F/Lynx all systems go at AW
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spheroid
I assume you did not take my advice to talk to someone about the EODS, your slant is still wrong.
Gnd/Dangermouse
You are both right, if you put kit under the seat it will impact your chances of survival in a crash. Operational call I suppose.
regards
retard
I assume you did not take my advice to talk to someone about the EODS, your slant is still wrong.
Gnd/Dangermouse
You are both right, if you put kit under the seat it will impact your chances of survival in a crash. Operational call I suppose.
regards
retard
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
...why can't we be happy in the country for UK workers, we seems to have it in for ourselves...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangermouse,
Well done, nice speech but not interested. Let’s put crashworthy seats in the Chinny, reduce the payload by 1/2 and see if our troops thank us - no - didn't think they would.
I have no interest in people making money out of our misery and get very fed up turning away troops who are cold, knackered, fed up because the ac can't do what we want; how nice to say ‘yes, please get in but do leave your kit behind’. My point is - IT STILL WONT!!!!
I for one will take the risk of non crash worthy seats against op efficiency any day – and yes – the others do think it is a price worth paying; they also say they don’t really intent to crash anyway.
PSP or no PSP!!!!!! (in the desert!!!!)
Well done, nice speech but not interested. Let’s put crashworthy seats in the Chinny, reduce the payload by 1/2 and see if our troops thank us - no - didn't think they would.
I have no interest in people making money out of our misery and get very fed up turning away troops who are cold, knackered, fed up because the ac can't do what we want; how nice to say ‘yes, please get in but do leave your kit behind’. My point is - IT STILL WONT!!!!
I for one will take the risk of non crash worthy seats against op efficiency any day – and yes – the others do think it is a price worth paying; they also say they don’t really intent to crash anyway.
PSP or no PSP!!!!!! (in the desert!!!!)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can crash worthy seats be in any way a BAD thing?
All crash worthy seats to the best of my knowledge preclude putting anything under them, allowing them to stroke (true in UH60, Merlin , NH90 etc). if we expect our aircraft to protect our troops in the event of a crash (which legacy aircraft such as CH47, Sea King, Puma and current Lynx DONT) there are some compromises that have to be made and a reduction is stowage space is one of them
All crash worthy seats to the best of my knowledge preclude putting anything under them, allowing them to stroke (true in UH60, Merlin , NH90 etc). if we expect our aircraft to protect our troops in the event of a crash (which legacy aircraft such as CH47, Sea King, Puma and current Lynx DONT) there are some compromises that have to be made and a reduction is stowage space is one of them
Unfortunately in this case you can't have your cake and eat it.
And please dont make the assumption that contractors employ idiots, I am sure there are very knowledgeable people within WHL (ever heard of test pilots or the airframe design team for the last 35 years) who may be in posession of more issues regarding factors influencing the design than others outside industry. Every design is a compromise after all and you can't please all the people all the time.
I totally agree wrt compromise in the design aspects but the compact package that was a brilliant selling point for Lynx 35 years ago has meant that the whole package is a huge compromise now with little room for growth. One would think that modernisation has meant miniaturisation but due to us having very little money to spend, we get all the old, big chunky bits of kit which again means there is virtually no space.
The EC725 has very little in common with a Puma, and in this case I am sure that Eurocopter would never give the UK a product line for those. In the past WHL (as it was) and Aerospatiale were partners (Lynx, Puma , Gazelle ), thats not true now.
Remind me where Somerset & Dorset Air Ambulance is located now? And why are the not still at Yeovil?
why can't we be happy in the country for UK workers, we seems to have it in for ourselves...
As for being happy about UK workers. Mmm. Gone are the days of being proud of 'buying British'. I'd be happier if we bought something that was value for money, did the job required and didn't mean we were blackmailed into it.
Here, here.
Earlier this year, a well known Conservative politician whilst in the Stan was chatting to a group of RAF/AAC crews relaxing by the OPS tent and pointed to what is without doubt the most successful and battle proven utility helicopter in its 20,000lb class range and asked the question “Why don’t you guys fly those?” “We’d like nothing more, but you politicians won’t buy them for us” came the reply.
Having listened to Sarah Montague on Thursday’s Today programme discussing the delay of CVF with Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter and Brigadier Alan Mallinson (both retired), Brigadier Mallinson made reference to a question Nick Clegg put to the P.M. back in May of this year.
Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates)
21 May 2008 : Column 315
Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. That being the case, does he share my concern that much of our defence expenditure continues to be misallocated on cold war priorities? For example, we are committed to spending £6 billion on the Eurofighter but are failing to deliver enough of the right kinds of armoured vehicles to our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. W ill the Prime Minister commit to undertaking the first strategic defence review in 10 years to ensure that our troops are properly equipped for the new kinds of conflict that they now face?
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have spent £6 billion on urgent operational requirements in addition to the ordinary defence budget for the work that is being done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will also know that when it comes to giving our fighting troops the equipment that they need, we have made major investments now and for the future including in tanks and helicopters for Afghanistan. Eurofighters are strike aircraft, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that they are of use in the theatres of war in which we are operating. He will also welcome the announcement yesterday that the aircraft carrier order will go ahead, benefiting almost every shipyard in the UK.
It’s well known that the P.M. has little time for the MoD, but if proof were needed that he sees the MoD as little more than a job creation scheme for UK industries, then surely the last paragraph says it all.
Earlier this year, a well known Conservative politician whilst in the Stan was chatting to a group of RAF/AAC crews relaxing by the OPS tent and pointed to what is without doubt the most successful and battle proven utility helicopter in its 20,000lb class range and asked the question “Why don’t you guys fly those?” “We’d like nothing more, but you politicians won’t buy them for us” came the reply.
Having listened to Sarah Montague on Thursday’s Today programme discussing the delay of CVF with Rear Admiral Scott Lidbetter and Brigadier Alan Mallinson (both retired), Brigadier Mallinson made reference to a question Nick Clegg put to the P.M. back in May of this year.
Hansard (House of Commons Daily Debates)
21 May 2008 : Column 315
Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. That being the case, does he share my concern that much of our defence expenditure continues to be misallocated on cold war priorities? For example, we are committed to spending £6 billion on the Eurofighter but are failing to deliver enough of the right kinds of armoured vehicles to our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. W ill the Prime Minister commit to undertaking the first strategic defence review in 10 years to ensure that our troops are properly equipped for the new kinds of conflict that they now face?
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have spent £6 billion on urgent operational requirements in addition to the ordinary defence budget for the work that is being done by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will also know that when it comes to giving our fighting troops the equipment that they need, we have made major investments now and for the future including in tanks and helicopters for Afghanistan. Eurofighters are strike aircraft, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that they are of use in the theatres of war in which we are operating. He will also welcome the announcement yesterday that the aircraft carrier order will go ahead, benefiting almost every shipyard in the UK.
It’s well known that the P.M. has little time for the MoD, but if proof were needed that he sees the MoD as little more than a job creation scheme for UK industries, then surely the last paragraph says it all.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WG13, So glad you are onboard as I know you have a far better grasp of the money grabbing Southern company than me.
I am still convinced that we should sack the typhoon, take the cash and buy ac out of the desert in the US of A and do a proper job, not pamper to the money grabbing (foreign) company to get a few votes. How many lives is one vote worth - or have I got that backwards???
I am still convinced that we should sack the typhoon, take the cash and buy ac out of the desert in the US of A and do a proper job, not pamper to the money grabbing (foreign) company to get a few votes. How many lives is one vote worth - or have I got that backwards???
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I am still convinced that we should sack the typhoon...
...take the cash and buy ac out of the desert in the US of A and do a proper job
Something else in the desert? Something old and expensive to support?
Something even older and not even used by the US anymore so even more expensive to support, if you can get it supported?
I'm all for giving the troops the best support they can but canceling the Typhoons and having to pay as much as it'd cost to accept them in penalties, then having to scrape money from somewhere else in the defence budget to try and buy aircraft that aren't available to us, or buy something that is available but will cost a shed load to support to do the job that the Typhoons would have been able to is the kind of light-headed nonsense you can often read on Arrse.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please explain why Future Lynx is the size it is?
Why can't Future Lynx be a bit larger? It is a new helo, correct, not just a stretched and warmed over variant of current Lynx? Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Why can't Future Lynx be a bit larger? It is a new helo, correct, not just a stretched and warmed over variant of current Lynx? Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13, how and why did the cabin get smaller?
Here's something I found from Google. I bet Mr. Beedall is a PPruner.
