There is no assumption that it had to be Lynx. It was pretty much a done deal as soon as Westland printed the glossy brochures for Sidrat all those years ago.
Unfortunately, Lynx development is moving into a cul-de-sac and has very little realistic room for improvement or growth. Sure, you can strap on awesome engines and stick in a really nice avionics suite but as turds go, its as highly polished as it can be for future use. Thats the problem. We are rewriting role and requirement to fit that particular aircraft which in my mind is taking quite a large capability leap backwards. Its akin to trying to improve or 'future proof' an Austin Maxi.
This is where the problem lies. To improve Lynx, you actually need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Unfortunately, that costs a huge amount of money. If we had the money, we could go elsewhere (or at least away from Lynx) to get an aircraft that is designed to fit a requirement and/or a capability. As I've said, we have no money and are having to pretty much go with what we are being offered. It really is a choice of 'get Flynx or get bugger all'. Seeings how we have that wonderful choice, we have to make it fit. Or should I say, make us fit what Flynx can do. Its only role in the 'BRH' guise is ISTAR....and that was an after thought.
What could be done realistically to improve Lynx? Well, if we had the budget, it could do with being a bit bigger. The Lynx fuselage plug would go some way to meeting that. At least it would mean the future aircraft with crash worthy seats would have a similar troop lift capability as the current Lynx (with the advantage that it could do this in hot/high environments). This gives flexibility in a utility platform. The problem with high disc loading would unfortunately increase with the current MRH/blade configuration. One would need to redesign this to ensure the MRH/blades could keep up with the increase in mass.
The design of the monolithic tail boom is a factor of easier/cheaper manufacturing and maintenance as opposed to some wonderfully special handling artefact. Lengthening the tail boom and MR blades would unfortunately make the handling akin to sticking remoulds and coil springs on an F1 car.
The CMRBs (BERP) are the issue. They fly too well. Afterall, thats what Westland designed them to do (for naval aircraft). The sales speil went along the lines of;
Sell Point 1. The Composite Main Rotor Blades will allow a higher cruise speed.
Reality. In the TOW role, the Army Lynx had a max speed of 140 kts due to the TOW booms. The entire Lynx fleet had a limitation of 140kts (down to 120kts for a while) due to vibration issues and tail gearbox issues. A higher cruise speed was irrelevant.
Sell Point 2. The CMRB are all exactly the same therefore meaning that tracking and vib'ing the blades becomes a thing of the past. Maintenance is reduced as they all come out of a 'master mould'.
Reality. It is impossible to manufacturer two components exactly the same especially when it comes to large rotable parts. No two blades are the same and due to no adjustment at workshop level (no tip washers, no trim tabs), it means that tuning the blades is nigh on impossible therefore ensuring the aircraft have more vibrations meaning all other components have shorter lives. (Dont worry chaps, the MRHVA ('Bonk') will 'cure' this) and gluing bits of rubber to the tips will helps the engineers tuning.
From what I'm led to believe, FLynx will have a bonk. Well, when asked, the AW bloke didn't know but said 'probably'. Super Lynx (T800s) currently wears a bonk.
Sell Point 3. The blades are more aerodynamic, lighter and agile than steel blades meaning the aircraft are more manoeuvrable and will give you a higher MAUM.
Reality. The above factors ensure the head flys away at the drop of a hat.....or to be precise, at the drop of a collective. This causes un-noticed rotor over speeds and contributed to over stressing of tie bars. Result= Large smoking hole 3kms outside Mendig in 1994. Tie bar failure.
Sell Point 4. Due to the shape of the tip paddles, the onset of tip transonic compressibility is increased meaning the advancing blade experiences a lower relative tip speed. Tip vortices are sent outwards and downwards therefore not disturbing the following blades air flow.
Reality. Who cares? 140kts is all we can do anyway. See point 1. The 'Cobble stone' effect has the boffins at Westland scratching their heads a bit. A rumbling effect of the aircraft when hover taxiing between 14-17 kts or if sat in the hover with the same speed of air over the disc. Plays havoc with the previously stable TOW or PID sights. More vibration.
Sell Point 5. All you Lynx boys will be wanting these blades. They are awesome.
Reality. Err, no we dont (Army). Plastic tipped blades are a bit of a nause if you are landing in a clearing. If you get so much as a twig touching the tip, it fecks off and makes the cab wobble like buggery. At least with the old steel blades, you could do a little bit of foliage trimming and fly the cab out of it without bits of the aircraft falling off. We dont actually want/need CMRBs thank you very much.
Westland - Tough. We dont make the steal blades any more so you're going to have to spend £40k a blade for them whether you like it or not. Do you lot not realise you're the R&D department for BERP/Merlin/Super Lynx?????
I like the idea of sticking an AW139 nose gear on it though. We could also stick AW139 main gear, AW139 doors, AW139 cockpit, AW139 fuselage and whilst we are at it, AW139 MRH, tail rotor and engines on it too. That would get my thumbs up.
To be honest, as has been said, the SCMR fits the FAAs needs to perfection. Unfortunately, to get the 'deal', commonality with the pongos cab was required and to that end, to enable the Navy to afford SCMR the AAC had to buy into the BRH too. Without one, the other couldn't happen. It just means that the AAC will have to make the massive compromise yet again for the next 30 years (if it lasts that long).