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).
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.
