Sumo, if the answer was the Mk 9, all be it modified to the quite reasonable spec/tasks you outlined, I believe the money spent on trying to rehash a 30 year old flawed design would be far greater than starting from scratch/looking else where. The cost of renovating a 15th century cottage would be twice the cost of buying new!
I think the answer has already been given to us by way of the briefing/sales pitch from the Lynx team. "Your getting Lynx, 5h!t, bust". In fact, " Your getting the same Lynx we flogged you 25 years ago with a Carol Smilie makeover, 5h!t, bust".
Not entirely their (Wastlelands) fault. As was pointed out earlier, pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
How long ago was this idea of a replacement for Lynx put up? Prior to AH plan?
I firmly believe that it was on the cards a long time before but the rising cost of AH (that’s the way these programmes always go) has led to no coffers in the pot for a complete 'aviation' package. I.e.; Dedicated Attack platform and battlefield multi role heli. When I say multi role, I refer you to all that Sumo has mentioned. Not jack of all trades and master of none, such is the twin engined throb monster we have today and tomorrow. But an aircraft that can fill all future AAC jobs, less AH.
Lets break down the proposed role of the new BLUH. Sumo, I'll do it in your order.
1. Liaison- proposed can do this task- whoopee do!
2. Limited movement of men and material- very limited! Sure we don’t need Chinook like attributes, that’s what they are there for but I would suggest that the cabin space will always limit the user to 5 or 6 chaps kitted for no more than light ops. Now I'm not trying to step on SH feet but how would taking a warrior section, complete, sound. A lot more useful for a commander on the ground. Will the current Lynx/Future BLUH be able to carry a complete AH engine? It only just fits a current Gem in the back. Will it be able to replen the AH ammunition to a realistic level as opposed to a couple of 30mm and 4 AT natures? Or are we relying on outside agencies (RAF SH, not a dig but 'in unit' independence is the way ahead).
3. Recce. From my memory, no mention was made of the type of sighting system to be employed. In my experience, the current TI/Tow sight is as much use as t!ts on a fish! No secret there. There isn’t much scope to fit anything currently available as a retro fit to improve this situation.
4. Updated avionics. We all heard how 'they' are going to increase the MAUM with the new engines. Did nobody ask what the new dry weight will be with all the proposed goodies on board? So, a usable less than what we have already.
5. CSAR. The way ahead in my opinion. If your going to stick a piece of hardware further forward (AH), you must expect that crews are going to be a little bit further away than the range of SSM's Landrover for recovery should the poo hit the fan. The proposed cannot fill this role. In respect of;
a. Self defence; 1 or 2 x GPMG is not acceptable in an environment that has brought down an AH.
b. Survivability; 20 B+H dropped from 2' has more chance! As has been pointed out, this NEEDS to be designed in from day 1, week 1. Not blagged by making the hyd/alts a little bit tougher/wrapping them in kevlar and adding big springs in the seat!
The point of inserting a patrol has already been highlighted. How far do you want to take them and what kit are they going to have? If your talking four blokes with a NAAFI break then fine but if you need a pukker bunch of chaps with all the kit that is required to do a decent job than we're talking about an aircraft that needs at least 900kg spare for about 2 hours. With a very hasty bit of maths that concludes that the airframe has to be 3600Kg (300kg crew inc self defence door gunner, 600kg/100kg MLA fuel (looking at more efficient engines). This is based on the figure given of 5500kg MAUM. Any Lynx jocks know of a cab currently that has that as a dry weight? Pipe dream!
SF, not going there but we currently have Lynx-Chinook, nothing in between. Ol-benkenobi, you know where I'm coming from!
Do we need to look at inflight refuelling? or a capacity to fit retro long range tanks? No, I don’t mean a couple of ten gallon drums in lieu of the six man seat.
What do we want?
Food for thought if I may. Money no option on a car, what would you buy for max performance/load carrying/value for money? I'd go for a Renault Espace with a Ferrari engine built by Volkswagen. You surely wouldn't buy an Austin Allegro (with body kit) with a Ford engine built by Lada would you. Get used to it, that’s what’s going to happen!
If anything comes out of the latest shindig out East, the voting public might sway towards giving the MoD a couple more quid for defence of the Realm, but I very much doubt it, the deal is done.......Lynx GTi Mk II, I've already ordered my Steve/Tracy windscreen sticker!
P.S Westlands, prey tell us the story with regards to why you decided to design the tail rotor the wrong way round the first time. Know something every other heli manufacturer didn't?
Give a boy a mans job............
:o