Dangermouse - it's just your vehement defence of AW whenever they are criticised that made me think they owned you
BTW the engine governing will have exactly no bearing on Nr control - it is in autoratation or harsh manoeuvring that the Nr control on a Lynx is exciting and, since the one that shed a blade in Germany many years ago was alleged to have been a result of persistent rotor overspeeds, it is a cause for concern amongst Lynx pilots which is why the Nr overspeed warner was fitted.
Meeting the spec has always been a Westlands excuse for producing a product that doesn't do the job since the spec is always bastardised to meet the limitations of the particular airframe that they have available.
Nimby - the limited movement of men and materiel is a stated capability of the AAC and the Lynx is the only beast they have to do it with. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect the FLynx to fulfill that role at least as well as the old Lynx (ie not very well) but it seems it will be worse.
What on earth do you need another sensor and weapons platform on the battlefield for when you have the Apache? This has been window dressing from the start in an attempt to justify the procurement of FLynx. Big deal - new structures and fuselage shape - it's still a Lynx with Lynx limitations which is now being over-engined in an attempt to make a silk purse from a sows ear. The airframe needs to be bigger - then add better engines and you might have a battlefield helicopter. Granted it won't then be a Lynx but it might be some use operationally.
The only reason the AAC heirarchy have backed FLynx is that without it, their sum total of helicopter presence is AH 64. Such a small but specialised capability does not need a whole Corps to sustain and support it and their very raison d'etre would vanish leaving them very vulnerable to cost-cutting takeovers.
WG13 - I think our posts passed each other in cyberspace
