Would the cancellation of FLynx be the end of the Army Air Corps?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little bit of thread creep here.
Simple questions that need to be answered.
Why have MoD got a helicopter that they need to find a role for?
Why don't the MoD state the requirement, and invite industry to submit thier products.
I recall for the AH program, 9 keys user requirements were stipulated, only one aircraft fulfilled all 9, Apache. There were four or five aircraft in the race, from the Mangusta to the Cobra, but Apache won the competition.
Now if Lynx has fulfilled all of the key user requirements, then it the aircraft for the job, but it seems the MoD don't know what the job is.
Simple questions that need to be answered.
Why have MoD got a helicopter that they need to find a role for?
Why don't the MoD state the requirement, and invite industry to submit thier products.
I recall for the AH program, 9 keys user requirements were stipulated, only one aircraft fulfilled all 9, Apache. There were four or five aircraft in the race, from the Mangusta to the Cobra, but Apache won the competition.
Now if Lynx has fulfilled all of the key user requirements, then it the aircraft for the job, but it seems the MoD don't know what the job is.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FLynx requirement became laughable when the endorsed requirement was to carry a fully equipped standard infantry section.
When pointed out to those presenting to a Wattisham Lynx audience that this would not be possible with the current contender the requirement appeared to be re-written on the spot with the quote "well thats okay, it can do that, just send two aircraft"!
I think many Lynx pilots enjoy flying the beast but those whom have been around for a few years know many a widow who the machine hath made.
Concern was expressed about the low speed handling qualities when the AUM was originally increased with inferences made in accident reports that this was a factor in some accidents. Sufficient concern existed that guidance be given to pilots regarding the adverse handling effects.
It is my understanding that a further increase in AUM has been made and just wonder whether this has cured the adverse handling effects or indeed exascerbated them?
Has the design incorporated any meaningful surviveability enhancements or would we get a civilian design adapted for the battlefield? I know which i would prefer.
When pointed out to those presenting to a Wattisham Lynx audience that this would not be possible with the current contender the requirement appeared to be re-written on the spot with the quote "well thats okay, it can do that, just send two aircraft"!
I think many Lynx pilots enjoy flying the beast but those whom have been around for a few years know many a widow who the machine hath made.
Concern was expressed about the low speed handling qualities when the AUM was originally increased with inferences made in accident reports that this was a factor in some accidents. Sufficient concern existed that guidance be given to pilots regarding the adverse handling effects.
It is my understanding that a further increase in AUM has been made and just wonder whether this has cured the adverse handling effects or indeed exascerbated them?
Has the design incorporated any meaningful surviveability enhancements or would we get a civilian design adapted for the battlefield? I know which i would prefer.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A hug for ZH844
Hug
There's your hug my friend, with a word of caution if I may, you may represent industries' views, and that this is a public forum, it is your prerogative, but I hope you do not, like and lump it I will not, especially when i go to fight in an airframe that could be better (and I expect better), and as a professional aviator/soldier expect those in industry to support me, not tell me shut up and crack on, it may make you sick and tired, i am sorry for that, but there are a good many channels that have been used to express this opinion, PPrune is but one. AND DON'T try to make industry out to be blameless mate we know how many of the old boys work there.....
There's your hug my friend, with a word of caution if I may, you may represent industries' views, and that this is a public forum, it is your prerogative, but I hope you do not, like and lump it I will not, especially when i go to fight in an airframe that could be better (and I expect better), and as a professional aviator/soldier expect those in industry to support me, not tell me shut up and crack on, it may make you sick and tired, i am sorry for that, but there are a good many channels that have been used to express this opinion, PPrune is but one. AND DON'T try to make industry out to be blameless mate we know how many of the old boys work there.....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this would have been all sorted if the Civil service had not been bullied into accepting 5 year planning of the politicians had was thinking on a longer time scale.
AAC should remain taking in helecoptor recce/attack/laison and tactical lift. Its capabilities should be expanded to be able to lift most light role brigade kit like light gun. Heavier stuff could still be the realm of RAF.
To that end some more capable aircraft should be employed like AW139 or 149. Wasn't 149 beeing proposed as Puma replacement? and is Puma HC2 happening as last i heard from mates who work in helecopter buissness was it had been dropped as there was no funds available?
As to "Joint" helecopter command it should be that but with an Army/Marine lead ethos and an airforce lead air policy.
I agree that the Army needs to look at devloping pilots careers and not see tours with the AAC as a "Career Break" and maybe the NCO aircrew role could be opened up to the other services as well on the same terms that Army NCO's can apply.
I can see "increasing the AAC capabilities" will be a blue touch paper issue however when on ops has having extra capicity/capability been a bad thing?
AAC should remain taking in helecoptor recce/attack/laison and tactical lift. Its capabilities should be expanded to be able to lift most light role brigade kit like light gun. Heavier stuff could still be the realm of RAF.
To that end some more capable aircraft should be employed like AW139 or 149. Wasn't 149 beeing proposed as Puma replacement? and is Puma HC2 happening as last i heard from mates who work in helecopter buissness was it had been dropped as there was no funds available?
As to "Joint" helecopter command it should be that but with an Army/Marine lead ethos and an airforce lead air policy.
I agree that the Army needs to look at devloping pilots careers and not see tours with the AAC as a "Career Break" and maybe the NCO aircrew role could be opened up to the other services as well on the same terms that Army NCO's can apply.
I can see "increasing the AAC capabilities" will be a blue touch paper issue however when on ops has having extra capicity/capability been a bad thing?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those from the AAC say that they don't want it, well what the hell do you want? Do you really think that buying from EC or Sikorsky will be any cheaper?
Sikorsky would be a lot cheaper at current dollar/pound exchange rates.
( The money exchange rate issue is bigger than just Lynx versus H-60. If present trends continue, American aerospace venders will be able to drastically underprice anything built where they pay the lads or arbeiters in pounds or Euros. In the bigger picture, Westlands can't survive without more protectionism. No, I'm not delighted because the dollar has gotten so weak. A weak dollar has cons as well as pros.)
The FLynx requirement became laughable when the endorsed requirement was to carry a fully equipped standard infantry section.
When pointed out to those presenting to a Wattisham Lynx audience that this would not be possible with the current contender the requirement appeared to be re-written on the spot with the quote "well thats okay, it can do that, just send two aircraft"!
That’s it. The British Army – assuming there will be a significant one in future – needs a properly sized rotary winged assault transport, not just any old hand-me-down whose size is set by some whim of industrial history. The H-60 Blackhawk is intended to fit an eleven man US Army squad. Yes, it’s getting stressed to do that because combat-loaded light infantrymen often weigh 300 pounds or more. But how many heavily burdened troops could this Super Lynx accommodate?
I do see the Royal Navy having a legitimate objection to the Blackhawk/Seahawk. Even with main rotor and tail boom folded, a Seahawk probably has a bigger parking footprint than a Lynx.
By the way, didn’t Westlands build a RR-engined Blackhawk demonstrator a good many years ago? Surely someone here knows more about that.
Sikorsky would be a lot cheaper at current dollar/pound exchange rates.
( The money exchange rate issue is bigger than just Lynx versus H-60. If present trends continue, American aerospace venders will be able to drastically underprice anything built where they pay the lads or arbeiters in pounds or Euros. In the bigger picture, Westlands can't survive without more protectionism. No, I'm not delighted because the dollar has gotten so weak. A weak dollar has cons as well as pros.)
The FLynx requirement became laughable when the endorsed requirement was to carry a fully equipped standard infantry section.
When pointed out to those presenting to a Wattisham Lynx audience that this would not be possible with the current contender the requirement appeared to be re-written on the spot with the quote "well thats okay, it can do that, just send two aircraft"!
That’s it. The British Army – assuming there will be a significant one in future – needs a properly sized rotary winged assault transport, not just any old hand-me-down whose size is set by some whim of industrial history. The H-60 Blackhawk is intended to fit an eleven man US Army squad. Yes, it’s getting stressed to do that because combat-loaded light infantrymen often weigh 300 pounds or more. But how many heavily burdened troops could this Super Lynx accommodate?
I do see the Royal Navy having a legitimate objection to the Blackhawk/Seahawk. Even with main rotor and tail boom folded, a Seahawk probably has a bigger parking footprint than a Lynx.
By the way, didn’t Westlands build a RR-engined Blackhawk demonstrator a good many years ago? Surely someone here knows more about that.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Westlands did produce 1 WS-70L which i think was sold to one of the Gulf states. I think there were touting to replace the wessex's of 72 sqn with them in the 90's. She had the miliary registration ZG468 I don't think it was fitted with RTM's however a Blackhawk was one of the trials platforms for the RTM
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lynx was never the greatest lift helecopter and the AAC was well aware of this from Northern Ireland experience on. I wonder did those writing the specification really think it through or was the specification written to suit the product?
For the Navy lynx is an excellent platform compact and having a good spectrum of roles. However for the Army its to big for recce/laison and to small for transport.
For the Navy lynx is an excellent platform compact and having a good spectrum of roles. However for the Army its to big for recce/laison and to small for transport.
I know personally one of the original engineers on the Lynx project back in the early 70s and one of the main problems was the Gem engines. Now with LHT engines, should be ok.
Recalling a visit to McAlpines / Eurocopter UK back in 03, was given a mini poster depicted Future British Military Helicopters,where they had artists impression of EC-635/EC-145/AS-355N/EC-155/AS365-N3 in FAA/AAC/RAF colours as well as the existing COMR FOST AS-365N, DHFS AS-350, the old 32 Sqn AS-355.
Its a wild shot but maybe the EC-135/635 could do as a reccie/possibly light attack role and something like in the class of the AW-149 or S-70 could do the LBH role?
Recalling a visit to McAlpines / Eurocopter UK back in 03, was given a mini poster depicted Future British Military Helicopters,where they had artists impression of EC-635/EC-145/AS-355N/EC-155/AS365-N3 in FAA/AAC/RAF colours as well as the existing COMR FOST AS-365N, DHFS AS-350, the old 32 Sqn AS-355.
Its a wild shot but maybe the EC-135/635 could do as a reccie/possibly light attack role and something like in the class of the AW-149 or S-70 could do the LBH role?
Why does the AAC need an SH capability? Now they have AH, let them keep that specialised role and leave SH to the RAF/RN.
There is no need for a light obs/recce helicopter - it would never have as good capability as the AH -D model and UAVs fill the role much cheaper than a Kiowa or similar variant.
Maybe the 3-5 Bn that the MoD will have to pay for SAR H would be better spent sorting out medium lift helis for SH and SAR.
Lynx should be buried for ever - it is not the engines that are no good, it is simply a factor of the cabin being too small for the job.
There is no need for a light obs/recce helicopter - it would never have as good capability as the AH -D model and UAVs fill the role much cheaper than a Kiowa or similar variant.
Maybe the 3-5 Bn that the MoD will have to pay for SAR H would be better spent sorting out medium lift helis for SH and SAR.
Lynx should be buried for ever - it is not the engines that are no good, it is simply a factor of the cabin being too small for the job.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAC should have SH capability not the RAF who should stick to fixed wing. SH needs to be more integrated with AH and the Land operation therefore it should be an army function.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utter rubish...
If that were the case then we would give GR7's to the Army also.
At the end of the day SH pilots (of which I am one) are well paid, well trained taxi drivers who get shot at every now and then.
Yes we need to have an understanding of the ground picture, and the 'commanders intent', but leave the Find/Fix/Strike function of AH to the Army, and the humping/dumping to SH and CHF. We have many years of experience and both do it bloody well...
If that were the case then we would give GR7's to the Army also.
At the end of the day SH pilots (of which I am one) are well paid, well trained taxi drivers who get shot at every now and then.
Yes we need to have an understanding of the ground picture, and the 'commanders intent', but leave the Find/Fix/Strike function of AH to the Army, and the humping/dumping to SH and CHF. We have many years of experience and both do it bloody well...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. NURSE's comment seems to be based on the common misunderstanding of the difference between the Army and the LAND component - and I suspect a fair bit of anti-RAF bias. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which service provides the capability as long as it is provided - and at the moment the RAF and RN are providing it admirably.
What we have to ask about FLynx is what capability it will bring - for the Land component, we can't justfy buying it for ISTAR alone, it won't make much of a dent in the tactical lift requirement and we certainly shouldn't buy it just to keep a particular arm going. Actually it might be quite good for the AAC to become an 'all teeth' FIND/FIX/STRIKE type of force.
What we have to ask about FLynx is what capability it will bring - for the Land component, we can't justfy buying it for ISTAR alone, it won't make much of a dent in the tactical lift requirement and we certainly shouldn't buy it just to keep a particular arm going. Actually it might be quite good for the AAC to become an 'all teeth' FIND/FIX/STRIKE type of force.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much ISTAR and not enough other tasks. How many aircraft do ya need for ISTAR. People still need to get about. An ISTAR Lynx would be brilliant in Iraq and Afghanistan, oh no it wouldn't.
It is the only aircraft serving in 2 theatres simultaneously so don't tell me we don't need it.
Oh and by the way, I think a merger into the RAF would be good as I'm fed up with getting continually screwed over.
Terms and conditions apply.
It is the only aircraft serving in 2 theatres simultaneously so don't tell me we don't need it.
Oh and by the way, I think a merger into the RAF would be good as I'm fed up with getting continually screwed over.
Terms and conditions apply.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And we wonder why the whole FLynx/SH/Helicopters in general is such a cockup?
This thread is a microcosm of what happens in reality when the different colours fight for their own corner with scant regard for the bigger picture.
All as guilty as each other. Obviously the Army less so.
This thread is a microcosm of what happens in reality when the different colours fight for their own corner with scant regard for the bigger picture.
All as guilty as each other. Obviously the Army less so.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree totally WG13. I always am amazed when the subject of giving the AAC some decent lift capability how defensive the crabs get. What is the problem with Teeny weeny airways being able to supplement the lift capability of the RAF/RN SH fleet? Lynx can just about manage a fire team but really should be able to lift a section complete with kit.
On ops would it not make sense if an AAC airframe could be used to lift an 8 man patrol into the field rather than use a Chinook that could be better employed moving a platoon or heavy stores?
the helecopter that replaces Lynx should have the capability to lift most of the light weapons up to and including the Light Gun. Not as a routine task but as a capability in reserve. I am well aware how well chinook does it with the whole lot going as a package however as everyone keeps saying chinooks are valuable assets and their aren't enough to go round.
Yes the funding of the armed forces is tight but robbing assets of peter to give paul a bigger budget is unfortunatley the way this govt is running the defence budget for as long as the service chiefs are fighting petty battles over kit they won't have the energy to raise the issues that need sorting.
On ops would it not make sense if an AAC airframe could be used to lift an 8 man patrol into the field rather than use a Chinook that could be better employed moving a platoon or heavy stores?
the helecopter that replaces Lynx should have the capability to lift most of the light weapons up to and including the Light Gun. Not as a routine task but as a capability in reserve. I am well aware how well chinook does it with the whole lot going as a package however as everyone keeps saying chinooks are valuable assets and their aren't enough to go round.
Yes the funding of the armed forces is tight but robbing assets of peter to give paul a bigger budget is unfortunatley the way this govt is running the defence budget for as long as the service chiefs are fighting petty battles over kit they won't have the energy to raise the issues that need sorting.
Thread creep maybe, but...Cabin room in the Lynx seems to be a big problem, if you've ever flown in the back of the mighty widdow maker, you'd know what I was on about. For those that haven't, imagine squeezing into the rotary winged equivalent of the trusty 'Robbin Reliant'. Future Lynx looks to be about the same size as the original (crazy thought but are Westlands actually going to build new frames or are these going to be remanufactures ala 'Nimrod MR.4' ?) How the hell are you're going to get 8 fully equipped squaddies in the back? 
Why not give the AAC 230 Sqns' Pumas?
Why not give the AAC 230 Sqns' Pumas?
Last edited by Stitchbitch; 13th May 2008 at 23:41.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Room in the back
In regards to the room question, sadly the beloved ISTAR requirement reduced that to 4 people in the back. Yes thats right, there is NO real lift capacity, forgetting Section level movement, remembering that 12 is more the requirement these days, they didn't even push for Stretcher capacity, LET ALONE MORE THAN ONE. Well done all involved.
PS. And before any policy making industry types start bitching about looking to the future, then maybe you would like to read a few books on past conflicts, we ignore history at our peril. Obvious as it may be......
We have moved AH to Wattisham, a sound move IMHO. Maybe the next step would be to centralise ALL lift, like the Brize Norton idea.
PS. And before any policy making industry types start bitching about looking to the future, then maybe you would like to read a few books on past conflicts, we ignore history at our peril. Obvious as it may be......
We have moved AH to Wattisham, a sound move IMHO. Maybe the next step would be to centralise ALL lift, like the Brize Norton idea.