MoD confirms AgustaWestland as strategic partner, Future Lynx as future platform

[Ian Corrigible]

(Mods - this can probably be merged with the other 4 or 5 threads on the subject...)

Partnering arrangement between MoD and Agusta Westland
Ministry of Defence news release (059/2005) issued by the Government News Network on 24 March 2005

The Ministry of Defence has today announced that it intends to develop a long-term partnering and business transformation arrangement with Agusta Westland, which has been outlined in a 'Heads of Agreement'. The MoD has also indicated that Agusta Westland's Future Lynx is its preferred option for meeting the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack elements of the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirement. These decisions are subject to continuing negotiations with the company and, in the case of Future Lynx, to agreeing acceptable contract conditions and prices.

The MoD and Agusta Westland have committed to work toward a partnering and business transformation agreement that builds on the new integrated operational support arrangements agreed for the Sea King fleet. This support will be further developed to optimise more aspects of managing and sustaining the current and future helicopter fleets.

The Future Lynx decision builds on previous extensive assessment and de-risking work, as well as analysis conducted into future rotorcraft requirements. Competition remains the cornerstone of MoD procurement policy. This applies to the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirements as elsewhere, in particular for the Land Lift (Medium) element.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said:

"I am pleased to announce both our decision to work together with Agusta Westland toward a long-term partnering arrangement, and our decision that Future Lynx is our preferred option for the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack requirement.

"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. This is a key first milestone for the Future Rotorcraft Capability programme, and is part of the commitment we made in last year's supplement to the Defence White Paper to invest some £3 billion in our helicopter fleet over the next 10 years.

2. Exact aircraft numbers for the Future Lynx, delivery schedule and In-Service Date will all be set at the time of the main procurement decision.

3. A final "Main Gate" procurement decision is expected later this year.


I/C

[pr00ne]

Land find?

What's that then?

[Oggin Aviator]

"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.

.... oh, and BTW, please vote for us in May"

[Toxteth O'Grady]

So for Maritime (Surface) Attack we're buying an enhanced, limited endurance, pea-shooter that can't even find its own mother. Great call!! That'll not be at all political, then. :rolleyes:

:cool:

TOG

[dmanton300]

Let the cynical sniping begin. First person to use the term "Wastelands" in a gratuitous swing at the announcement wins. .. errr. . nothing, actually.

[Si Clik]

Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack

I have seen a few documents on this and to be quite frank do not recognise the terms above. I personally though the original BLUH requirement was for an aircraft to transport small numbers of troops around the battlefield. The SCMR mission defined here also looks a little limited.

Both together would seem to indicate a retrenchment from the original defintion for these linked but originally separate projects.

Anyone in the know care to comment?

:hmm:

[Jimlad]

Hi guys, is FLYNX a new build aircraft or a refurbed Mk8? Anyone want to take a guess on numbers, the rolling brief from about 2 years ago was talking 40 frames, so I guess we're looking at about 25 now?

[engineer(retard)]

SiClik/Pr00ne

Jungly AEO has got it about right, this is how FRC views the battlespace capability breakdown for rotary wing.

I'm more cynical as regards the announcement. The BLUH contract was supposed to have been signed at Farnboro last year. The spin in the notes is nonsense, the commitment to Lynx replacement was made a long time ago and has not been delivered. This is recycling old news, another procurement delay has been shown as a triumph of recent investment. I think that this is the easiest bit of FRC out of the way, wait until the medium lift competition - Merlin or NH90 what would you rather fly?

[HEDP]

Ah well, a winner for Westlands and Defence Industry however a carefull ommission of the words a good thing for the Services. Yet again Westlands announce significant redundancies during the decision making period and the politicians fall over themselves to award them contracts that do not necesarily benefit the end user.

Lynx:- Too small to 'lift' anything of use on the battlefield. Difficult to see how availability/serviceability would be increased or surely the technology would have been incorporated in existing Lynx to improve it's reputation! Range limited, no cabin space etc. etc.

I'd love to see a costing to balance against a further purchase of non radar equipped Apaches for the Army! We already have the best find aircraft on the rotary battlefield but not necesarily sufficient numbers of weapons delivery platforms. Buy more 64D's, increase weapons platforms and use existing ones with radar in the find function as well.

