Future Lynx??

[vortex-ring]

Does anyone have any detail of the Future Lynx project????
I heard there may be a decision this month??:bored:

[wg13_dummy]

Yes.

and Yes.

[mutleyfour]

No real news I am afraid as it remains on the cutting room floor along with a whole host of other unaffordable projects that the MOD are struggling with.

I refer to other posts and threads that discuss the PR08 round and would not be surprised to hear very little until after some local elections due very soon.

[Lynxman]

The Lynx IPT knows no more than anyone else other than what has been published in the media. Decision one way or another has been expected for some time now but is constantly delayed. If cut, the Lynx will still need replacing as airframes are becoming lifex with increasing regularity.

[Modern Elmo]

Could someone summarize the functional requirements for Future Lynx, for those of us who aren't familiar with the program?

[Tinker Taylor]

Modern,

This might answer some of your questions:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future-lynx/

Tinker

[vortex-ring]

But is the Puma not in greater need of a replacement before Lynx??

[mutleyfour]

I think it has to look like the old one, behave like the old one, and do pretty much the same as the old one. :E

[6Z3]

Re: #4, Lynx IPT knows no more than anyone else

The Flynx Fount of Knowledge at #2 would appear to have more, clasped tightly to His chest.

[Mister-T]

Hey John, took me a while to realise that was meant for me.

Have you a place in your office for me, need some sunshine?

The family are all fine and I hope yours are too.

As for Future Lynx, who knows what's going on as I havent a clue and I work in the project?

T

[HEDP]

T,

You work!!!!!!

Blimey, I thought I'd never see the day:E

HEDP

[Two's in]

TT, scoured the link but couldn't see anything in the requirements about Des Browne realizing how he could claw back 270 million quid for the Treasury if he cans FLynx. That number "allegedly" being the price that our chums in Garadors want to close the "production" line.

PS. Will FLynx have the same Westland marinisation kit as all the others, the one that coats everything aft of the transportation joint in OX-38 and everything below the Gearbox with OEP-215?

[spheroid]

Is this future Lynx ?



http://www.army-technology.com/projects/eh101/

[helimarshaller]

Is this future Lynx ?

No thats EH101 Merlin.

This is Future Lynx

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future-lynx/

[Hilife]

"Both the Army and Royal Navy Future Lynx variants are able to visually detect targets."

Is this AW speak for cabin and cockpit windows?;)

[Razor61]

Just a few Questions...
How many helicopters are the 70 Future Lynx replacing overall? Is it the same situation like FSTA where less aircraft are procured to replace an existing numerical superior amount?

Also what other airframes did the MoD look at other than Future Lynx for contenders or was it Future Lynx from the start?

I see the USAF have bought the EC-635/EC-135 along with other European Countries to provide training, light utility/reconnaissance and light battlefield attack capability to replace the older Kiowa and Gazelles.
Which contenders have the MoD looked at in replacing the many Gazelles which are being mothballed now? Or is this the job of existing Lynx AH7s?

[serf]

The Gazelles are being replaced?

[airborne_artist]

Both the Army and Royal Navy Future Lynx variants are able to visually detect targets."

Is this AW speak for cabin and cockpit windows?

The one and only Mk1 eyeball :\

[Evalu8ter]

Razor,
The Flynx numbers are purely based on what was considered affordable at the time. In terms of capability, the Green Flynx will provide little if any extra lift where it currently matters, but will tote a significantly better sensor / comms fit. Unfortunately for the Flynx, much of its "find" role has been superceded by UOR purchases of UAVs and other assets, and by upgrades to the Apache. So, why buy it at all? Err, well, umm. That's the problem that Green Flynx has at the moment. It can't contribute lift (unless moving a Colonel and his Spaniel counts...), it's find role is done by other, cheaper, platforms and that leaves....not a lot really, apart from some very niche roles (that could be filled by using other platforms slightly out of role), maintaining the AAC force structure and jobs at AW.

Blue Flynx, unfortunately, will suffer on affordability grounds if Green Flynx is cancelled.