From Richard Beedall's Navy Matters:
http://frn.beedall.com/scmr.htm
... The industrial (and political) requirement that SCMR and SABR aircraft must be manufactured in the UK made an interesting turn in May 2004 when it was announced that GKN was negotiating the sale of its stake in AgustaWestland to Finmeccanica for £1.06 billion, making the company entirely Italian owned. Completion of the deal occurred in October 2004. The sale price included £35 million to be held in escrow and repaid by GKN to Finmeccanica if the helicopter business was not awarded by the MOD the anticipated Future Lynx contract for SCMR/BLUH by May 2008. It was being reported that a full order for the required Royal Navy aircraft fleet could be worth up to £400M (part of a near £1 billion order when Army requirements are included) to AgustaWestland, as well as help protect jobs at the company's Yeovil plant.
Without FLynx work the old Westland Yeovil plant was expected to inevitably be closed, Finmeccanica consolidating any outstanding EH.101 Merlin work at the Vergiate plant in Italy. While any EADS offer in relation to NH90 might have involved the Yeovil plant building the NH90's, EADS was far from keen about this approach because it already had three NH-90 assembly lines in Europe and plenty of spare capacity for a large (perhaps as many as 100 helicopters) UK order. EADS believed that it would be able to offer a high enough UK content or offsets in its NH90 proposal for the industrial aspects to be acceptable to the UK government. ...
Here's something I found from Google. I bet Mr. Beedall is a PPruner.
From Richard Beedall's Navy Matters:
http://frn.beedall.com/scmr.htm
... The industrial (and political) requirement that SCMR and SABR aircraft must be manufactured in the UK made an interesting turn in May 2004 when it was announced that GKN was negotiating the sale of its stake in AgustaWestland to Finmeccanica for £1.06 billion, making the company entirely Italian owned. Completion of the deal occurred in October 2004. The sale price included £35 million to be held in escrow and repaid by GKN to Finmeccanica if the helicopter business was not awarded by the MOD the anticipated Future Lynx contract for SCMR/BLUH by May 2008. It was being reported that a full order for the required Royal Navy aircraft fleet could be worth up to £400M (part of a near £1 billion order when Army requirements are included) to AgustaWestland, as well as help protect jobs at the company's Yeovil plant.
Without FLynx work the old Westland Yeovil plant was expected to inevitably be closed, Finmeccanica consolidating any outstanding EH.101 Merlin work at the Vergiate plant in Italy. While any EADS offer in relation to NH90 might have involved the Yeovil plant building the NH90's, EADS was far from keen about this approach because it already had three NH-90 assembly lines in Europe and plenty of spare capacity for a large (perhaps as many as 100 helicopters) UK order. EADS believed that it would be able to offer a high enough UK content or offsets in its NH90 proposal for the industrial aspects to be acceptable to the UK government. ...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is exactly that, a "warmed over variant of the current Lynx". An adapted version of the current Super Lynx 300 basically with more take-off weight. Same engines, same avionics moreorless. It will even incorporate some parts taken from the Army and Navy's current Lynx fleet. Different tail section probably the biggest difference. Why can't it be any larger? Wouldn't that taken the Lynx down the route of the WG-30 all over again?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13, how and why did the cabin get smaller?
2. The tubing that provides a poor mans version of an environmental control system will run through the roof sound proofing thus reducing the usable head room. Current Lynx utilises a window/fan HMI for environmental control. Or the heater vents for the cabin situated outboard rear under the 3 man seat.
3. Stroking crash seats. As has been mentioned, the aircraft will thankfully have full stroking passenger seats. The down side to this is nothing can be placed under the seats. Due to the minimal size of the cabin anyway, it proves to be almost impossible to have four fully equipped troops in the back (Osprey body armour, helmet, day sack, weapon). The CSW rear crewman has his own seat (unless you're from the IPT and you think its ok for one of the pax to operate the gun therefore negating the need for a door gunner!). The three crew members also need space to put their kit/go-bag/weapons (The crew seats don't have the facility to store the wpns). As it happens, the rear seats have a max weight of 90kgs anyway so the aircraft will be limited to carrying Gurkhas in their speedos. Not complaining about ensuring the pax are safer but it ensures the aircraft will pretty much only have the ability to carry the crew and their sarnies.
4. Front seats. Due to the front seats being full stroking seats, they impinge into the rear cabin more than the current armoured seats do.
To stick a fuselage plug in FLynx would have been very expensive. Westland played around with the idea with their private venture Lynx 3 back in the early/mid 80's. From what I can gather, the extra length forward of the control frame (in front of the cabin door. The front doors were lengthened and the cabin space was increased behind the crew seats) caused some 'interesting' handling characteristics. Its a real shame Westland hasn't revisited the Lynx 3 concept because it would have met some of the shortcomings FLynx has with its limited cabin space. We're not after an NH90 sized aircraft capable of SH roles, just something that gives us a bit more flexibility (as is the role of a utility aircraft).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree with most comments above
I am just hacked off with the perpetual slagging off of AWH. As a commercial company it is in their interests to keep the customer (which unfortunately in this country isn't the user it's the IPTs) happy. Now if the IPTs order the platform they think they want, and they think they can afford it would be commercially irresponsible to deliver anything else. As hard as it is for the Services to swallow, companies like AWH (or Eurocopter or any other aircraft manufacturer) are in it to make a profit and they are only obliged to be spec and contract compliant, you don't get anything for over achieving.
The pressure should be on the procurement staff to ensure what is actually wanted (and thats a difficult decision to arrive at to start with, how do you get three opinions.... ask 2 pilots) and that that is passed accurately to the suppliers and then explain to the users why whatever decision has been made, recognising that any public procurement is inherently a political decision.
I agree that Lynx 3 would have possible been a better starting point but again budgetry concerns almost certainly came into play, no doubt a Lynx 3 type was evaluated and costed along with other options but the decision makers arrived at what we now have.
GND The comments regarding seats in the Chinook back up my points exactly and highlights the lack of understanding between the operators and the design/certification/approval system, if the Ch47 had to be designed and built to current standards it wouldnt be anywhere near as capable as it is, but that current capability has (now unacceptable from new) penalties. Design cases now ensure that crew and pax are safer but the downside is a smaller payload fraction and seemingly 'less efficent' aircraft, the world has moved on regardless of you personally being happy to accept the lack of crashworthiness (you won't get a new aircraft into service without the current standards applying in any case if QQ are on the ball).
It is this discrepancy between aircraft of different generations that make meaningful comparison impossible, the intangible benefits of current design standards aren't summed up in payload/range/speed terms.
And a final point regarding voting Red in Yeovil, it's been a Lib Dem seat for years! (the chairman of the party was the MP after all) so I dont think the Flynx order is going to change that.
Interesting discussion here though
DM
The pressure should be on the procurement staff to ensure what is actually wanted (and thats a difficult decision to arrive at to start with, how do you get three opinions.... ask 2 pilots) and that that is passed accurately to the suppliers and then explain to the users why whatever decision has been made, recognising that any public procurement is inherently a political decision.
I agree that Lynx 3 would have possible been a better starting point but again budgetry concerns almost certainly came into play, no doubt a Lynx 3 type was evaluated and costed along with other options but the decision makers arrived at what we now have.
GND The comments regarding seats in the Chinook back up my points exactly and highlights the lack of understanding between the operators and the design/certification/approval system, if the Ch47 had to be designed and built to current standards it wouldnt be anywhere near as capable as it is, but that current capability has (now unacceptable from new) penalties. Design cases now ensure that crew and pax are safer but the downside is a smaller payload fraction and seemingly 'less efficent' aircraft, the world has moved on regardless of you personally being happy to accept the lack of crashworthiness (you won't get a new aircraft into service without the current standards applying in any case if QQ are on the ball).
It is this discrepancy between aircraft of different generations that make meaningful comparison impossible, the intangible benefits of current design standards aren't summed up in payload/range/speed terms.
And a final point regarding voting Red in Yeovil, it's been a Lib Dem seat for years! (the chairman of the party was the MP after all) so I dont think the Flynx order is going to change that.
Interesting discussion here though
DM
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangermouse, I completely agree regarding the IPTs and the procurement process. I too agree that at times, AW do get too much of a bashing and no doubt the IPT sits back quietly allowing certain misconceptions to perpetuate. It keeps the flack off them as quite a few of the shortcomings/issues fall squarely at their feet.
AW aren't in it for profit? Err, why do they bother then? Although with regard to FLynx, their profit margin is going to be slimmer than an Ethiopian sprog on Christmas Day. Maybe thats why there is an apparent lack of interest?
AW aren't in it for profit? Err, why do they bother then? Although with regard to FLynx, their profit margin is going to be slimmer than an Ethiopian sprog on Christmas Day. Maybe thats why there is an apparent lack of interest?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Yes (when it's built). Hopefully the shortcomings the Irish Air Corps have seen with the 139 would be ironed out.
