Future Lynx
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The choice of helicopter should be based on the suitability of the chosen helicopter for the role required and NOT on the fact that a manufacturer will lose business and employees. Politics suck!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems they feel the Government owes it to them to place the order with them 
Perhaps if they developed and produced something decent instead of relying on Government handouts they would get orders from overseas.
Procure the best kit for the job - after all we are about addressing a capability gap - if that happens to be the Future Lynx then good for them, if not, tough. We should not have to subsidise the economy or parliament seats to the detriment of capability.
Just my personal opinion.
But hey, guess what will happen?
... what always does
Perhaps if they developed and produced something decent instead of relying on Government handouts they would get orders from overseas.
Procure the best kit for the job - after all we are about addressing a capability gap - if that happens to be the Future Lynx then good for them, if not, tough. We should not have to subsidise the economy or parliament seats to the detriment of capability.
Just my personal opinion.
But hey, guess what will happen?
... what always does
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, It is with jaded certainty I believe BLUH will end up as FLynx, The same old Air Frame produced more cheaply, erm, efficiently, with a few new bits bolted into it -Army style which may or may not improve on a capable but aged formula.
option 2? bring the warstock scouts back lets all save a few quid hell they have rested long enough probably good as new by now.
Option 3? Well absolutely do not go for anything new that we haven't tested in battle ourselves, that would be progress and could cost jobs, erm lives.
Same old same old keep serving it up.
Small chink of light; might wastelands license build BlackHawk for Lizzie?
naa, stop getting carried away Thundy.
option 2? bring the warstock scouts back lets all save a few quid hell they have rested long enough probably good as new by now.
Option 3? Well absolutely do not go for anything new that we haven't tested in battle ourselves, that would be progress and could cost jobs, erm lives.
Same old same old keep serving it up.
Small chink of light; might wastelands license build BlackHawk for Lizzie?
naa, stop getting carried away Thundy.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A10, now you're talking my language.......bring back the Scout. I'm sure that with some upgrades the venerable old girl would last another 50 years or so. It really gets up my nose when the government places orders for equipment with Westlands just to bail them out, without consulting the people who will be the end-users.
I remember at Wallop, many years ago, when a team arrived from Westlands to ask us to list exactly what we wanted in a helicopter. We all said the usual "ergonomic seats", "glass dashboards", "side controllers", etc. etc.. What happened.............absolutely nothing!!
I hope that the replacement for the Lynx is not another Lynx.
I remember at Wallop, many years ago, when a team arrived from Westlands to ask us to list exactly what we wanted in a helicopter. We all said the usual "ergonomic seats", "glass dashboards", "side controllers", etc. etc.. What happened.............absolutely nothing!!
I hope that the replacement for the Lynx is not another Lynx.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dansaff
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny
As far as helicopter procurement and politics is concerned nothings changed since you wisely left these shores, but it's good to see that you still have a grasp on reality from way over there!
Merry Christmas you old Scout dog and remember, no underpants!
Gunz
As far as helicopter procurement and politics is concerned nothings changed since you wisely left these shores, but it's good to see that you still have a grasp on reality from way over there!
Merry Christmas you old Scout dog and remember, no underpants!
Gunz
Guest
Posts: n/a
Opps
Sorry to burst ya bubble. BLUH and SCMR have not been binned. They are both still on track only with different names. Due to cost cutting they have now become F.Lynx - the project is still the same....same money, same team, same peiople, same plan to replace the Lynx (with another Lynx?) but whatever replaces the Lynx the project is still there.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bell Eagle Eye UAV being bought by the US Coast Guard as part of their Deepwater Programme should do the job nicely!
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system.htm
http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system.htm
SCMR has not been binned.
BLUH may change to become BRH (Battlefield Recce Helicopter) but the requirement has not been binned.
Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx (any Mk, inc SL 300). Future Lynx carries almost a tonne more payload than any current Lynx, has new primary structure, new engines, new tail rotor, new avionics, new sensors, new comms, new nav kit, new glass cockpit etc etc. It does use the existing BERP III MRB and existing (but uprated) gearbox though..........
Either BRH or SCMR MAY be met by Future Lynx (or may not).
PS: I don't work for a certain West Country rotorcraft manufacturer either......................
BLUH may change to become BRH (Battlefield Recce Helicopter) but the requirement has not been binned.
Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx (any Mk, inc SL 300). Future Lynx carries almost a tonne more payload than any current Lynx, has new primary structure, new engines, new tail rotor, new avionics, new sensors, new comms, new nav kit, new glass cockpit etc etc. It does use the existing BERP III MRB and existing (but uprated) gearbox though..........
Either BRH or SCMR MAY be met by Future Lynx (or may not).
PS: I don't work for a certain West Country rotorcraft manufacturer either......................
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gutted
From what i have learned this week the requirement for a new "utility" aircraft for the AAC is confirmed as the FLYNX. I think the main issue that contributors should consider is that Apache Longbow is awesome for generic war fighting however there is now more requirement for an aircraft to operate in Operations Other than War. This is more likely to be an asset with better surveillance capability i.e. better recordable IR and day camera video downlink, 360 degree azimuth. I don't believe the FLYNX delivers this requirement though I understand it's FLYNX or nothing.
The whole issue is disapointing though predictable.
The whole issue is disapointing though predictable.
"From what i have learned this week the requirement for a new "utility" aircraft for the AAC is confirmed as the FLYNX"
Not yet it isn't.
The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. The situation at present is that the requirement that was BLUH until a few months ago has been effectively changed to BRH; essentially the "utility" requirement has been removed.
Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement.
Not yet it isn't.
The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. The situation at present is that the requirement that was BLUH until a few months ago has been effectively changed to BRH; essentially the "utility" requirement has been removed.
Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Germaneee
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx (any Mk, inc SL 300). Future Lynx carries almost a tonne more payload than any current Lynx, has new primary structure, new engines, new tail rotor, new avionics, new sensors, new comms, new nav kit, new glass cockpit etc etc. It does use the existing BERP III MRB and existing (but uprated) gearbox though..........
Cabin is still the same size, although due to new style crashable pax seating, will carry less blokes in the back. The engines are more powerful and with that, thirstier. Due to the dimensions being the same as the old version, similar sized fuel tanks mean it actually has a reduced range.
Crash worthy. It's hard to make a 30 year old design compatible with all the latest and future requirements for a battlefield heli. A bit like trying to make a Ford Anglia pass the Euro ENCAP test.
Will it actually be able to talk to the rest of the future battlefield with Bowman?
The bottom line is that there is no money for procurement of a Gucci accessory to AH. (Due to the purchase of said AH). A 'cut and shut' Lynx is the order of the day. We should at least consider ourselves lucky that they will at least have zero hours and have plastic seat covers. God forbid we extend Lynx even further beyond 2010.
On the plus side, the glass cockpit is nice and the optics will actually be rather good. I feel that we will still get the '1.3L' version as opposed to the '2.6GLX'.
Totally agree with the sentiment regarding
I think the main issue that contributors should consider is that Apache Longbow is awesome for generic war fighting however there is now more requirement for an aircraft to operate in Operations Other than War.
"The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker."
Not true in any way, shape or form. The requirements for BLUH and SCMR, and more recently BRH, were not drawn up in collusion with any manufacturer, even the one in the West Country. In fact, the BLUH requirement was drawn up precisely because a re-engined current Lynx couldn't meet the requirement in the first place (the LLEP and subsequently the LLUH programme).
The BRH requirement does not include carrying pax, other than maybe a couple in the back. The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC.
The Future Lynx airframe is a new design, not a 30 year old one. You may have noticed that it's a different shape, with new crashworthy structure making use of monolithic machined panels, rather than thousands of rivets. The internal volume is the same, true, which is a restriction if it's needed to carry more than 6 + a DG in the back in crashworthy seats, with kit.
BOWMAN is an essential requirement for BRH (as it was for BLUH). IDM is essential as well, to talk to WAH64. If Future Lynx is chosen, then it will have BOWMAN and IDM capability.
Current Lynx OSDs are 2012 for the 3, 7 and 9; 2014 for the 8, BTW, not 2010.
Not true in any way, shape or form. The requirements for BLUH and SCMR, and more recently BRH, were not drawn up in collusion with any manufacturer, even the one in the West Country. In fact, the BLUH requirement was drawn up precisely because a re-engined current Lynx couldn't meet the requirement in the first place (the LLEP and subsequently the LLUH programme).
The BRH requirement does not include carrying pax, other than maybe a couple in the back. The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC.