I sincerely hope that Flynx does survive; we need all the helicopters we can get at the moment - regardless of their shortcomings. As to the issue of better platforms for the money, IIRC Flynx was a single source procurement in the style of the Hawk 128s and no meaningful competition was held. IMHO if we were discussing binning a more capable platform such as Blackhawk, Super Cougar, AW149 or NH90 I doubt it would have run into such troubled water.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

Evalu8ter,

Re "and no meaningful competition was held. "

I beg to differ, a meaningful competition was indeed held. IIRC, the platforms considered for the Find element were:-

Lynx Mk9 CSP, Super Lynx 300, Future Lynx, Apache, MELB, OH-58KW,
AS355N, EC635, EC145, A109 Power, A149, S-76C, NH-90, SH-60R.

[wg13_dummy]

Cpt pugwash, that doesnt technically count as a competition evaluation seeings how the only company who was told was Westland. :ok:

[Razor61]

Isn't the AW149, NH90, S-76 and SH-60R in a more comparible programme to the Puma replacement rather than the smaller Lynx?

With the EC635 geared more towards the Gazelle replacement? Which i believe will need to be addressed soon as the OSD for the Gazelle is slated at 2012.

Looking through that list, the only platforms i can see relevant to the replacement of the Lynx if compared to the current Lynx is the Future Lynx and A109 Power in terms of size and so on.

According to the MoD Integrated Projects Team the OSD for the Puma and Gazelle are as follows:
"The Puma HCMk1 operated by the Royal Air Force and used for transporting personnel and equipment around the battlefield. It can carry up to 16 equipped soldiers or lift a load of 2 tonnes, and has particularly good performance in hot temperatures and at high altitudes. The fleet is expected to continue in Service until 2010 when it will start to be replaced by the updated Puma HC2. The Puma HC2 will continue in Service until 2022.

The smaller Gazelle AHMk1 is operated by the Army in the reconnaissance and liaison roles. While the formal Out of Service Date for Gazelle remains 2018, the MOD is examining options to replace Gazelle, and it is unlikely to remain in service much beyond 2012"

[0497]

But is the Puma not in greater need of a replacement before Lynx??


Pumas are getting a life extension (link (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/22/221740/uk-to-stretch-puma-life-extension-study-with-eurocopter.html)) - just replace it along with Lynx, two bird with one bird.

The US Army is getting ~1200 UH60Ms soon. Quick ... hitch a ride.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

I knew I shouldn't have let myself be drawn into this!:oh:

This programme was not about replacement of the Lynx, rather the provision of a specific capability, in this case "Find", hence the wider range of platforms considered. The "Lift" and "Maritime " functions had other platforms in the mix. The choice for "Find" just happened to be FLynx.
As for only the West Country artisans being told, there were submissions from other manufacturers on the table during the evaluation.
Alas, the day job beckons, so that's all from me.

[mutleyfour]

I thought the "Find" component was added to Future Lynx following the decision to chop BLUH after the FRC study and the Army needed to justify why it needed Future Lynx as the Matelots could not afford it by themselves.

[spheroid]

Whether you call it Future Lynx or any other name, the capibility which will replace the Lynx is already in service and looks like this.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/eh101/

[mutleyfour]

Difficult to justify "Find" with that one though Spheroid.

[wg13_dummy]

spheroid, you've posted the Merlin link twice.

Are you forgetful or just a bit dim?

In what way will Merlin replace Lynx, current or future?

Are you on about the possible aspiration from some quarters to have only three military helicopter types in service to cover everything? Chinook, Merlin and Apache. The difficulty at present is trying to quantify on paper how useful the likes of Puma, Lynx and Gazelle types are at filling the gaps that those three dont or cant cover. The trouble is 'flexibility' or 'liason' aren't justifyable reasons to some but they do allow the big three to do their job and not have to burn hours or money up doing the niff, naff and trivia.

[Hilife]

spheroid

Merlin is not the way forward.

It costs about the same - if not a little more - to operate as the Chinook, lifts half as much and carries half as many troops and I cannot believe that the poor availability numbers reported by the Danes and the Portuguese (and according to Hansard, the Brits) can be down solely to poor spares procurement strategy, so why would you consider such an expensive and unreliable solution for FRC - Find or Lift?

