"Last edited by junglyAEO : Today at 11:10. Reason: spooling mistoks"
You didn't catch many of them, Jungly!
Is it, for example:
1) acquistion
or
2) acqisition
or
3) None of the above?
And what is reverese engineering?
On a more serious note, I'm assured that
a) There has been no increase in cost - we're looking at two different figures because one is the up front cost and the other is the total (including through life support) cost. If we don't like that cost, then blame those who negotiated it
b) The existing AFCS is part of the agreed donor package from existing aircraft. A new AFCS was looked at but was discounted during the cost/capability trade-off exercise.
c) The nose wheel on Super Lynx/Lynx has never been steerable. It is locked fore/aft but can be castored through 90 degrees for turning, on deck etc. The aircraft can be ground taxiied using differential braking and the castoring facility can be used for spot turning.
d) While the nose-mounted observation kit does not give a full look down or aft capability it meets all of the specified requirements. Different locations would have different limitations.
There may be plenty of reasons for kicking Westlands (poor spares support for Merlin, if you ask some!) but when it comes to FLynx it sounds as though we are getting exactly what we asked for, at exactly the price we agreed. It may be that it's not what we should have asked for. It may be that it will soak up a disproportionate and unacceptable amount of the budget for FRC.