The Future Lynx airframe is a new design, not a 30 year old one. You may have noticed that it's a different shape, with new crashworthy structure making use of monolithic machined panels, rather than thousands of rivets. The internal volume is the same, true, which is a restriction if it's needed to carry more than 6 + a DG in the back in crashworthy seats, with kit.
BOWMAN is an essential requirement for BRH (as it was for BLUH). IDM is essential as well, to talk to WAH64. If Future Lynx is chosen, then it will have BOWMAN and IDM capability.
Current Lynx OSDs are 2012 for the 3, 7 and 9; 2014 for the 8, BTW, not 2010.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Germaneee
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker."
The requirements for BLUH and SCMR, and more recently BRH, were not drawn up in collusion with any manufacturer, even the one in the West Country.
The Future Lynx airframe is a new design. You may have noticed that it's a different shape, with new crashworthy structure making use of monolithic machined panels, rather than thousands of rivets.
The internal volume is the same, true, which is a restriction if it's needed to carry more than 6 + a DG in the back in crashworthy seats, with kit.
This is not an 'undermine SHF' episode, more of a 'lets buy a cab that doesn’t require a Merlin to ferry a team of 6+ around'.
BOWMAN is an essential requirement for BRH (as it was for BLUH). IDM is essential as well, to talk to WAH64. If Future Lynx is chosen, then it will have BOWMAN and IDM capability.
Comms to all is a basic requirement, not a major selling point!
I know its akin to walking into a certain religions house of prayer with a pork pie but....a certain product of a certain US company (I shall use the pseudonym Dark, off white bird of prey, answering to the name of SH60) would fit the bill without stepping on the SH toes. Dare I say, the colonials across the pond seem to use it rather effectively with their antiquated version of the AH.
Current Lynx OSDs are 2012 for the 3, 7 and 9; 2014 for the 8, BTW, not 2010
VP, I take it you work across the road from the NAAFI at EGVP, failing that, a couple of miles West of a certain Wiltshire Cathedral city? I know you have a busy time ahead but a bit of 'out the box' bollox would be nice! Not all the staff will get an executive position at Yeovil you know.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets Get Real
Lets get real world here! There is simply not enough AH to go round. The whole Defence community have seen a significant reduction in their AAvn capability - only 5 years ago each Div had its own AAC Regt, now all of the AAvn assets (less 1 Regt LBH and 847 NAS (soon to be chopped)) are all in 16 Air Asslt Bde.
Lets have a look at the 16 Air Asslt Bde Forecast Of Events and Operational Plot and it does not take the maths of GOC 1, 3 Div and 3 Cdo Bde to realise that he will only see AH every blue moon or on transition to Ops (e.g. NRF).
I also agree that in the current Grand Strategic environment, Peace Keeping/Peace Support/COIN and Peace Enforcement are the forecast for the future. Therefore flexibility (utility, Find and Strike) will be a requirement from CXommanders, rather than the Cold War procured firepower/technology of Apache.
Top Tip:
1. Dont rely on Apache coming anywhere near you (trg and Ops) unless in a 16 Air Asslt Bde package.
2. Those involved with BRH/FRH please DEC ALM sort your branding/marketing out - it does have an effect on morale for those of us waiting for this capability as it appears that the confusion in name is signifying confusion on your desks!).
3. Arm the aircraft, provide with sensors, allow it to Find, Fix Strike and that good doctrinal blah.....if not then there are not enough AH and some high readiness Formations (e.g. 3 Cdo Bde) will be wanting when the other high readiness Bde (16 Air Asslt Bde) owns the AH and fights any Chopping across.
4.Don't forget the limited movt of men and material. You want Eagle Patrols around Camp Dogwood. You can do all of your tactical Effects Based Operations with one aircraft (Sect Level supported with aircraft Sensors and Firepower).
Lets embrace BRH/FRH, but lets not think that just because we have AH it will solve everything. Lets look at the world today - which frontline JHC Capability isn't really required? AH is certainly not essential to anything that UK Plc is doing anywhere in the world - Lynx is, but with minimal investment, it could do so much more...I think the procurement boys call it a 'quick win'.
And what has 673 Sqn got to do with this - aren't they just a 'sticks and poles' trg Sqn based at Wallop or are they the OCU/OEU?