Regarding its replacement, I’d have to side with 0497.

Land Solution:

• More Chinooks
• Blackhawk

[Evalu8ter]

Capt Pugwash,
Apologies for any error, but the impression I got was very much "The answer is Flynx, now window dress it to look like a competition..." I've heard from, particularly US industrial sources, that nobody seriously thaought that "Find" would go anywhere else but Westlands and financed their "bids" accordingly. Interestingly, some of the platfoms you list, such as AW149 and NH90 would have had AW workshare, but, crucially, would not have delivered AW into the hands of Finmeccanica with a seemingly healthy order book.

Mind you, we'd probably have SH-60 in service by now and doing the job 24/7/365 in theatre....with a meaningful lift capability.

Hi Life, with you 100%. Chinook, Merlin, AH is not the best force mix. We need a helo that is Medium in size (for urban ops) such as Cougar, NH90 etc NOT more helos that are Medium in capability, but large in size and cost, such as the Merlin.

[spheroid]

And for the maritime veriosn Merlin fits the bill completely. The F.Lynx really is a crock of poo.....far too much donor equipment which under normal circumstances would be a cost effective sollution but only when the donor equipment works in the current vehicle. As it stands much of the donor equipment doesn't work and so the answer to the capibility gap is Merlin.

[wg13_dummy]

Spheroid, do you actually know what the capability requirement is?

I do in part agree with your assumptions on FLynx.

But hey, when you're skint, you can dream of a Ferrari but in reality, a 1.1L 1993 Nova with a bodged body kit is what you will get. :ok:

[engineer(retard)]

And the reason for donor kit and a long schedule.........available finances perhaps?

[leopold bloom]

FUTURE LYNX TALKS: Weeks rather than months, says MP (From Yeovil Express) (http://www.yeovilexpress.co.uk/news/3819790.FUTURE_LYNX_TALKS__Weeks_rather_than_months__says_MP/)

[Gnd]

Jeezzzz - just give me the 800s and I will perform magic!!!!!

[strek]

From David Laws MP:

"I will continue to work closely in support of AgustaWestland to seek to ensure that the decision is the right one for Westland, for Yeovil, and for the Armed Forces."

Good to see in the eyes of the Lib Dem MP that an Italian Company and the area come before the armed forces....

[spheroid]

Before I start a Chicken / Egg battle..... without the Italian company.....and without the town of Yeovil....we don't have an Armed Force.

[chopper2004]

Razor61 (http://www.pprune.org/members/92677-razor61)

"I see the USAF have bought the EC-635/EC-135 along with other European Countries to provide training, light utility/reconnaissance and light battlefield attack capability to replace the older Kiowa and Gazelles."

In that statement you must have meant the US Army and the UH-72A (EC-145), BUT sorry to say but the lads at Ft Rucker utilise the TH-67 Creek and the USAF 23rd FTS there use the Huey II and older UH-1H for rotary wing training

[tonker]

Looking at the Selex website the FLynx will get an automated chaff and flare system. As the new generation of Russian/Chinese Manpads use IR imaging wouldn't a laser based system be far more effective and futureproof?

I wonder how many westernised MIL 8's you could get for £1bn? Just kidding

[Modern Elmo]

I wonder how many westernised MIL 8's you could get for £1bn?

After Westernizing, not too many.

[Gnd]

Just get the 17 - problem solved (171 or 172 would be nice) Still want the 800 1st

[MaroonMan4]

With regards to Future Lynx and the requirement process etc, can someone (with a bit of Main Building/Procurement nounce) help me out please.

I am struggling to reconcile why the Army Air Corps/Defence believes that it needs BRH with a Find/ISTAR capability when it has 20 (ish?) brand new shiney AH in various states of repair/serviceability in various locations around the UK? By all accounts AH has a superb Find capability, low risk, proven technology etc, and yet despite not being able to afford the spares and TLS of AH we (UK MoD PLc) decide to spend more money on another aircraft type to provide the same capability that AH already does.

