FLynx cost doubles to £2Bn
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh yeah that'll work........Crunch. surely it would be quicker just to let the movers stow it on a ship just get the pilot to hover taxi into the shed
Last edited by cornish-stormrider; 19th Apr 2007 at 09:12. Reason: didn't see brians post
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely it would be quicker just to let the movers stow it on a ship
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Adminisphere: FL Nosebleed
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look Down
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 £££££ ...
Of course, it makes sense for the Green FLynx to be able to look down, but that costs £££££ ...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: A very long runway
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Country
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Lynx
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. 
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.
Stressless
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.
Stressless
