Those from the AAC say that they don't want it, well what the hell do you want? Do you really think that buying from EC or Sikorsky will be any cheaper?
Sikorsky would be a lot cheaper at current dollar/pound exchange rates.
( The money exchange rate issue is bigger than just Lynx versus H-60. If present trends continue, American aerospace venders will be able to drastically underprice anything built where they pay the lads or arbeiters in pounds or Euros. In the bigger picture, Westlands can't survive without more protectionism. No, I'm not delighted because the dollar has gotten so weak. A weak dollar has cons as well as pros.)
The FLynx requirement became laughable when the endorsed requirement was to carry a fully equipped standard infantry section.
When pointed out to those presenting to a Wattisham Lynx audience that this would not be possible with the current contender the requirement appeared to be re-written on the spot with the quote "well thats okay, it can do that, just send two aircraft"!
That’s it. The British Army – assuming there will be a significant one in future – needs a properly sized rotary winged assault transport, not just any old hand-me-down whose size is set by some whim of industrial history. The H-60 Blackhawk is intended to fit an eleven man US Army squad. Yes, it’s getting stressed to do that because combat-loaded light infantrymen often weigh 300 pounds or more. But how many heavily burdened troops could this Super Lynx accommodate?
I do see the Royal Navy having a legitimate objection to the Blackhawk/Seahawk. Even with main rotor and tail boom folded, a Seahawk probably has a bigger parking footprint than a Lynx.
By the way, didn’t Westlands build a RR-engined Blackhawk demonstrator a good many years ago? Surely someone here knows more about that.