FLynx cost doubles to £2Bn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FLynx cost doubles to £2Bn
Old news, based on the MoD program cost estimate updates 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$$-up at Strangeways Brewery has been canceled due to unforeseen circumstances...
Questions Arise on U.K. Lynx Contract Cost
Aviation Today April 3, 2007
Britain’s defense minister is being questioned about the cost of a contract for 70 AgustaWestland Future Lynx, which appears to have doubled in a year. The U.K. armed forces minister told Parliament the contract would cost £2 billion. But when AgustaWestland was selected last year as the preferred supplier the price was estimated at £1 billion or less. Officials said the new price may be a typing error or may include the cost of spares, value added tax and wage inflation.
I/C
On a related note, I hear that this year's DPA pi$$-up at Strangeways Brewery has been canceled due to unforeseen circumstances...
Questions Arise on U.K. Lynx Contract Cost
Aviation Today April 3, 2007
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
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I'm not sure that we are getting exactly what we want either
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overweight
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.
I hope the Flot system is better, its going to have to be.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??"
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Why would you want to ground taxi on the back of a ship?
... 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?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nose wheel will be fixed so no ground taxiing ability
Why would you want to ground taxi on the back of a ship
"Last edited by junglyAEO : Today at 11:10. Reason: spooling mistoks"
You didn't catch many of them, Jungly!
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.
You didn't catch many of them, Jungly!
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground taxiing
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).