make the figures balance by including Lynx as a lift capability). You might just be the unlucky AAC staff officer in JHC that has been told to drive this whole capability enhancement through ensuring maximum airframes and bums on seats for AAC personnel.

Whatever your motivation or rationale I believe that a pause is required just to ensure that before we dive head long into establishments, re-organisation, re-locations etc etc that we use this excellent opportunity to see where we as a Corps are (and we should be very proud of what we are delivering) but also accept where we are going.

We have an opportunity to really add value to Defence and make a true AH/BRH capability that will bring much across the entire spectrum of conflict. Trying to claim that we are a lift asset waters down our true raison d'etre.

Our business is tactical hunting, finding, tracking, killing, striking and attacking - that is what I believe we offer Defence. Lifting, dropping, picking up, moving, shifting, inserting is a limited task that we can do when we have spare capacity and resources from our main job, but lets be in no doubt that it is the specialised field of the SH community.

With 34 airframes (and how many actual fielded Squadrons) we are kidding ourselves if we try and build a pure Wild Cat Regiment that believes that it's main task is limited movement of men and material. Because that is exactly what will happen and especially if we are dislocated from AH, then all we will become is the mini SH's to plug and mitigate the lack of investment of UK PLc/MoD in SH lift.

Ask any Lynx crews when they last did a true recce task with AH or cueing other Strike/Offensive assets and I would be very surprised to hear of any recency, currency and competency as all that Lynx is doing to the best of its technical ability is help plug the SH shortfall.

[Clockwork Mouse]

The AAC has become a well established teeth-arm, with battle winning potential in the Apache. That is its most sexy and visible role, especially in the current limited wars we are fighting.

As a former formation general staff officer and ex-AAC pilot I hope the Corps does not lose sight of its equally important battlefield role in providing organic command and control support to commanders and staff. Without the ability to move quickly around the battlefield, a commander's ability to get and stay within the enemy's decision-making cycle would be severely degraded and he would be forced onto the defensive, reacting instead of proacting. That is not how battles are won.

[Two's in]

The AAC has become a well established teeth-arm, with battle winning potential in the Apache. That is its most sexy and visible role, especially in the current limited wars we are fighting.

Corporate memory seems to be the main issue here. As Clockwork Mouse states, the AAC provided the Army with its own organic aviation capability for over 40 years before the advent of AH. That support often proved critical to commanders on operations across the globe. Nobody in the AAC ever considered this utility support in a battle winning context, because the beneficiaries were the ground based assets.

Along comes Apache as a critical Divisional level DF weapon system, and suddenly everything that happened before 1999 is forgotten. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FLynx, organic Aviation support to ground Commanders will remain an essential task. This seems to have been overlooked in the rush to do everything Apache-like while marching to the JHC tune.

Just because it's called ash and trash, it doesn't mean it is not a critical task that deserves to be supported by the right equipment.

[NutLoose]

Must rush out and buy this then,

LYNX MK7 MULTI-ROLE HELICOPTER Flight Simulator on eBay, also, Aircraft Accessories, Aircraft Aviation, Cars, Parts Vehicles (end time 22-Jan-09 09:06:01 GMT) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LYNX-MK7-MULTI-ROLE-HELICOPTER-Flight-Simulator_W0QQitemZ250346912406QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CPV_Avi ation_SM?hash=item250346912406&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318 )


anyone lend me a cool 750,000 and do the British Army do

"Sympathetically dismantled after its decommisioning in March 2008".

:ok:

[diginagain]

Spent many an hour in that sim, mostly while waiting for the DS to restart the thing.

[[email protected]]

If you want to fly commanders/REME/REMFs around the battlefield you do not need FLynx to do it, you need something small and simple like....a Gazelle but you are getting rid of those.

If you want to find and fix the enemy you need simply to chose from the plethora of ISTAR platforms available, most of which are more capable and far cheaper than FLynx.

Don't pretend the FLynx will go scouting for targets for the AH64 - the Apache can do that so much better and has the weapons to kill anything it finds.

Most of the justification for FLynx here seems to be based on how the Gazelle used to support TOW Lynx during the last century - a model that was never tested in conflict and is hopelessly out of date given modern sensor technology.

Brandnew - the Lynx has been failing to deliver in hot climates for many years and has only been used because there has been nothing else, not because it is the weapon of choice. BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system so whilst they have used your airframes, they have done so very well.