Agreed the Fisheads need a replacement aircraft and maybe 847 NAS (as the chances of obtaining an Army Air Corps amphibious AH Sqn have been proven to be but a dream). Therefore 847 could have the same aircraft that the RN Lynx, but optimise it for Littoral Operations.

As I am from the light blue I am not trying to play inter service politicis but purely reconcile why the Army Air Corps wants more aircraft for a perceived capability gap when it already has numerous aircraft in storage that could be employed to fill the gap and at the same time free up airframes for where the genuine capability gaps exist (e.g. Rotary Find/Strike from the sea in the Littoral environment?).

If I had ten new cars in my garage at home I would sort them out first and get them on the road before going shopping for 20 more new cars for a job that my original 10 cars would have easily delivered.

What am I missing?

[Two's in]

Acquisition Budget is probably approved for new buy, O&M Budget is generally overspent (ie. you can buy new, but you can't support existing assets - the insanity of Military Budgets).

[Stressless]

The answer to the question of why does the AAC want a BRH is...

truthfully they don't. The only reason that the AAC is having the BRH is because the RN cannot afford the SCMR without the AAC having the BRH at the same time. The numbers don't stack up if the AAC don't pitch in!

If you look at the wider picture and ask "what happened when AWHL proposed their replacement for the current lynx fleet?" - you will be closer to the answer of why Future Lynx has not been dropped yet. :rolleyes:

There is no secret but the ever evolving answer to Lynx has been going around since the mid 90's. AWHL was short of a contract and a variety of ministers and DEC's wanted to keep the "design capability" within the UK. I know this is old ground but having seen this from the subs-bench I found it personally heart breaking that the troops weren't getting the capability they need. :ugh:

[MaroonMan4]

Thanks,

I am now more informed and yes I too do not want to go over old ground in a much laboured debate (no pun intended!).

But again, keeping it simple when talking of budgets it must be simple bit of house keeping in allocating or alloting money into the 'O&M' budget to 'fix' the new aircraft doing nothing that have the exact capabilities that we/Defence/AAC are looking for.

As to the requirement to keep our own OEM/Design Authority, I can also see that rationale. As an SH man I would always say 'rectify the BH NAO report and the requirement is for more lift' but in the case of Future Lynx as a capability and requirement joining the RN and Army at the hip to make the numbers work I still remain confused.

If a true capability gap is driving this procurement then why are we allowing the AAC to 'run' with BRH and not let the RN take on the Amphib stuff. In a nutshell 847 belong to JHC anyway (Land) so plug the (lack of) embarked Rotary Find/Strike capability by spreading the Future Lynx buy between the dark blue RN Sqns and 847. dark blue gets its SCMR and Land (3 Cdo Bde) a Littoral capability. Already common location, potential trg and common weapons, DAS and missile system?

The AAC get a 'Northern Rock'/HBOS package to sort out those AH in storage to fill the Land Find capability - if they can truly justify a requirement for a Land/Find/ISTAR capability.

So still keep AWL head above water, but put the capability where it is needed and sort out our current aircraft fleet to get it up and running to keep the Army chaps happy with ISTAR/Find etc (if it is truly required).

Worst case could be AAC being given Future Lynx, basing them at Yeovilton and then spending much money in training them in embarked and littoral operations - where is the sense in that when the AAC guys could just use their remaining AH to become 'Recce' pilots in an primary ISTAR role, kitted out with all of the integration, networking etc to work with their 'Attack/Strike' assets. The AAC already have the AH trg and support systems in place (even appropriate hangarage in Dishforth!).

Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel?

[Hilife]

Politics I’m afraid, as the preferred 'Land' solution for a Lynx (Find/Lift (light)) replacement isn’t Flynx or any other AW product, but what else was going to keep them in work prior to any LEP or SABR/FRC/FMH/?/ Program decision.

As the MoD reached an agreement with AW back in 2005 to have them advise in setting the requirements for the armed forces' new helicopter programme and with concerns over skills and design authority retention within the UK, it’s hard to imagine any Lynx/Puma/Sea King/Merlin replacement platform entering service that doesn’t come from the West Country.:(