F/Lynx all systems go at AW
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: england
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked on Brasilian,Danish,Korean,German,Omani,Thai,Malaysian and South African Lynx the airframe on build at the moment certainly looks a bit different to a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it .
nimby,
I'm prepared to believe that WG13 may be a tad harsh about AW, but your dismissive one line contradiction doesn't add to the debate - and I'd love to see a proper rebuttal (if there is one, which I doubt) of WG13 Dummy's cogent argument that:
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.
I'm prepared to believe that WG13 may be a tad harsh about AW, but your dismissive one line contradiction doesn't add to the debate - and I'd love to see a proper rebuttal (if there is one, which I doubt) of WG13 Dummy's cogent argument that:
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.
Dangermouse - whilst I admire your defence of your employers, to use the customer as an excuse for producing a poor product (you get what you ask for) is possibly the reason that AW are viewed so poorly by many in the military helicopter world.
The rest of industry in the real world doesn't operate or think like that, mainly because it doesn't have the luxury of a seemingly bottomless pit of govt cash to exploit. AW doesn't have any competition either since it is the only British (or pseudo-British) helicopter company in UK and enjoys the same patronage as BAe. Imagine if the car companies of the world worked like AW - we would all be driving around in Trabants being told how lucky we were that we got what we wanted.
Back to FLynx and no matter how you try to spin it or dress it up - the cabin is too small, it always has been and, it seems, always will be. It will fulfill a shipborne role courtesy of its compact size but is an utter waste of space (or lack of it) from a battlefield perspective. There is enough ISTAR available already (with much better capability) without trying to justify using another AW 'one size fits all comers' product just to save jobs.
The rest of industry in the real world doesn't operate or think like that, mainly because it doesn't have the luxury of a seemingly bottomless pit of govt cash to exploit. AW doesn't have any competition either since it is the only British (or pseudo-British) helicopter company in UK and enjoys the same patronage as BAe. Imagine if the car companies of the world worked like AW - we would all be driving around in Trabants being told how lucky we were that we got what we wanted.
Back to FLynx and no matter how you try to spin it or dress it up - the cabin is too small, it always has been and, it seems, always will be. It will fulfill a shipborne role courtesy of its compact size but is an utter waste of space (or lack of it) from a battlefield perspective. There is enough ISTAR available already (with much better capability) without trying to justify using another AW 'one size fits all comers' product just to save jobs.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I wish we did
(edited)
Jackonicko,
I think the argument from myself and Requiem was with the statement
... which is just as dismissive of the list of changes in my earlier post. You'll see what I mean about the structures, etc., when the details become more widely published but it's visually quite distinct.
Crab/WG13,
With respect to cabin size, it seems that there is an assumption that this is supposed to be principally a volume trooplifter and not a flexible sensor and weapons platform with troop carrying capability (that extra mass isn't airframe). WG30 dropped off the list of things to do back in 1986 and what you're talking about is AW149. With respect to handling, I'll wait and see what the flight trials show but WG13 laid out the basics, based on earlier variants.
I wish we did
... enjoy the same patronage as BAE Systems
Jackonicko,
I think the argument from myself and Requiem was with the statement
Trust me, it aint the 'radical difference' you think it might be. Think of a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it.
Crab/WG13,
With respect to cabin size, it seems that there is an assumption that this is supposed to be principally a volume trooplifter and not a flexible sensor and weapons platform with troop carrying capability (that extra mass isn't airframe). WG30 dropped off the list of things to do back in 1986 and what you're talking about is AW149. With respect to handling, I'll wait and see what the flight trials show but WG13 laid out the basics, based on earlier variants.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
possibly the reason that AW are viewed so poorly by many in the military helicopter world.
Having flown it for many a happy hour, you are well aware of the very short comings, if we had the 800s it would be fine as it is. We could do a very good job but that was never going to happen without a massive penalty clause. “oooo, that’ll cost you”
By the way - Does anyone out there actually think that we will not put kit under the seats?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few comments
firstly to CRAB: I have never stated or implied that I work for AWH, why do you assume I do?
Secondly to CRAB: Meeting the spec doesn't mean a poor product it means one that meets what the customer asked it to (why should anyone EXPECT anything more than they asked for, its the same as ordering a pint and being offended you havent been given 2 for no additional cost, that's not the real world, no one gives capability away without something in return)
Thirdly to GND: of course you are perfectly entitled to ignore manufacturers and RTS advice and put stuff under the seat, just don't coming crying back to the suppliers when it all goes wrong, things are done for a reason after all. I am sure that manufacturers don't do these things out of spite!!
fourthly to WG13: Nr control should be fine as the T800 is isochronously governed to the best of my knowledge, the Gem sure aint!! There are already Lynx with this engine flying for years so the control laws should have been pretty well fixed by now I hope.