I think the reality is that someone had to buy FLynx to help push its potential export market. Who better than the RN/AAC? Not AWs fault; again the rotten procurement system. The 139 already has a healthy order book so it wasn't seen as important to flog it to the UK. I believe the unit cost for the AW139 is in the region of $12-15 million. I know, I know. Apples and pears using a unit cost to actual cost (military) in-service but you have to admit, it's not bad value for money even if you double it and make it £'s.
Just asking, but would AW149 have been a better bet?
I think the reality is that someone had to buy FLynx to help push its potential export market. Who better than the RN/AAC? Not AWs fault; again the rotten procurement system. The 139 already has a healthy order book so it wasn't seen as important to flog it to the UK. I believe the unit cost for the AW139 is in the region of $12-15 million. I know, I know. Apples and pears using a unit cost to actual cost (military) in-service but you have to admit, it's not bad value for money even if you double it and make it £'s.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
confused....
WG13 man: I think you misread my post, of course AWH are in for profit, and good business sense is that you don't give the buyer anything he hasnt paid for, thus my comment : 'AWH (or Eurocopter or any other aircraft manufacturer) are in it to make a profit' etc
Although I believe a lot of AWH work is going on, the AW149 is a paper aircraft to the best of my knowledge at the mo (at least there is a FLynx in build at yeovil) and will likely have a whole lot of things to be investigated (think W13-W30, and now 139-149).
in any case the decision has been made and I can't see it changing (won't stop the 'what ifs' though.....)
DM
Although I believe a lot of AWH work is going on, the AW149 is a paper aircraft to the best of my knowledge at the mo (at least there is a FLynx in build at yeovil) and will likely have a whole lot of things to be investigated (think W13-W30, and now 139-149).
in any case the decision has been made and I can't see it changing (won't stop the 'what ifs' though.....)
DM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... For Profit
I'm sure soon we'll see some photos of the mock-up and perhaps 3D CAD drawings coming out. Those will highlight quite radical differences ...
Then maybe you'll see that FLynx is really quite a step forward from Lynx, using new techniques for manufacturing (ahead, I'm told of Airbus and their famous wings), far lower airframe costs, greater strength, completely revised weaponry and loads of avionics (which is where a lot of the space went btw).
149 will be a wonderful and worthy batlefield aircraft ... but as DM said, it's some way off.
If the UK wants its global shipping lanes open (tell little Johnnie his Wii got knicked by pirates), the RN really needs SCMR ASAP.
N
Then maybe you'll see that FLynx is really quite a step forward from Lynx, using new techniques for manufacturing (ahead, I'm told of Airbus and their famous wings), far lower airframe costs, greater strength, completely revised weaponry and loads of avionics (which is where a lot of the space went btw).
149 will be a wonderful and worthy batlefield aircraft ... but as DM said, it's some way off.
If the UK wants its global shipping lanes open (tell little Johnnie his Wii got knicked by pirates), the RN really needs SCMR ASAP.
N
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure soon we'll see some photos of the mock-up and perhaps 3D CAD drawings coming out. Those will highlight quite radical differences ...
Then maybe you'll see that FLynx is really quite a step forward from Lynx, using new techniques for manufacturing (ahead, I'm told of Airbus and their famous wings), far lower airframe costs, greater strength, completely revised weaponry and loads of avionics (which is where a lot of the space went btw).
Then maybe you'll see that FLynx is really quite a step forward from Lynx, using new techniques for manufacturing (ahead, I'm told of Airbus and their famous wings), far lower airframe costs, greater strength, completely revised weaponry and loads of avionics (which is where a lot of the space went btw).
It would have been a step forward 10 years ago but seeings how it's ISD will be 2014 at the earliest, it is as modern as a Morris Marina...with a CD player and alloy wheels.
Yes, it has lots of lovely new avionics but as you say, these have limited the already limited space.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned what its handling characteristics will be like? An aircraft that is a ton heavier than the current Lynx (high disc loading already) but will still have the same FCS, servos and flying controls. Those Lynx drivers amongst you will be more than aware that current Lynx is a 'sports car' until its up towards MAUM then it becomes a bit of a nightmare if not treated with respect. FLynx will be at that weight without much on board straight off. It will not be the super-dooper performance monster some think it will be because of the powerful CTS800's. Something to think about. NR control will be fun.
