Would the cancellation of FLynx be the end of the Army Air Corps?
Nurse - the only reason for givving the AAC any medium lift capability would be so you could support your own front line ie AH logistically instead of relying on SH to do it. Your viewpoint is typical of one who has no idea what SH do or how well trained they are for it - the Lynx Sqns have been searching for a role since the demise of TOW but it isn't a battlefield helicopter.
The training burden for bringing the Lynx force up to SH standards on any medium lift platform would be immense and the AAC are struggling to keep the AH fully manned and supported - how on earth do you think you would manage it?
The training burden for bringing the Lynx force up to SH standards on any medium lift platform would be immense and the AAC are struggling to keep the AH fully manned and supported - how on earth do you think you would manage it?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, although I think the inference that Lynx crews are not up to scratch is a bit harsh. If however you meant that the crews are not up to scratch as SH crews well of course they aren't because thay don't have the a/c.
Perhaps as importantly, the AAC doesn't have the infrastructure to support a larger fleet. Having a grass-only airfield is living in a dreamworld that belongs to the 1940's, and the Army clearly are not prepared to keep Wattisham in a fully serviceable condition, despite it's obvious potential is a logistics APOD in support of AH ops...
Not to mention the lack of Ops support...
Perhaps as importantly, the AAC doesn't have the infrastructure to support a larger fleet. Having a grass-only airfield is living in a dreamworld that belongs to the 1940's, and the Army clearly are not prepared to keep Wattisham in a fully serviceable condition, despite it's obvious potential is a logistics APOD in support of AH ops...
Not to mention the lack of Ops support...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the bitch fight continues. 
You may wish to aim that towards the Puma force before you fire from the hip towards the pongos mate.
The training burden for bringing the Lynx force up to SH standards on any medium lift platform would be immense
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13 has it right as far as I'm concerned. For me, it really doesn't matter who has which aircraft types and what they can lift - and anyone who starts saying "The AAC should have..." or "The AAC couldn't cope with..." is standing in the way of sorting out what the real requirement for rotary wing lift is for defence.
As for standards of the Lynx force v the Puma force, I have first-hand experience of both and all I will say is they are all dedicated, good people struggling to cope with ridiculous workloads and knackered fleets. I will not throw stones in any direction.
As for standards of the Lynx force v the Puma force, I have first-hand experience of both and all I will say is they are all dedicated, good people struggling to cope with ridiculous workloads and knackered fleets. I will not throw stones in any direction.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too am not deriding the Puma chaps as I am fully aware of the pressures they are under but crab@SAAvns perception of the Lynx is based on what he remembers from years gone by and not what they are currently up to. He appears to be suggesting that they have no concept of SH ops and have just been ferrying the odd General around since TOW came off.
I appreciate he has considerable experience working with the AAC but that was quite a while ago. It appeared to be a classic divisive comment aimed at belittling the AAC whenever the suggestion of giving SH to the AAC comes along. Classic JHC squabbling.
What does SH stand for? It’s not ‘battlefield helicopter’ is it?
I appreciate he has considerable experience working with the AAC but that was quite a while ago. It appeared to be a classic divisive comment aimed at belittling the AAC whenever the suggestion of giving SH to the AAC comes along. Classic JHC squabbling.
What does SH stand for? It’s not ‘battlefield helicopter’ is it?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People seem to forget that the aircraft would suit the Navy well. This was mentioned last year in a different thread. That the Army had little say in what the aircraft could do because the update was run by the Navy, for the Navy, and the poor cousins in the Army got an aircraft that they would have to make do with. SCMR camera above nose with radar below, would be great. For the Army it would be as much use as a snooze button on a smoke alarm when giving top cover over a built up area.
The whole project was damned from the start because it was biased and the Army had already identified years ago that there wasn't enough space in the back. I love flying this aircraft but we are flogging a dead horse. Good riddance to future Lynx and the tax payers should be celebrating.
The whole project was damned from the start because it was biased and the Army had already identified years ago that there wasn't enough space in the back. I love flying this aircraft but we are flogging a dead horse. Good riddance to future Lynx and the tax payers should be celebrating.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Talk split, where exactly is the grass field only that the AAC has?
Been to all of them and they all seem to have runways or HALS. Are you refering to the RFC/TA field? Not a mainstream base as far as I know?
Been to all of them and they all seem to have runways or HALS. Are you refering to the RFC/TA field? Not a mainstream base as far as I know?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: uk rainshower
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you
Thank you all for your input, when I first asked this question I hoped that I would generate some interesting debate. For those of you who have seen past the normal inter-service banter and dick swinging and had a crack at the question I thank you.
Many people seem to have got stuck debating the merit of FLynx compared to other types and in different roles. I personally have been told many fantastic things about FLynx however the question I find normally stifles the flow is "What is it for?" This is normally followed by lots of tosh about the 'Find function' and then a long silence.