And justifying Lynx because you can fire a .50 from it and abseil from it....hahahahaha

As to corporate memory pre 1999 - which Corps had to hurriedly retro-fit RWR and Mode 4 IFF so they could play with the big boys? That was the AAC keeping up with the requirements for the modern battlefield - not!

[mutleyfour]

I understand healthy debate but we have what we have, and we will get what we get, and it is up to those of us that operate to operate with the best of efficiency and professionalism whenever asked to do so.

[timex]

Most of the justification for FLynx here seems to be based on how the Gazelle used to support TOW Lynx during the last century - a model that was never tested in conflict and is hopelessly out of date given modern sensor technology.

It was tested and worked very well on Op Telic we flew as pairs with a Gaz and Lynx, (admittedly not against a sophisticated enemy). However the Gaz was a second pair of eyes, one of the crew would also be FAC/FOO and/or NGSO. The Gaz could also Designate with its Laser.

[wg13_dummy]

BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system

You sure about that, crab? :hmm:

[[email protected]]

Unless you mean the 'Battle for Box Hill' where a foreign exchange officer had the Tow to auto and killed a water tank during GW1;) - some good obs and recce there!

Timex - not only an unsophisticated enemy but no air threat either - some palm-skirted walla-wallas with pieces of sharpened fruit could have passed that operational test. But the Gz couldn't designate for the Lynx and relied on the GOA for obs in a dusty environment - just as well the Tow only had a 4Km max range really (3720m rings a bell).

Mutleyfour - yes and the AAC will always do that but this thread is about how millions of taxpayers pounds are going to be wasted giving the AAC the wrong kit to do the best job they can instead of giving them the right kit to do the job that is required.

[timex]

Mutleyfour - yes and the AAC will always do that but his thread is about how millions of taxpayers pounds are going to be wasted giving the AAC the wrong kit to do the best job they can instead of giving them the right kit to do the job that is required.

But what is the "right kit"? AAC limited to the size of aircraft, and MOD forced to buy AW?

But the Gz couldn't designate for the Lynx and relied on the GOA for obs in a dusty environment - just as well the Tow only had a 4Km max range really (3720m rings a bell).

Not why it was there, it could designate for fast air hence the FAC on board.

Also if you look at the ROE in place at the time ISTR we all had to visually ID targets anyway so it didn't matter how good your kit was in sandy conditions. (3750m)

[[email protected]]

You keep changing your post while I am trying to reply:)

[timex]

Sad, but true....and as usual its the guys on the ground who are being given the s****y end of the stick.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Crab,

Quote: "You keep changing your post while I am trying to reply".

So now you see the importance of getting and staying within the enemy's decision-making cycle!

[timex]

Oi......you changed first.:) (I think).:)

[[email protected]]

Brandnew - maybe I should have specified engaging and hitting the enemy with ToW;)

I know abseiling has been done loads of times but it is hardly a raison d'etre for having a Lynx. Not sure what you mean about ask Odiham re .50 - my comment was meant to convey that being able to mount a .50 is not a reason for choosing Lynx either.

Clockwork Mouse - oooh! Doctrinal Humour - excellent:ok:

Timex - no, you changed the bit about Typhoon first:)

[Mister-T]

Brand new I think the conversion to Mk 9 will be very soon but have no definite dates but will press to test Lynx IPT in the morning.

[wg13_dummy]

I know abseiling has been done loads of times but it is hardly a raison d'etre for having a Lynx.

You're right but if you look at how current Lynx has been used, it is the ideal small, fast, manoeuvrable aggressive platform to place a number of chaps onto a target. It poses less of a target than Puma, Merlin or CH47. With a handful of Lynx, you have lots of flexibility to 'swarm' a point as well as giving a reasonable amount of fire support with HCSW.

Again, it comes under 'utility' and unless you can quantify the role to the requirement, guess what? The bean counters will not cough up. The problem is this capability will disappear once current Lynx goes. You could argue that due to Wildcat having less of a carrying capability, this gives you more flexibility because you will need more aircraft to delivery the 'goods' thus having more firepower and spreading your deployable assets over more platforms. Unfortunately, these little jobs haven't been specified and therefore no requirement written. Of course, you could mention a RN/RM boarding party scenario and how that is written into the RN requirement but you'll find I'm on about a slightly different mission.

I think those in the know will agree, Wildcat is a good aircraft and will be a capable platform. Unfortunately, the compromise for the BRH will severely limit what can be done with the aircraft. That spells a lack of something to offer the chaps on the ground and potentially a protracted future for the Corps.


maybe I should have specified engaging and hitting the enemy with ToW

Maybe you should. Or on the other hand, you could maybe stop writing about things you know very little about you SAR-boy-wanchor. ;)

[Jackonicko]

Wasn't FLynx originally supposed to be to meet BLUH?