Lets have a look at the 16 Air Asslt Bde Forecast Of Events and Operational Plot and it does not take the maths of GOC 1, 3 Div and 3 Cdo Bde to realise that he will only see AH every blue moon or on transition to Ops (e.g. NRF).
I also agree that in the current Grand Strategic environment, Peace Keeping/Peace Support/COIN and Peace Enforcement are the forecast for the future. Therefore flexibility (utility, Find and Strike) will be a requirement from CXommanders, rather than the Cold War procured firepower/technology of Apache.
Top Tip:
1. Dont rely on Apache coming anywhere near you (trg and Ops) unless in a 16 Air Asslt Bde package.
2. Those involved with BRH/FRH please DEC ALM sort your branding/marketing out - it does have an effect on morale for those of us waiting for this capability as it appears that the confusion in name is signifying confusion on your desks!).
3. Arm the aircraft, provide with sensors, allow it to Find, Fix Strike and that good doctrinal blah.....if not then there are not enough AH and some high readiness Formations (e.g. 3 Cdo Bde) will be wanting when the other high readiness Bde (16 Air Asslt Bde) owns the AH and fights any Chopping across.
4.Don't forget the limited movt of men and material. You want Eagle Patrols around Camp Dogwood. You can do all of your tactical Effects Based Operations with one aircraft (Sect Level supported with aircraft Sensors and Firepower).
Lets embrace BRH/FRH, but lets not think that just because we have AH it will solve everything. Lets look at the world today - which frontline JHC Capability isn't really required? AH is certainly not essential to anything that UK Plc is doing anywhere in the world - Lynx is, but with minimal investment, it could do so much more...I think the procurement boys call it a 'quick win'.
And what has 673 Sqn got to do with this - aren't they just a 'sticks and poles' trg Sqn based at Wallop or are they the OCU/OEU?
B o'A:
"We shall not mention the fact that the requirement didn’t go to open tender due to a certain Somerset company stating that the cost of opening it to competition in the normal sense would double the list price. Cornered market would not be an expression I would use but there you go."
VP:
The reason it didn't go to competition, was simple, and not at all as you say. Reusing the rotables (refurbished) from the existing Lynx saved about £1M per cab.
B o'A:
"The tail and nose, maybe. And, most would consider adding a big seat with springs in the bottom not exactly in the same arena as 'cutting edge crash worthy'."
VP:
Again, not true. The whole structure is new, nose to tail. apart from the rotables virtually the only other bits from the existing Lynx are the windscreens and cabin doors and afew sundry odds and ends. The bathtub structure had to be newly designed to meet the crashworthiness requirements and take the loads from stroking seats. The lift frames had to be redesigned to take the MAUM from 5330kg to 6250kg. The engine deck had to be redesigned to take the GTS800 engines. The panel and interseat console had to be redesigned to take the big displays, new CDNUs, controllers etc, etc.
I wasn't making BOWMAN etc a "selling point" at all, just correcting an earlier post that assumed it wouldn't have it. The same applies to the comment about OSDs. I wasn't trying to be smug, just stating what the OSDs have been set at for years now.
"We shall not mention the fact that the requirement didn’t go to open tender due to a certain Somerset company stating that the cost of opening it to competition in the normal sense would double the list price. Cornered market would not be an expression I would use but there you go."
VP:
The reason it didn't go to competition, was simple, and not at all as you say. Reusing the rotables (refurbished) from the existing Lynx saved about £1M per cab.
B o'A:
"The tail and nose, maybe. And, most would consider adding a big seat with springs in the bottom not exactly in the same arena as 'cutting edge crash worthy'."
VP:
Again, not true. The whole structure is new, nose to tail. apart from the rotables virtually the only other bits from the existing Lynx are the windscreens and cabin doors and afew sundry odds and ends. The bathtub structure had to be newly designed to meet the crashworthiness requirements and take the loads from stroking seats. The lift frames had to be redesigned to take the MAUM from 5330kg to 6250kg. The engine deck had to be redesigned to take the GTS800 engines. The panel and interseat console had to be redesigned to take the big displays, new CDNUs, controllers etc, etc.
I wasn't making BOWMAN etc a "selling point" at all, just correcting an earlier post that assumed it wouldn't have it. The same applies to the comment about OSDs. I wasn't trying to be smug, just stating what the OSDs have been set at for years now.