IMHO

[Grey Area]

I believe this is good news for the Lynx operators. We all know that the airframe and engines are getting tired and a replacement needs to be procured yesterday. That fact that the airframe will be Lynx development is not that surprising given the project risk reduction that the SCMR/BLUH project output can give.

If you want to replace a Lynx with similar but modernised size/capability then there are not that many choices and let's face it in the current climate any thought improved capability is fantasy. We are not going to see a larger, bigger hitting, technologically stunning replacement.

The irritation of the MOD handling of SCMR/BLUH and the unnecessary design restrictions placed on AWHL are ancient history, let’s get on and deal with what we are getting.

HEDP: There are many ways that the Lynx can be improved with a rebuild - new engines, redesigned structure, and modern design - but what you ain't getting on the battle field is a Blackhawk! The capability required by FRC is Land (Find) we are lucky we aren't getting a Kiowa Warrior. As far as you comments on Apache are concerned, bear in mind that it is an excellent attack mission system in an ageing airframe design - the fcs is frankly poor by modern standards (yes I have flown it) as is the PNVS hence DNVG trials. It is too big for recce and the optics are in the wrong place. Now if Land(Find) doesn't have a mast mounted sight then we have a problem....

[Bismark]

The trouble with Apache for Land Find is that you would not use it for small scale ops (in the same way that you would not use a Challenger on the ground). Apache is a weapon system for medium/large scale ops.

Seems to me the announcement yesterday is good news for the maritime boys. F Lynx/SCMR will follow on from the Mk 8 as the best (bar none) small ship find/attack helo in the world - coupled with the best find/attack aircrew in the world (the Observer). What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.

Does anyone know anything about the NH90 in the TTH role? Is it any good, how much has it flown, is it in service with anyone yet? Has any real war-fighting nation bought it?

[timex]

.What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.

So that will be Cobra then? Why a Radar, thats what REDRAT (SK mk 6) does and does very well.

Guess we'll end up doing the R&D for Westlands again then, and in 20 yrs time we'll get a competent aircraft just in time for us to retire it

The trouble with Apache for Land Find is that you would not use it for small scale ops (in the same way that you would not use a Challenger on the ground). Apache is a weapon system for medium/large scale

Thats great news for the Royal Marines then. NO AH support on Ops.

[Oggin Aviator]

Redrat is a Mk 7 not a Mk 6 and there arent enough of them to do this role solely without detriment to other tasking. Check with Bag Man for details.

[Bismark]

Timex,

Thats great news for the Royal Marines then. NO AH support on Ops.

You miss the point. It does not matter who will use AH it is not a small scale weapon system.

[VP959]

For what it's worth, here is some info on FLynx:

It will have a MAUM at OSD of 6250kg, as against the current Lynx MAUM of 5330kg. It'll be structurally cleared to 6250kg at ISD, but needs BERPIV blades to get there (it'll operate at about 6100kg MAUM at ISD). Overall, the basic mass empty remains close to that for the current aircraft, so the improvement in useful load is quite significant.

The airframe is virtually all new, with extensive use of monolithic machined panels to reduce parts count, reduce mass and reduce time and cost of repair. The tail cone alone has a parts count reduction of close on two orders of magnitude over the current riveted structure. The airframe has been designed to improve maintainability, by trying to fix most of the irritating "features" in the current airframe. This data was gathered from maintainers at the front line during the Assessment Phase.
The engines are new, LHTEC CTS 800Ns, with a very healthy power increase over the ageing Gems. As a consequence, hot and high performance will be massively improved over the current Lynx.

The MRGB will be a refurbished and uprated current Lynx box, with new conformal gears and a new top cover, to improve reliability and increase torque capacity. Additional reduction gearboxes are fitted at the front of the engines to reduce the rpm into the MRGB.

Nr is increased, as a consequence of the carefree handling provided by the FADEC control. This ensures very much more accurate Nr measurement and display, so allows a safe higher Nr. This significantly improves the disc performance and in addtion reduces pilot workload.

The tail rotor and hub is new, to allow sufficient yaw authority with the much increased main rotor power input and higher MAUM.

Fuel capacity will be increased by the fitment of external drop tanks for long range missions. This is made possible by the significant increase in useful load. Current predicted endurance with drop tanks is over 3 hours at 120kts.

The cockpit has four 10" x 8" AMLCD displays, digital map, integrated threat warning displays, switchable PFDs etc, and all the modern widgets you might expect. Front seat entry and egress is improved by increasing the size of the front doors. Cockpit safety has been improved by massively strengthening the floor area, fitting stroking seats and addressing the known issue of the front cockpit section breaking just in front of the front lift frame on impact.

