Future Lynx??
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Country
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does the AAC want the BRH
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 11th Nov 2008 at 05:50.
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.
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.
Last edited by Hilife; 11th Nov 2008 at 09:31.
