VP, to go back to what you have been saying;
" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."
"Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement."
"The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. "
"I know it's (the Blackhawk) battle damage tolerant and modestly capable as a lifter, but we don't need all of the armament capability (we have WAH to do that) and according to the current requirement (from Cust 2 BTW) we don't need to shift more than a couple of guys around the battlefield with it either."
You seem to be going around in circles VP 'me old China', by your own assumptions and as for knowing what the DAAvn is pushing for, I'm surprised that you continue.
Maybe you do have the WAH, 'to do that', if you can get hold of them and after all that's all it does. How about putting drop tanks or mixing ordanance on the mission pylons for the extra endurance required for long strike missions with the 60?
As for the 'according to current requirements...no need to shift more than a couple of guys', yea right. HELLO VP ARE YOU THERE?
Then again, we will always have the good old US of A to help us out, if we were ever to get into such shananagans, wouldn't we?
As for the "Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx" statement, just who started calling it the Future Lynx?
If that IS the case, shouldn't we be calling it by a different name.?
You may be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but traditionally one would have to knit something out of it first.
"Pray tell me why you'd want something that big, heavy, old and expensive to meet the BRH requirement?"
Your examples are MELB, Kiowa Warrior, EC635 etc.
Why not a few R44s
Small, light, new-ish, inexpensive and quiet. After all, you just want a BRH don't you?