The rear cabin stays pretty much exactly as the current Lynx, with the addition of stroking, energy absorbing seats and four/five point harnesses for passengers. Again, the floor has been strengthened to improve crashworthiness.

It's not all good news though. Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason. The health and safety requirements which have forced the fitment of stroking seats have effectively reduced usable cabin volume in peactime use (it was not viable to stretch the airframe).

I'm no lover of politically induced decision making, and know that four years ago the BLUH procurement team recomended going to competition for this requirement. Their professional view was over ridden by the politicians then and has just been over ridden by them again. Nevertheless, FLynx is a highly capable aircraft, that retains all of the best attributes of Lynx and removes many of the worst.

[timex]

You miss the point. It does not matter who will use AH it is not a small scale weapon system.

Who decides when its big or small, too late for the guy on the ground. Remember we only have a few of these things.

Sorry MK7 not MK6, but still did a great job maybe we should have more of them?

[Flypro]

timex....now you've done it - mentioned the dreaded Sea King:zzz:
The helicopter that just won't go away! Why?, because nothing discussed on this thread so far can actually replace it!. Lynx too small, Merlin too big.
Rumour has it that enquiries have been made at that foreign owned company in Somerset to see if they could actually build a few more!. There are rotors available off the shelf that give a 30% increase in efficiency for a start!!
This unspeakable airframe always was the ideal size for the RN.

Standing by for the usual hate mail:hmm: :hmm:

[Jackonicko]

VP959,

So the FLynx combines a new generation airframe (more advanced than that of the SLynx 300) with the engines of the SLynx 300, and some of the avionics. Sounds good so far, though the reduction in cabin volume sounds worrying (exactly what is the reduction, and is it primarily in cabin height, or width, or what? Can these new stroking seats be stripped out as easily and as quickly as the current seating?)

You say: "Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason."

What's missing, in your view, and what's being reused?

And how many airframes are they looking at, Naval and Army?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

At least its not the RAN Seasprite. (www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167568&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

Having said that, considering the Chinook Mk3 (amongst others) fiasco, the words, pot, kettlle and black come to mind.

Oh dear. Maybe we can sell them Lynx...........

[VP959]

Jacko,

The cabin volume hasn't been reduced, but the use of stroking seats (for health and safety reasons) precludes putting Bergens under them in peacetime operations. The result is an effective reduction in usable cabin volume, as current practice is to fit stuff anywhere it will go.

The engines are uprated WRT to SL300, thanks to the use of conformal gears in the MRGB allowing a greater torque capacity, plus the new tail rotor giving adequate yaw authority. SL300 is limited to 5330kg MAUM (same as current Lynx) as the airframe hasn't been uprated (whereas FLynx has). Having said that, the SL300 demonstrator managed to take off and hover OGE at 5330kg MAUM at about 9,400ft ISA plus 30deg C during trials, which is a fairly hefty improvement over current Lynx.

The real problem with the reduced system integration is the workload for the poor old left seat guy in the maritime role. The forced cut in things like data fusion will present him with masses of information and a lot of mandraulic button pressing to pull the picture together. Hopefully this will be addressed through incremental growth, as at least the "hooks" for the integration of systems in the future have been provided. The sensors are very good though, so no reduction in capability has been suffered there. As a consequence, the Find role for land forces will be well provided for, with a recce capability which is very significantly better than WAH 64.

I know people will rush to knock FLynx, but despite the appalling political long screwdrivering into the decision making process it is a damn fine aircraft, in my professional opinion.

VP

[Jackonicko]

Ah thanks for the clarification. If bergen carrying is an issue, don't I recall an artist's impression of a non-structural strap on ventral pannier for Lynx, some years ago?

How does the maritime sensor fusion compare with that in the latest (Thai/Malay) Lynxes? With its higher AUW capability would there be any percentage in the SCMR FLynx carrying an extra crewmember?

And what legacy kit is to be reused?

[VP959]

Jacko,

The external stowage option may well be looked at again, but I believe that the AAC have tried out the cabin volume demonstrator and declared that they are happy with it.

As to the missing data fusion and other systems integration capability, I'm not sure that it will be an immediate limitation. It will take time for crews to get up to speed with just what FLynx has to offer and it may well prove to be better to shape the required level of systems integration after initial front line experience.

FLynx has very little in common with the Thai/Malaysian/Omani SL300. It has a completely different cockpit and mission system, much better sensors and DAS fit, and a significant improvement in radar fit for the SCMR variant.

I can't tell you on a public forum the exact details of legacy kit that's being re-used, as I'm sure you will appreciate. Suffice to say that it won't pose a problem for the AAC guys and girls and will only (hopefully) be a minor issue for the FAA.

VP

[HEDP]

If the design is so much better than AH for the find role then can I assume that all the sensors are mast mounted, it comes with a radar on the mast and all manner of new gizmo's?

[VP959]

Nyet,

Mast mountiing is incapable of giving the resolution/range needed, due to the stabilisation problem. The compromise has to be to put the EOD where it can be adequately isolated from rotor vibration, so allowing high magnifications with adequate stabilsation to make geo referencing work to an acceptable degree.

As the Find requirement is not primarily NOE, this is not a significant limitation. For the primary recce role the A/C will be at significant altitude, so mast mounting isn't an advantage.

There is no radar requirement for Land Find, only for Maritime Find/Attack. Go figure..............
VP

[Jackonicko]

Did vibration rule out roof-mounting for EO/IR as well as mast-mounting?

[VP959]

Jacko,

Roof mounting was an option, but the desire to make the AAC and Fleet versions the same led to the nose mount being adopted. Fleet have a need to look down at moderately high angles and that fact that land recce required a relatively high altitude anyway (to get the required range), meant that there is no appreciable penalty from nose mounting the EOD.

As it happens, the Land Find version will have an EO capability that is significantly greater than that required, as commonality means that it gets the maritime device. Fleet have a requirement for target ID at greater ranges than the AAC, but it doesn't make sense to have two different EOD's.

VP

[AH Wannabe]

If the AAC does not get a Lynx replacement, it is history as the very patient RAF move in. However, the AAC does need Future Lynx as there are not enough AH and AH without radar does not satisfy the limited movt of men materiel capability (4 man signal re-bros and C2 teams cannot be done by AH and certainly a waste of a Merlin).

So no, not a Blackhawk and no not another AH - but a good compromise in this cash strapped resource driven MoD.

As alluded to, the clever bit is now not in the airframe but the sights, sensors and connectivity. Otherwise it will not be able to conduct its primary role of cueing the Strike assets to do their job. IR or I2 or MMA or SATURN or HQ2 or Link 16 or IDM - we are all different at the moment and so hopefully Future Lynx for force an industry/Defence standard.

Oh and you Navy guys that are banging on about Cobra - you are doing yourself no favours-you are not getting it and also wasting so much effort in trying to convince people that you will. I reckon that you should concentrate on why you need Future Lynx and what your Squadron is going to bring to the party when AH fails to tip up because 16 bde have the priority over their assets.

[Bismark]

Timex,

Re AH and small scale. The reason is that the politicians are v unlikely to commit AH to a small scale op it would send the wrong political message.

[timex]

Oh and you Navy guys that are banging on about Cobra - you are doing yourself no favours-you are not getting it and also wasting so much effort in trying to convince people that you will. I reckon that you should concentrate on why you need Future Lynx and what your Squadron is going to bring to the party when AH fails to tip up because 16 bde have the priority over their assets.

So Unlike on the Al Faw the RM will have no AH support (its own!) because 16 Air Assault will have all the AH? Where does Future Lynx have its missiles, last I heard the new A/C wasn't going to be armed.

Re AH and small scale. The reason is that the politicians are v unlikely to commit AH to a small scale op it would send the wrong political message.

I,m sure that will cheer up the guys on the front line, guess you need to have been there to appreciate it.

[AH Wannabe]

Timex,

My point exactly, Al Faw, Sierra Leone, Bosnia - wherever - stop bleating about what could have been and make sure that you focus on the futre and drive to ensure that your bootnecks are looked after on the next Op! I am flying the same flag with the rest of the British Army as I dont see too much of 1 and 3 Div getting a look in with AH and funny old thing lets just weigh up who is working the hardest with deployed units at the moment - 16 Air Assault Bde or the rest of the British Army?