When did BLUH become BRH and why?

[wg13_dummy]

Ah, you've asked the exam question there, Jack.

BLUH was Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter

When it became apparent that it didn't have much in the way of utility (trades description act comes to mind), the 'U' was dropped and thus was born the Battlefield Recce Helicopter.

Heres a piccie of the old BLUH;

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future-lynx/images/5-Future-Lynx-helicopters.jpg


And heres a piccie of BRH;

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future-lynx/images/5-Future-Lynx-helicopters.jpg


Can you spot the difference (apart from the price tag)?

[Modern Elmo]

Whether FLynx is exactly the right answer for the UK is immaterial, it is the answer we are getting

Priceless, just priceless.

Put that on a plaque and hang it on the wall behind the bar.

[Ian Corrigible]

Brings to mind the old Blackadder Goes Forth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/epguide/four_goodbyeee.shtml) line. "But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war [read: FLynx]."

(Since the MoD did such a good job in persuading the Danes to hand over their EH101s, maybe they'll be willing to divvy-up some of their Fennecs to help make-up the numbers.:E)

I/C

[Mister-T]

wg13 your analogy of why BLUH became BRH is not quite on the money. The AAC justification for a LUH was deemed unnecessary (as that is the bread and butter of another force seemingly)and therefore in order to allow the joint venture with the RN (whom remember could not afford the platform by themselves and that is a key point here) to continue a much better requirement had to be found. Since therefore the Gazelle and its role were en route to Boscombe Down services the RH role was quickly assigned to Future Lynx.

[Stupidbutsaveable]

I believe Mr-T is close with his "LUH was deemed unnecessary (as that is the bread and butter of another force seemingly)", but how about another spin?
If I remember correctly (always doubtful) the BLUH/BRH thing happened (2004?) due to large cuts in the proposed future funding of RW, hence lots of head-scratching and trying to redefine (defend) the requirement. Once directed to break the requirement down into basic functions (Lift, Find, Strike), and use that model to prioritize requirements, the 'lift' element of BLUH looked a tad difficult to defend. I'm not saying it's not required, just vulnerable using that model with limited cash in the offering.
This gave the AAC staff officers taking part in the process a bit of a dilemma; how do we big up the need to retain the 'lift' element of BLUH without loosing 'find' funding into the yawning chasm that was/is medium lift. In short, trying to get what the AAC really wanted (autonimous section sized lift) could risk loosing the platform to the SH fleet and the tricky prospect of justifying a Corps with only one platform (AH), which it could be argued can do the 'find' on its own. Better to accept BRH knowing that FLynx will at least give a bit of utility than risk all.
The dark blue were, of course, very happy to concentrate on the Find function as it helped protect SCMR.
Just a theory of course and I am now a couple of years out of date; anyone at Netheravon or Wilton care to comment?
PS. Hope this doesn't drift into a 'we only need Chinook for Lift' debate.

[mutleyfour]

My esteemed and learned colleague has informed me that you can probably expect the first 4 Mk 9's with refit by September this year.

[[email protected]]

WG13 - I guess 2000 hours on ToW Lynx doesn't mean much because it was all in LFA 1A and flying RHS for at least half of the ToW shoots in 7 years at MW is irrelevant. However, many of the guys I worked with were anti-tank veterans of the N German plain and GW1 so I have a small understanding of what went on - if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat.

Back to other stuff - if you want a heli platform to give suppressive fire you use a Chinook with miniguns (Sierra Leone), if you want to swarm a target (especially at night) you run the risk of mid-air collisions (Aussie Blackhawk and others) if you have too many assets in one place. Better to have fewer, larger aircraft that can deliver more troops at once (the RN on MCT for example). I don't think the RCS or the thermal signature differ much from Puma to Lynx so as targets go they are very similar and equally likely to be shot down.

There are a few specialist insertion tasks where a Lynx might be useful but the chaps that do those usually have their own aircraft.

You have definitely not justified the purchase of Flynx in any way, shape or form for the AAC, no matter how good the aircraft might be for the RN role.

