FLynx cost doubles to £2Bn

[Ian Corrigible]

Old news, based on the MoD program cost estimate updates (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semsimple&STEMMER=en&WORDS=a400m&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=a400m&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=70207w0003.htm_spnew3&URL=/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070207/text/70207w0003.htm#70207w0003.htm_spnew3) given by Ingram in February, but this has to be the quote of the year: "Officials said the new price may be a typing error or may include the cost of spares."

On a related note, I hear that this year's DPA pi$$-up at Strangeways Brewery has been canceled due to unforeseen circumstances... :ugh:


Questions Arise on U.K. Lynx Contract Cost
Aviation Today April 3, 2007 (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/10220.html)

Britain’s defense minister is being questioned about the cost of a contract for 70 AgustaWestland Future Lynx, which appears to have doubled in a year. The U.K. armed forces minister told Parliament the contract would cost £2 billion. But when AgustaWestland was selected last year as the preferred supplier the price was estimated at £1 billion or less. Officials said the new price may be a typing error or may include the cost of spares, value added tax and wage inflation.

I/C

[Floater AAC]

Having had the brief about future lynx, it looks pretty arse.
In a potential cost cutting plan, the current AFCS system will be installed in the new aircraft.
The nose wheel will be fixed so no ground taxiing ability.
The observation kit is above the nose and can't look down.

It looks like another example of the Navy calling the shots and the Army recieving the hand me downs AGAIN.

This is not a hit at the Navy because I hope it does the job well for you, but can them upstairs open their eyes and realise we may need to do different jobs?:ugh:

[reacher]

Looks like it is the same problem we had with the costings of our Tigers.

I think it was almost the exact same quote that came from Eurocopter.

[Skua'd]

I'm not sure that we are getting exactly what we want either - and we know having had Lynx forover 25 years....

PS Defence has a "c" in English!
:ok:

[Two's in]

I'm not sure that we are getting exactly what we want either

Come, come, let's not be sweet, shy, and mysterious here, we know exactly what we are getting, and that's the problem. I'll see your effective Battlefield Rotary Capability and raise you one Somerset Helicopter company...

[Pegasus#]

"Officials said the new price may be a typing error or may include the cost of spares."

Strange that they have yet to declare which (if either) of these options it is. Any other organisation that has just lost £1bn would probably be in a hurry to find out where it had gone, but I fully understand that Easter got in the way.

[Carrots de Chaud]

According to one ex Cdr Lynx the "Wildcat" is going to have a MAW of 6250Kg or so, with the same engines! Can't wait for the NAG in summer!

I hope the Flot system is better, its going to have to be.

[Pegasus#]

"the same engines"? I though T800s, not the existing Gems?
(not sure I can bear to hear the answer, come to think of it)

[Two_Squirrels]

FLynx will indeed have the T800 engines. And it will have a new Flot gear. (Whether it is better is a different question!).

[Carrots de Chaud]

I stand corrected. Hopefully I'll be working at 35,000 ft by then.

Oh well, back to the bits quiz!

[ManOverhead]

Wasn't the EH101 supposed to be the EHI 01, as in European Helicopter Industries 01.

Digital error strikes again!

[Carrots de Chaud]

Like the SR-71 should have been RS-71 but the President at the time fluffed his lines so they changed the name to cover up the boss's gaff.

[cornish-stormrider]

does that mean that shagging your secretary has now changed to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" -- and why didn't anyone ask "OK mr President what about all the other women??":E

[vecvechookattack]

I think the Wildcat is exactly what we want. BTW, the Lynx went front line in 1976...= 31 yrs



... If its not what you want then what would you buy / Build ?


The nose wheel will be fixed so no ground taxiing ability.



Why would you want to ground taxi on the back of a ship?

[Brian Abraham]

nose wheel will be fixed so no ground taxiing ability
Why would you want to ground taxi on the back of a ship

Who makes these decisions? Admiral, Sir, we can't get it into the hangar. Little wheely thingy at the front won't turn. OK Jack we'll make up a little towing fixture with wheels so yer can jack up the nose, slip it in and bobs yer uncle. Cheap at 100,000 per. Issue one per aircraft, oh, and better toss in a few spares, can't have aircraft sat on back of ship all cruise stuck in the weather an all.

[Jackonicko]

"Last edited by junglyAEO : Today at 11:10. Reason: spooling mistoks"

You didn't catch many of them, Jungly! :p

Is it, for example:

1) acquistion :{

or

2) acqisition :=

or

3) None of the above?

And what is reverese engineering?

On a more serious note, I'm assured that

a) There has been no increase in cost - we're looking at two different figures because one is the up front cost and the other is the total (including through life support) cost. If we don't like that cost, then blame those who negotiated it

b) The existing AFCS is part of the agreed donor package from existing aircraft. A new AFCS was looked at but was discounted during the cost/capability trade-off exercise.

c) The nose wheel on Super Lynx/Lynx has never been steerable. It is locked fore/aft but can be castored through 90 degrees for turning, on deck etc. The aircraft can be ground taxiied using differential braking and the castoring facility can be used for spot turning.

d) While the nose-mounted observation kit does not give a full look down or aft capability it meets all of the specified requirements. Different locations would have different limitations.

There may be plenty of reasons for kicking Westlands (poor spares support for Merlin, if you ask some!) but when it comes to FLynx it sounds as though we are getting exactly what we asked for, at exactly the price we agreed. It may be that it's not what we should have asked for. It may be that it will soak up a disproportionate and unacceptable amount of the budget for FRC.