Other people have gone down the road of debating who is best suited to operate larger or smaller types largely based, it would seem to me, on some stereotypical outlooks, Crab and Nurse representing either end. In these arguments it always seems that somebody else’s gain should be seen as your own loss and therefore is to be fought against as a matter of principal.
I wonder if to move the discussion on if people might like to speculate how we could change the whole way we approach rotary business.
So come on people throw off your petty uni service attitudes think purple, think best practice, think big and think not reinventing the wheel!!!
Many people seem to have got stuck debating the merit of FLynx compared to other types and in different roles. I personally have been told many fantastic things about FLynx however the question I find normally stifles the flow is "What is it for?" This is normally followed by lots of tosh about the 'Find function' and then a long silence.
Other people have gone down the road of debating who is best suited to operate larger or smaller types largely based, it would seem to me, on some stereotypical outlooks, Crab and Nurse representing either end. In these arguments it always seems that somebody else’s gain should be seen as your own loss and therefore is to be fought against as a matter of principal.
I wonder if to move the discussion on if people might like to speculate how we could change the whole way we approach rotary business.
So come on people throw off your petty uni service attitudes think purple, think best practice, think big and think not reinventing the wheel!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if to move the discussion on if people might like to speculate how we could change the whole way we approach rotary business.
Its a start.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One big happy family
How about following the suggestion that we go joint, go for it with both hands around the throat, lump all the rotary into one big airbase(or bases), it works to some degree at Shawbury, actually, come to think of it, it weren't that bad at Aldergrove either, or the COB.
As for FLYNX, nobody, but nobody seems to have an answer to where it is headed (if at all!), considering the importance of rotary in the two theatres, it really is a poor show from the upper echelons of MOD.
We are where we are.....sadly. Chinook is kicking arse, as is AH, where Flynx sits as ISTAR God only knows. It would mean we could beam the contact to every HQ that was interested, but not pick up the casualties, provide fire support, lift supplies etc etc....
As for FLYNX, nobody, but nobody seems to have an answer to where it is headed (if at all!), considering the importance of rotary in the two theatres, it really is a poor show from the upper echelons of MOD.
We are where we are.....sadly. Chinook is kicking arse, as is AH, where Flynx sits as ISTAR God only knows. It would mean we could beam the contact to every HQ that was interested, but not pick up the casualties, provide fire support, lift supplies etc etc....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wattashame
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+SHRA, a very eloquent post. I like the idea of thinking purple, however it will always been seen through green or (light or dark) blue tinted glasses. It is human nature.
To be fair, if the tax payer is to get value for money, then the axe must first fall on all the desk’s which are duplicating effort over the three services and JHC, be it RN, AAC or RAF. If there is to be a natural heir for the rotary aviation I don’t think there is the stomach to fight for the formation of a new Helicopter Force, the vision and fortitude that Lord Hugh Montague Trenchard had in 1918 simply isn’t there today and neither are the numbers. The new Commander at JHC is a good man (I’m not saying that old one wasn’t), lets see how the dust settles once the new brush has swept through!
To be fair, if the tax payer is to get value for money, then the axe must first fall on all the desk’s which are duplicating effort over the three services and JHC, be it RN, AAC or RAF. If there is to be a natural heir for the rotary aviation I don’t think there is the stomach to fight for the formation of a new Helicopter Force, the vision and fortitude that Lord Hugh Montague Trenchard had in 1918 simply isn’t there today and neither are the numbers. The new Commander at JHC is a good man (I’m not saying that old one wasn’t), lets see how the dust settles once the new brush has swept through!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all pretty simple - Lynx is too small. In this Brave New(ish) World of JHC I think it has been well proven that it is a good thing to have blue and brown flying together on the front line (and I've flown with both mobs). I do rile against anyone who wishes to suggest either is in some way inadequate. What is inadequate is the equipment provided. Lynx and Puma are both heading for stage left and nothing is in the pipeline to replace them. We need a helicopter that can give decent lift for SH and double up in the ISTAR role and any other battlefield support roles envisaged for the future. We don't need the one-trick-pony that FLynx was going to be. By all means procure something like NH90 or Blackhawk and get Westlands to assemble it but stop flogging a dead horse.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the current mantra all about about capability and effects.
If we want to provide a battlefield FIND effect then we should procure a system that can do it - FW, rotary or UAV. That is all that should matter.
If we want to be able to carry a section of troops then that does not fit in the FIND category. That would be LIFT, but scale would need to be defined.
If we want a battlefield taxi (which I suspect is the true BLUH requirement) then there is no clear effect based proword. We know we need it but how do we descibe it. Perhaps that is the real crux here.
From an RN persective the use of FLYNX in the FIND and STRIKE roles is accepted although if we are looking at effects what, given current technology, is the requirement - again FLYNX, UAV or other platform?
The issue here is probably political and industrial. Do AWHL really rely upon the FLYNX programme or is Agusta desire for an additional AW139 line more pressing? How important are Yeovil based AWHL jobs ? What is AWHL long term strategy on future platforms? Does DIS provide an answer or ask more questions?
Whilst EP affordability drives the options there are many more issues outside of the normal SH/AAC banter than has been prevalent here. We should be addressing the capability need not the parochial service issues or airframe banter!
God, I've clearly been on staff course too long!!!!
Si
If we want to provide a battlefield FIND effect then we should procure a system that can do it - FW, rotary or UAV. That is all that should matter.
If we want to be able to carry a section of troops then that does not fit in the FIND category. That would be LIFT, but scale would need to be defined.
If we want a battlefield taxi (which I suspect is the true BLUH requirement) then there is no clear effect based proword. We know we need it but how do we descibe it. Perhaps that is the real crux here.
From an RN persective the use of FLYNX in the FIND and STRIKE roles is accepted although if we are looking at effects what, given current technology, is the requirement - again FLYNX, UAV or other platform?
The issue here is probably political and industrial. Do AWHL really rely upon the FLYNX programme or is Agusta desire for an additional AW139 line more pressing? How important are Yeovil based AWHL jobs ? What is AWHL long term strategy on future platforms? Does DIS provide an answer or ask more questions?
Whilst EP affordability drives the options there are many more issues outside of the normal SH/AAC banter than has been prevalent here. We should be addressing the capability need not the parochial service issues or airframe banter!
God, I've clearly been on staff course too long!!!!
Si
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. What many people don't appreciate is that defining a wooly requirement in one part of the battlefield mobility capability area impinges on what requirements you can write elsewhere - so, in old money, SABR was always going to struggle to justify the 'meduim' aircraft we all knew we needed when BLUH is pursuing the fiction that a lynx-type aircraft could achieve a section lift. BLUH provides section lift, therefore all we need are platoon lifts and above for 3 and 16 bdes.... although actually not.
What is needed is for someone independent (yes, maybe even a firm of consultants) to take a hard look at what battlefield lift capabilities the UK needs in the round, and then procure a suitable force mix with the money combined out of all the different pots. Who ends up flying them is pretty irrelevant - our rules, standards of training and SOPs are all pretty much the same now, the AAC/REME's engineering organisation is coming into line with the RAF/RN, and aircraft type is a much, much more significant cost driver than the rank of the pilot, so any argument about which service could do it cheaper/better is a bit thin nowadays.
What is needed is for someone independent (yes, maybe even a firm of consultants) to take a hard look at what battlefield lift capabilities the UK needs in the round, and then procure a suitable force mix with the money combined out of all the different pots. Who ends up flying them is pretty irrelevant - our rules, standards of training and SOPs are all pretty much the same now, the AAC/REME's engineering organisation is coming into line with the RAF/RN, and aircraft type is a much, much more significant cost driver than the rank of the pilot, so any argument about which service could do it cheaper/better is a bit thin nowadays.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wattashame
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLUH
B-Battlefield, the place at which a battle is fought.
L-Light, weighing little; easy to lift or carry.
U-Utility, usefulness; practicality, something that is useful.
H-Helicopter, an aircraft that is lifted and propelled by rotary blades above its body.
Does Lynx or Flynx fit the bill?
L-Light, weighing little; easy to lift or carry.
U-Utility, usefulness; practicality, something that is useful.
H-Helicopter, an aircraft that is lifted and propelled by rotary blades above its body.
Does Lynx or Flynx fit the bill?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I am missing the point here but BLUH was deemed as not a necessity for the Army and so it was scrapped back in 2003 or so and replaced with BRH which assumes the Find role. It has therefore been designed with that role in mind and not the LUH role.
Whether or not you feel that its usefullness is wrong given the use of UAV and the incredibly good Find systems fitted to AH require its introduction is another argument.
As for the end of the AAC, I dont mind what I would be asked to fly and whom for as long as it doesnt involve bobbing up n down on an old tin can for 6 months at a time.
Whether or not you feel that its usefullness is wrong given the use of UAV and the incredibly good Find systems fitted to AH require its introduction is another argument.
As for the end of the AAC, I dont mind what I would be asked to fly and whom for as long as it doesnt involve bobbing up n down on an old tin can for 6 months at a time.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair do's
I did say "in old money" as my example was merely to illustrate the point that carving up the requirement by service, even if this had a veil of 'capability', can screw things up for you. BLUH and SABR are of course long since redefined and renamed.
I did say "in old money" as my example was merely to illustrate the point that carving up the requirement by service, even if this had a veil of 'capability', can screw things up for you. BLUH and SABR are of course long since redefined and renamed.