One of the few roles it might have excelled in was as an anti-helicopter helicopter but no weapon systems meant that all that fast, aggressive manoeuvering capability was confined to airshows and my SCT;)

It will get used, again not as the weapon of choice but as a fill-in 'well we've got it we might as well try to do something with it' type of role. The AAC (and JHC) will end up short-changed again and AW will have a full order book and plenty of profit with another cash-cow to milk for a few years.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Why all the talk of a "weapons platform" in respect of Flynx? The Apache is a weapons platform. The Puma isn't; the Chinook isn't; the Merlin isn't; a Bedford 4 ton truck isn't. Lynx (post ATGW) and, hopefully Flynx, isn't.

[wg13_dummy]

WG13 - I guess 2000 hours on ToW Lynx doesn't mean much because it was all in LFA 1A and flying RHS for at least half of the ToW shoots in 7 years at MW is irrelevant. However, many of the guys I worked with were anti-tank veterans of the N German plain and GW1 so I have a small understanding of what went on - if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat.

I never mentioned GW1. To be honest, you've been out of the AAC environment for a while so I fully expect your knowledge and info to be somewhat out of date.


Back to other stuff - if you want a heli platform to give suppressive fire you use a Chinook with miniguns (Sierra Leone), if you want to swarm a target (especially at night) you run the risk of mid-air collisions (Aussie Blackhawk and others).

Who is giving suppressive fire when the Chinook is inserting its troops? As for mid airs, we ensure our SOPs and drills are very tight and it seems to have worked pretty well for the past few years. Seems to be very effective too.


if you have too many assets in one place. Better to have fewer, larger aircraft that can deliver more troops at once (the RN on MCT for example). I don't think the RCS or the thermal signature differ much from Puma to Lynx so as targets go they are very similar and equally likely to be shot down.

I didn't think a SAR boy-wanchor would understand. :rolleyes:


There are a few specialist insertion tasks where a Lynx might be useful but the chaps that do those usually have their own aircraft.

Really? You may be thinking of a certain Flt in the H area but that wasn't what I was referring too. Again, you've been out of the environment for too long so wouldn't expect you to know. ;)


You have definitely not justified the purchase of Flynx in any way, shape or form for the AAC

Exactly!!

[lynxgem]

Crab@saavn me old fruit, you are talking complete bollox there son - to quote - "BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system" and "many of the guys I worked with were anti-tank veterans of the N German plain and GW1 so I have a small understanding of what went on - if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat."

Best you admit defeat now, as 3AAC did indeed take part in engagements with TOW and FITOW in GW2, and i can name at least 8 or 9 other folk than me who did it. One of whom was awarded the DFC - I was his pilot, but that's for another moan .....

enjoy your winching...

[the funky munky]

Jackonicko

Quote: Wasn't FLynx originally supposed to be to meet BLUH?

No, the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter was a separate autonomous capability requirement. All the time BLUH was being discussed Wastelands told the MoD that we were not an inteligent customer (partially agreed as we have politicians dictating spends!) and that we needed to buy FLYNX because if we didn't then Wastelands would go under!. We in the MoD were not allowed to call it anything other than a capability requirement, we were only just allowed to call it a helicopter!.

There was a benchmarking study carried out in 2002 that identified that there was nothing on the market which even met the requirement. Even the Blackhawk, and we specifically looked at the UH60M you know the GTI version. And we asked very nicely if it was marinised, as its supposed to fly off a ship sometimes alas came the answer no. In addition there were ILS issues, Whole Life Cost issues, Reliability & Maintainabilty issues associated with Blackhawk and it missed out on a whole raft of the DLODs, on top of that it would have been made by Wastelands and the cost would have been 3 times that of a US built aircraft. So cue much head scratching by the customer and shuffling of feet!

When did BLUH become BRH and why?

As stated previously back in 2004 Workstrand 13 came out which came up with Rotary Wing Battlefield Find, Lift and Attack elements. Now it was carved up that AH would do the Attack element (No brainer) Chinook Heavy Lift and SABR would do Lift. The decision was made that Find needed a platform and as Wastelands lobbied very hard and the FLYNX had a sensor on the nose low and behold a new requirement was generated the Battlefield Recconaisance Helicopter was born and lo it was good. The extra benefit was that it was a recce platform that also offered a 1000 kg of lift which was considered at the time as being useful.

Of course the winner that clinched it for the politicians was that RW Find and RW Lift decision cut the RW procurement budget from £4.1 Bn to £3.0 Bn overnight. So any cash that would have been spent on de-risking a recce platform or indeed on inserting a metre long plug in an FLYNX (yes that was considered) were clawed back into the centre, so rejoice we have BRH and ain't she a beauty.