[vecvechookattack]

Quote:
nose wheel will be fixed so no ground taxiing ability
Quote:
Why would you want to ground taxi on the back of a ship
Who makes these decisions? Admiral, Sir, we can't get it into the hangar. Little wheely thingy at the front won't turn. OK Jack we'll make up a little towing fixture with wheels so yer can jack up the nose, slip it in and bobs yer uncle. Cheap at 100,000 per. Issue one per aircraft, oh, and better toss in a few spares, can't have aircraft sat on back of ship all cruise stuck in the weather an all.



How does the current Lynx manage to get into the hangar? The current Lynx can't ground taxi and yet they still manage to stow it into the hangar. Maybe they could use a Tractor to tow it. Or how about a mechanical handler....or even possibly a 3 wire winch system. But if all else fails they can always push it.

[Floater AAC]

Gents,

I think you are missing my point here.
The NAVY aircraft may not be able to ground taxi, or have no need to ground taxi, but the ARMY aircraft with wheels do need to be able to ground taxi.
Case in point, the Mk 9.

Who gave the list of requirements for the aircraft????
Some navy bloke who has never flown top cover at 2000ft above a foot patrol in the middle of a built up area. Now tell me a 15deg look down angle is suitable for the job.

It sounds as though the aircraft was designed solely with the navy in mind with no thought for what the army needs. It is an exact re-run of the 70's.

[Jackonicko]

I may be missing something here, but with a castoring nosewheel and differential braking, why can't you ground taxy a FLynx?

[Brian Abraham]

Jackonicko, A castoring nose wheel is all you need, dont need differential braking to turn as the tail rotor does that for you. Really only need brakes to stop and occasionally to control taxi speed. All helos need a means to get about on the ground, be it Army, Navy or RAF and thats either by self contained wheels/undercarriage (Puma, Sea King) or if skid equipped by the poor groundies having to fit a set of ground handling wheels and jacking the aircraft up prior to moving (Scout, Huey).

[cornish-stormrider]

:E oh yeah that'll work........Crunch. surely it would be quicker just to let the movers stow it on a ship :E

just get the pilot to hover taxi into the shed:cool:

[Mr-AEO]

It sounds as though the aircraft was designed solely with the navy in mind with no thought for what the army needs. It is an exact re-run of the 70's.

Err, isn't that why the IPT has a Brown Job for BRH Requirements Manager, or am I missing something.

Perhaps he put Key User Requirement 1 as "Must be able to dig a trench and brew up in all weathers"?:}

I believe that the aircraft is as common across the BRH & SCMR as possible to reduce the support/training costs. Obviously at times, there will be compromise.

[vecvechookattack]

surely it would be quicker just to let the movers stow it on a ship

Movers? On a ship ? No, no, no. Aircraft movements on FF/DDs are conducted by the maintainers (and the aircrew if the weather is poo)

[ManOverhead]

In previous incarnations the Green version of the FLynx didn't have a FLIR/camera; the AAC looked enviously at the RN's sensor suite, and the weapon carrying ability.

Of course, it makes sense for the Green FLynx to be able to look down, but that costs £££££ ...

[MaxAOB]

The Mk9 was specifically procured with wheels because it was forecast to save cash and time getting them into the hangars. The original spec (quite sensibly) called for skids which is why the Mk1 et al never had wheels at all!! Also the Mk9 was only really meant to be a training aircraft with a field capability! Trouble is that lots of info gets lost over the years and youngsters forget why and how we operated and the plan always changes before the ink is dry. In the original debate (in the 60's) the navy had to fight to get wheels instead of skids so not quite the case that the army suffering the matelots lead.
After 30 years of operating in the aircraft, developing it and procurement of future equipment (especially Flynx) i can assure you that you will not get what you need but what you are given by our political idiots who never get near a tent let alone a bullet! That's the way it is, i'm glad that i'm retiring at last!

[Stressless]

The "replacement lynx" programme was started years ago (approx. 10+) as an unsolicited bid from WHL, to the services', known problem of airframes running out of hours. This would have been identified by industry post GW1 when most of the Lynx fleet was shagged and needing repaired after operating in the Gulf. There was a very limited spares package available to draw on at that time; no change there then. :hmm:

The programme has had several names, however the premise of this programme has always been to buy a product from WHL regardless of which product that was. Those of you that read the industry press will have seen over the years that various types of aircraft have been muted as the solution to the capability that is written in the URD for both BRH & SCMR. NH90, Merlin, ME Littlebird, more Apache (for the Army), Blackhawk/Seahawk, etc. All of those types could and would have been built in Yeovil. Despite what you might prefer the procurement strategy has been steered by what money is available in the near future (next ten years) and not by looking at the "Whole Life Costs" (twenty to thirty years).

This meant that the defence minister at the time gave WHL an indication of how much he was willing to spend and that was how the price was set. Initially the capability required the numbers of aircraft to be 102 for the Army and 45 for the Navy all for the princely sum of £1bn, but once the horse trading known as "Cost Capability Trade Off" started the numbers dropped and the ones that were left have very little in the way of capability left in them. What it has got is a very good design for the airframe which will be able to operate in the places we work today quite effectively. However, the avionic pieces of kit are mostly "fitted for but not with".

This is the way of defence spending, when "defence inflation" runs at about 9% and the MoD gets increases in funding at about 3%, this means that the procurement people are always trying to play catch up with a decreasing budget but increasing costs; I don't envy them. :ugh:

Stressless :rolleyes: