Dangermouse - my point about providing 'solutions' is that if there is an IPT/customer requirement that AW can't meet then they often offer what they have available on the shelf which is usually far less capable than was actually required. Then, when the IPT/customer complains they are told that if they really want the required capability then it will cost more money and take longer. The inevitable result is that the IPT/customer ends up having to concede capability because the manufacturer can't actually deliver what they promised.
This is not the same as producing a product which fully meets the IPT/customer requirements.
You don't seem to understand, despite several pilots telling you, that the Nr on the Lynx is lively, ie any venture into the low power end of the spectrum when manoeuvring results in rapid increases in Nr - far more than most other helicopters. It is completely irrelevant to isynchronous governing. Overspeeding the head with power on is not a function of the throttle not backing off quickly enough, it is a function of the powerful accelerative forces in the rotor system (which is in fact quite high inertia already) during flaring and turning manoeuvres.
It would appear that the blades and rotor system on FLynx will be exactly the same as on the present one so any increase in AUM brings handling penalties. And as we have already stated, increasing the AUM doesn't achieve anything unless you can fit troops into the cabin or weapons on pylons - what system is FLynx going to be fitted with for the battlefield variant?
It is a persistant AW myth that simply increasing the AUM of the aircraft will bring new capability to the battlefield - window dressing and hyperbole to disguise the poor suitability of the platform to the task.