[[email protected]]

WG and Lynxgem - if you read my posts re TOW engagements I clearly specified GW1 - I know GW2 was different but I was told that 847 were the only ones to engage with TOW - if that is wrong I am sorry.

WG - just like every new generation of teenagers thinks they invented sex - every new generation of helicopter pilots thinks that old farts know nothing despite having many years of experience in different theatres - I was QHTI qualified in 1987 - were you?;)

[MightyGem]

if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat
Crab, your memory must be failing in your old age, because I'm sure that during your time at Wallop you will have heard of 654 Sqn's shoot during the battle for Objective Platinum(I think):

On 16 November 1990 the Squadron was warned for deployment to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation “Desert Shield”. By 2 January 1991 the Squadron was complete in Al Jubail and training for war against Iraq as part of the coalition forces. On 24 February 1991 the Squadron moved into Iraq in support of Operation “Desert Sabre”, and on the 26 February 1991 it engaged and destroyed 7 armoured vehicles of the Iraqi 12th Armoured Division

The vehicles being a number of T55s and MTLB.

In addition, there was the "Battle of Box Hill" when 651(or 661) Sqn engaged a dug in Iraqi position. It was only after that it was found to be a dummy position.

And, of course, there was Jeep's jeep!!

[wg13_dummy]

WG - just like every new generation of teenagers thinks they invented sex - every new generation of helicopter pilots thinks that old farts know nothing despite having many years of experience in different theatres - I was QHTI qualified in 1987 - were you?

Me new generation? I don't think so. What was I doing in 1987? I was on ops as opposed to teaching theory. :ok:

I respect your experience but you are very much out of date with current or future JHC requirements or operational needs and ops (unless SARTU, 22/202 Sqns are JHC assets now?)

[lynxgem]

Oh my my my dear crabsaavn, your time as a QHTI all those many moons ago must have severly addled your grey cells.....

WG and Lynxgem - if you read my posts re TOW engagements I clearly specified GW1 - I know GW2 was different but I was told that 847 were the only ones to engage with TOW - if that is wrong I am sorry.

Go back to your post on 5 Jan, i notice there was no direct reference to that immense ftx undertaken in the desert in 90/91....

Brandnew - the Lynx has been failing to deliver in hot climates for many years and has only been used because there has been nothing else, not because it is the weapon of choice. BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system so whilst they have used your airframes, they have done so very well. as has every other bugger that's used them i might add!

If you are such a learned individual that knew all there was to know, even as far back as 1987, then why my dear chap were you not out getting a suntan with the AAC in Suadi/Q8? Or were you just extremely good at lecturing baby pilots 'what to do when you are engaged/sighted by the enemy' etc, when not having ever been subject to such an experience??? i thank christ that SAAvn is now weedling out such folk from making the APC a thoroughly sh1te time!

Having said my piece, i will now allowthe rest of you to have a decent conversation about that piece of crap that the MOD has procured for the AAC, apologies to the rest of you for interrupting the thread, but I just had to get crab back in his box after his taking bollox!! TTFN!

[[email protected]]

OK, OK, I'll admit defeat - the AAC have successfully engaged enemy armour with ToW. Happy now?

As ever, those who can't argue resort to personal abuse and name-calling but I'm used to that on these forums.

As to what I did at Wallop - someone had to teach all the QHIs how to fly and instruct on the Lynx:)





Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.

[wg13_dummy]

Nice to see you've got back in your box, crab. :ok:


Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.

I wouldn't say its a waste of money. Just not value for money. Prior to us going off on a bit of a tangent, I was trying to inform you that it will not be able to fulfil the current roles Lynx does. Ie the utility stuff. Utility does not encroach on the SH fleet but once current Lynx disappears, it will be interesting to see if SH will be able to fill the gap. Will they have the capacity to? If not, we lose the ability which means a reduced capability.

[lynxgem]

OK, OK, I'll admit defeat - the AAC have successfully engaged enemy armour with ToW. Happy now?

As ever, those who can't argue resort to personal abuse and name-calling but I'm used to that on these forums.

As to what I did at Wallop - someone had to teach all the QHIs how to fly and instruct on the Lynxhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.


Did i call you names sire?? Nice to get an apology from one so educated though :ok:

Enjoy the pot noodles and keep up the good work:D

[[email protected]]

WG - if you don't get value for money then you have effectively wasted it. I don't think this thread is about whether or not the Lynx does fill some roles adequately - it is about whether or not that is justification for procuring another, almost identical helicopter which will be even less capable because the cabin space is reduced.