So you are right - but the answer is not Cobra, just ensuring that you too dont get left with something that can't really Find, won't be able to Fix and hasn't got a hope in hells chance of Striking let alone providing the bread and butter of rotary CAS or even self protection (which even your beloved Al Faw example saw the US do the most of the serious work by all accounts - not undermining your efforts as they were very professional, but just imagine what you could have done with a truly rounded capability). Don't forget, I am sure that Royal also needs the small 2-4 man teams lifted just as he needs the bunker door opened ;)

[timex]

What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.

The Cobra comment was in reply to this Light Attack (HMLA)


(which even your beloved Al Faw example saw the US do the most of the serious work by all accounts - not undermining your efforts as they were very professional, but just imagine what you could have done with a truly rounded capability).

Whose accounts ? What is rounded .......AH64D?

Yes we do need a light lift capability, but we need multi-role in that case, Find Fix and Strike!

Whose bleating? just very concerned that when the next one kicks off Royal is left hanging

And finally will the new Lynx be armed and will it be the same wpn as was planned for SCMR?

[AH Wannabe]

Sorry Timex,

I will suck back - you are not bleating but boy are some of your colleagues in your world (Cobra this and Cobra that - let it go, get over it, it ain't happening!). Of course AH is not rounded - it was procured for one purpose and one one purpose only - death and destruction (predominantly against tanks).

Admittedly, as the rules of war change and the asymetric threat and non contiguous battlefield replaces the old FLOT/FEBA and FLET, AH does have flexibility to use its superb sights and sensors, poise, deterrence, and if needs be lethal munitions (certainly beats my current stab binos - ofh that's right, the SQMS doesn't have any - so it undoubtedly beats my naked eye!!!). However, it appears that Royal wants a bit of everything and AH is one large sledge hammer to crack a nut on 75% of Royals outings. By all means have it up your sleeves when another Al Faw or higher intensity Op kicks off, but for routine sailing around the ogsplosh I would agree with you in that you do want a capability that can Find, Fix, Track, Strike and Exploit - and a limited movement of men and materiel would be a real bonus and one favourably absorbed by the booties I believe.

[timex]

I will suck back - you are not bleating but boy are some of your colleagues in your world (Cobra this and Cobra that - let it go, get over it, it ain't happening!). Of course AH is not rounded - it was procured for one purpose and one one purpose only - death and destruction (predominantly against tanks

TRUE, but again the A/C we needed was not the superb 64D.
Great in its own unique way, but not as flexible (read cheap!)or as deployable for what expeditionary warfare demands in todays conflicts. Small light AH (just so happened that Cobra was the frame of choice.)

Most of us know that we will never get AH but for the sake of RM deployments we need to let people know of the very serious gap in our Op Orbat.

Oh well we can all dream

[Razor61]

This Link (http://www.agustawestland.com/communication08_01.asp?id_news=170) shows what the Future Lynx will 'probably' look like....according to AgustaWestland, complete with AH support :D

Basically a mix between the HMA-8 and AH-9 but with :rolleyes: stealthier lines :rolleyes:

[Tourist]

Gosh they look a lot like scummer and blueegh!

[rafloo]

it is SCMR.........they just changed the name to F.Lynx....same thing..diff name. Can't wait for it to enyetr service.....Iv'e flown the equivalent and its a superb aircraft...just what is required. Now al we need is FASGW to come on line at the same time and Bob is D'Oncle

[Razordome]

I will be interested to see how F Lynx (Naval Version) is used to support land ops (coastal). With the Sea Spray 7000, they will have a GMTI capability as is used by SK Mk7 to detect and track land vehicles. In addition they will have a SAR (Synthetic Apeture Radar) mode to find stationary targets and gather intel. I am very surprised that AAC would not get this capability which the Sea King Mk7 uses very well to support AH. Opens up the land war to navy F Lynx....RN Observers should be looking forward to what good be a great platform to fight in.

[R 21]

Chaps

Am I being a bit daft? As the current Lynx is on the way out (5Reg is no longer a Reg but a Sqn) and I am sure there will be a large gap between Lynx and FLynx entering service. If we can do without the Lynx for so long and it has been very limited in the hot and dusty places why do we really need another Lynx ???

Surely the money would be better spent on more support for AH and SH ??

Heads down !!!!!!!!!!

[vecvechookattack]

Why is the current Lynx on its way out|? I understood the OSD is 2018 and so with F.Lynx ISD Circa 2014 there will be a few years where we operate a mixed fleet (Much like we do at the moment really - IIRC There are currently 11 different types of Lynx in RN Service)