We come back to having to keep the AAC going in its present guise and camouflaging that by inventing ISTAR roles for a LUH with little utility in its CV.

Much as with the Merlin which we had foisted upon us (and yes it is doing a good job but not as good as another Sqn of Chinooks) because the RN wanted a new helo but couldn't afford it by themselves; you will get a helicopter you don't want and don't need because the RN want a new helicopter and can't afford it by themselves.:ugh:

[wg13_dummy]

WG - if you don't get value for money then you have effectively wasted it. I don't think this thread is about whether or not the Lynx does fill some roles adequately - it is about whether or not that is justification for procuring another, almost identical helicopter which will be even less capable because the cabin space is reduced.


Agreed


We come back to having to keep the AAC going in its present guise and camouflaging that by inventing ISTAR roles for a LUH with little utility in its CV.

Agreed


Much as with the Merlin which we had foisted upon us (and yes it is doing a good job but not as good as another Sqn of Chinooks) because the RN wanted a new helo but couldn't afford it by themselves; you will get a helicopter you don't want and don't need because the RN want a new helicopter and can't afford it by themselves.

Agreed!

[nimby]

One of the best argued threads I've seen in years. It's been a great journey ... round in circles

So we've established that SCMR is needed really badly by the RN and FLynx is expected to be OK at that (post #59) and that there's a need for something other than a trooplifter (post #65). And they say WE don't listen :).

I think the very interesting development will be the T800 engined Mk 9. Look forward to seeing that.

As for spares :rolleyes:, will try to do better :O. Not just us though :oh:.

N

[wg13_dummy]

One of the best argued threads I've seen in years. It's been a great journey ... round in circles

So we've established that SCMR is needed really badly by the RN and FLynx is expected to be OK at that (post #59) and that there's a need for something other than a trooplifter (post #65). And they say WE don't listen .

I think the very interesting development will be the T800 engined Mk 9. Look forward to seeing that.

Quick fix stop gap. Although its a start. At least the engines will be 'run in' by the time they (you) rip them out of the Mk9s and stick them back into Wildcat. Are we paying for those engines twice?

To summerise;

FLynx as SCMR = Great
FLynx as BRH = Wank


As I've asked before, what are the Lynx fleet aircrew going to do during the gap of current Lynx going out of service and FLynx ISD? At present, there is a gap of two years.

[Gnd]

Seems the circle still comes out at the same result!!

[Jackonicko]

WG13,

Welcome back, mate. Much missed.

[wg13_dummy]

Thanks Jack. I shall try and not piss off certain moderators by trying to actually use a bulletin board as a bulletin board. :rolleyes:

[Yeoman_dai]

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=13219


is it just me, or are those Hellfire missiles? And, if so, why are they attached to what is blatantly supposed to be a Navy FLynx/Wildcat?
Or are they Sea Skua's....

[wg13_dummy]

I think the early promotional shots showed FLynx/SCMR/BLUH/BUH/LUH/BRH/Wildcat/Sidrat carrying Brimstones as well as offering it to be the 'first aircraft designed around BOWMAN'.

AW should go into banking or politics. They could sell ice to the Eskimos. :rolleyes:

[Ian Corrigible]

...or just a generic rendering of FASGW(H)?

I/C

[Hilife]

Quick fix stop gap

I don’t think that’s a term the MoD recognises anymore. The whole reason for an interim fix of an old airframe is because the MoD cannot afford new replacements. I’d guess the modified Mk 9’s (and the Puma’s if the LEP goes ahead) will likely be around for a decade or much more after modification.

[Gnd]

"cannot afford new replacements" - £14 Million - That would get a few new ones that are already out there me thinks. What are the Pumas going to do if there is no new toy for them - backfill the Wildcat Sqns??

That picture still has the sill wheels on - yuk!!!

[Jackonicko]

They do have wheels, though.....

[wg13_dummy]

They do have wheels, though.....


......which is spiffing if you only want to ground handle it into or out of the hangar and don't actually want to ground taxi it...... :hmm:


I say we save the weight and cost and just stick table legs on it.

[microlight AV8R]

Not a bad idea. May I suggest a compromise for you.....

Why not fit industrial castors on them. Might not last forever, but replacements generally available at DIY stores in most big towns.

Would that make taxying a little easier ?

[Mister-T]

The ones in my local Tesco's would not be suited as they never seem to want to go in the same direction. :ok:

[andyy]

Must be something to do with "jointery"!

[wg13_dummy]

Not a bad idea. May I suggest a compromise for you.....

Why not fit industrial castors on them. Might not last forever, but replacements generally available at DIY stores in most big towns.

Would that make taxying a little easier ?


A very good idea. Even more so seeing how B&Q is just outside AWs main gate.

It'll even look like the good old Wasp. (May as well do seeing how most of the cab is from the 60's anyway).

[Faithless]

It'll even look like the good old Wasp. (May as well do seeing how most of the cab is from the 60's anyway).


I've got a good name for it as well...The Navy can call it the Wasp and the Army can call it the .......Wait for it.......Wait for it.......

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the....

SCOUT

I think Im onto a winner here!!

[wg13_dummy]

Shhh, you'll give AW bad ideas (not that they need help with bad ideas of course).

Funnily enough, you could actually carry more people in a Scout than you can with Wildcat. :hmm:

[NURSE]

Well the Spams have been rumoured to be looking at building a 60's aircraft again in the form of the Bronco. Wouldn't it be interesting if Westlands dusted of the plans for the scout .

[Low Ball]

WG 13 your post 204. Lynx crews with 2 years to spare and a much reduced fleet size when you return. Combine this with a shortage of Apache crews and you may have your answer! Start working on your excuses now or apply for fixed wing training.

Yeoman dai your photograph of the SCMR in post 208. Just look how close those lovely rubber tyres are to the eflux from the Hellfires. Might make for an interesting landing on return to land/deck! IIRC we had similar discussions when someone wanted to put TOW on the Mk 9 Lynx

LB

[SuperDouper]

The Omani Lynx has had numerous CRV7 firing missions with no effect to the tyres. Flame traps are also fitted to the fuel drains/ breathers in the area.

Dont worry about it

[SuperDouper]

Forgot to mention that the Omanis also taxi their Lynx

[TwoStep]

What exactly is the FLynx/Wildcat going to replace/supplant in the AAC, are they going to dump a load of Lynx by 2014?

[orgASMic]

Wildcat will replace all Lynx eventually, but not 1-for-1, starting with Mk7 from 2014-ish.

[TwoStep]

Thanks orgASMic, does that include the AH9As that are being upgraded at the moment?

[vecvechookattack]

Yep....those as well...... Although not initially...

[the funky munky]

Mmm, I just have this sneaking feeling that now that we have the new and improved semi Wildcat 9As with the new engines, comms and relatively low life airframes, then the powers that be will just leave them where they are for the time being.
After all there is only going to be 2 Regiments worth of Wildcats and that won't be enough for to maintain the Corps! Got to have somewhere for all the Generals to come from!

[pr00ne]

the funky munky,

hhmm......

The Army Air Corps; 67 Apache, 34 Wildcat, 4 AS365, 9 Defenders.

Hardly a "Corps" is it?

[Lynxman]

Its actually 7 Defenders and 9 Islanders and don't forget the Gazelle fleet.

[pr00ne]

Lynxman,

Thanks for the correction.

I thought that the Gazelle fleet was being retired without replacement?

Still doesn't alter the fundamental though does it? A total 'Corps' wide fleet of 120, with a percentage of that figure being in maintenance/overhaul/repair and 34 Wildcat being shared with 847NAS?

[RotatingPart]

The Wildcat looks more like being an ISTAR platform. There is no Gazelle replacement, there is no Lynx replacement. With it's reduced cabin space and no stowwage under it's crash worthy seats it will be able to seat 3 in the rear cabin comfortably. I think a change in mind set is needed when it comes to accepting Wildcat. The Mk 9A's look like being a capable bit of kit, we could do with more of them :ok:

[Charlie Time]

6 in the Wildcat cabin for roles such as the Naval Boarding Party is quite possible.

[wg13_dummy]

6 in the Wildcat cabin for roles such as the Naval Boarding Party is quite possible.

So long as you dont want to take anyone to operate the M3M or allow the boarding party to have any kit.

Its ok though. A certain short female from the IPT said that one of the pax can operate the gun.

"Once they've boarded, whos going to operate it then?" I asked.

"The Observer can" was the answer from the IPT member.....

AW were relieved to hear that because they didnt need to sort out the size of the rear cabin 'cos the IPT said it was ok'.

[vecvechookattack]

At the moment the Lynx can fit 9 in the cabin....and so if the wildcat can only fit six...isn't that a reduction in capability?

[Gnd]

Who has ever said the seats have to stay in on Ops - been done before?

[Charlie Time]

Why would you want to fit 9 in the cabin?

[Gnd]

Maybe because nine want to get somewhere important?

[Data-Lynx]

Published this afternoon (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/11476/). Has the tail rotor drive assembly been bolted on from a small commercial aircraft engine?? It's huge.

http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/9ff62c8d3620c75c1d1dded9578b2f3fd4ac6e1d_big.jpg

[engineer(retard)]

D/L

I think that you will find that is part of the instrumentation package for the tail rotor. The hub and blades are stuffed with strain guages. I also believe that the floor size of Wildcat is the same area, the difference in overall capacity being a more cluttered cabin due to the crashworthy seats, the increase in actual soldier size (based on demographics the standard is still 1970s) and far more kit being carried.

regards

retard

[Mick Strigg]

I hear that MOD has today, made a decision to change the name of this new aircraft. It will no longer be the Wildcat, but henceforth will be known as the Munter!

[Gnd]

Pr00n,

Are we applying that logic to the Int Corps, Small Arms School Corps, Army Physical Training Corps (http://www.army.mod.uk/aptc/default.aspx), Corps of Army Music (http://www.army.mod.uk/music/music.aspx); I think it is the belonging that makes it a Corps unlike some other Service’s generic being. Princeton university definition: a body of people associated together; e.g. "diplomatic corps". I do not think that we are for one moment thinking it is a multi brigade American Mass of combatants or support. I think it is better to look at the fact that it has the largest amount or Rotary aircraft so possibly should take over the other Arms assets???? It has the best attack capability and with the Wildcat, the best ISTAR capability, thoughts?;)

[Faithless]

I hear that MOD has today, made a decision to change the name of this new aircraft. It will no longer be the Wildcat, but henceforth will be known as the Munter!


Naaaa,

It's been renamed S.H.I.T. Mk 1 = Small Helicopter Incapable of Transportation!

[Gnd]

But it isn't for transport - that boaring job is taken?

[Charlie Time]

Yep the clue is in the names Army Helicopter and Helicopter Maritime Attack - don't see any mention of transport in there. Whilst an important secondary role it isn't a key capability and not what the aircraft is focused around.

[[email protected]]

So what particular role is this fabulous new Army Helicopter going to perfrom then?

[timex]

Probably the same ones as the Lynx is doing now.

[[email protected]]

Probably the same ones as the Lynx is doing now.

So with no sensors it won't be ISTAR, with no weapons it won't be armed attack, which just leaves 'limited movement of men and materiel' but with less room available in the cabin - sounds like we got our money's worth there then:(

[the funky munky]

No Sensors?
EO/Visual turret with operator in the loop. RWR. Radar if Army so wish it. Nope no sensors!

No weapons?

M3M and GPMG from cabin door positions and Wildcat Army version will be able to use the Light version of FASGW.
Nope no weapons!

Armed Attack?
Is that not the job of the mighty, might WAH? My impression was that the Wildcat found it and the Apache killed it.
Nope no Armed attack role just as the customer directed!

Limited movement of men and material?
I refer you to the customer direction again.

Wildcat is not an SH or an AH, it was never ever intended to be so. Just an agile ISTAR platform that could operate as a battlefield taxi for the General. If it was an SH then the RAF would have had it and the Army would have nothing.

[[email protected]]

Funky Munky - 'back one, steady' - my post was meant to highlight that the present Lynx doesn't perform any of those roles:ok:

However, we have more ISTAR assets than you can shake a stick at and the WAH can find its own targets quite capably.

The Mk7 Lynx had an EO turret with the TOWTI fitted (now removed) and an operator in the loop (co-pilot/AC Comd) and every battlefield helicopter has RWR fitted and most can have a .50 machine gun mounted. The Wildcat doesn't bring anything new to the party except crashworthy seats!

[Pheasant]

Crab,

The Wildcat doesn't bring anything new to the party except crashworthy seats!

Er, it keeps the AAC in aviation as without it the RAF or RN would have made a strong case to take over Apache as the AAC would have been unsustainable with just Apache. The only reason you are getting a replacement for your obsolete Lynx is on the back of the RN's very strong case for Wildcat, MOD was not prepared to give you a different type of helo so it was "take it or leave it".

Sad but true.

[timex]

Crab, you know as well as anyone that we have a shortage of Battlefield helo's and though the "Wildcat" isn't the ideal platform it will still have its uses.

Why send a Chinook, Merlin SK or Puma if you can use a smaller cab?

You can never have enough IStar platforms.