Secondly to CRAB: Meeting the spec doesn't mean a poor product it means one that meets what the customer asked it to (why should anyone EXPECT anything more than they asked for, its the same as ordering a pint and being offended you havent been given 2 for no additional cost, that's not the real world, no one gives capability away without something in return)
Thirdly to GND: of course you are perfectly entitled to ignore manufacturers and RTS advice and put stuff under the seat, just don't coming crying back to the suppliers when it all goes wrong, things are done for a reason after all. I am sure that manufacturers don't do these things out of spite!!
fourthly to WG13: Nr control should be fine as the T800 is isochronously governed to the best of my knowledge, the Gem sure aint!! There are already Lynx with this engine flying for years so the control laws should have been pretty well fixed by now I hope.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and a UOR was annouced at the same time putting the CTS800-4N in 12 Army Mk 9s starting next year, so you should have all your wishes in at least one form.
37% more power than the current Gem engines that are fitted to the Lynx AH Mk.9 giving the aircraft a significant increase in power which will allow the aircraft to operate in extreme hot and high conditions.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimby;
......you assume. 
requiem1973;
Ok, over simplification on my part. Maybe I should have said "Super Lynx with a monolithic.....etc". I'm sure you could list the components that are different? Remind me how much in % will be taken off our current Lynx to furnish FLynx?
Jackoniko, I'm not trying to be harsh towards AW as I fully appreciate the position they are in as a commercial company. The org I tend to be harshest against, is our own (MoD all the way through the process to ticking the boxes in the options brochure). We have no money and we want the 'gold plated solution'. Add in to that a procurement process that is as efficient as chocolate fire guard and the numerous requirement changes, lack of direction and general headless chickeness that is apparent then you see AW have their work cut out for them trying to come up with the right solution. Traditionally, it has been too easy to blame Westland for various **** ups concerning the issues we've had with our helicopters which makes it easier for the IPTs to slopey shoulder the responsibility.
dangermouse, I wholeheartedly agree with regard to your second point and that is quite often the crux of the issue (and something that is rarely advertised by the procurement and IPT agencies). Again, it's seen as easier to perpetuate the myth that AW are ****e. Don't get me wrong, they are a frustratingly arrogant company to work with but the base line is, they are a commercial entity and not a division of MoD Plc. If we don't get our ****e in one pile and direct what we want, why should they spend money on trying to answer a question we haven't asked?
As to your fourth point;
That makes very little difference to NR control. I'm on about the high end of control. Aerodynamic properties of the blades and disc loading does. Super Lynx currently has a MAUM of 5330kgs so its still a darn sight less than FLynx's projected MAUM of just below 5800kgs (with potential growth to 6250kgs with BERP IV). Heavy aircraft, high disc loading.
Back to you, nimby;
Err, the initial requirement was as a utility aircraft and with this, came 'limited movement of men and materials'. That requirement is laid down as it was for current Lynx. We dont want it to do SH work but having knowledge of operating Lynx over the past 30 years, one of the big issues has been a lack of volume in the cabin to make it truly flexible. I'm not on about its engine lifting ability or lack of but just basic 'utility'. FLynx has less than current Lynx. Its role has been dictated by cost. An unavoidable consequence but there are other types out there that have a better value for money v compromise rating. Its a shame they weren't seriously looked at. We've got to the stage now where we may as well just get a rotary UAV because the nebulous 'ISTAR' role will be its only role.
(I seem to remember Westland promised that current Lynx could carry 8 fully armed troops as well as 8 TOW missiles for 2hrs 30 minutes).
As time has marched on, that requirement has been dropped. Not withstanding the rear seat requirement, the requirement still cannot be met. Hence why that has now been dropped from the primary role and its primary has now become ISTAR. As for flexible sensor platform, again it's not really is it? Now, I know thats not the design fault as when we first got into this, we wished to use it in the low level recce (AH support) role and a sensor on top of the nose wasn't too much of an issue in the weeds. Time has seen the way we operate change significantly but unfortunately, the requirement hasn't kept up. As I said, not AWs fault. On the other hand, as has been seen on countless occasions, AWs drum beats to the RNs more often than not (geographic proximity to VL = lots of former matlots at AW or the FAA are a great R&D dept for AW?). Why on earth would the RN want a sensor anywhere else other than where it currently is? More to the point, why on earth would the export naval market want a sensor anywhere else than it is?
I think the RN are generally happy with their lot because current Lynx suits them down to the ground (or oggin) and FLynx is a nice progression. Lynx is a great little naval platform (as can be seen from the export market) but as was the case first time round, as a non naval platform, it is a massive compromise. The Qatar Police realised this.
WG13_Dummy,
Clearly you've not had access ...
Clearly you've not had access ...
requiem1973;
Having worked on Brasilian,Danish,Korean,German,Omani,Thai,Malaysia n and South African Lynx the airframe on build at the moment certainly looks a bit different to a Mk8 with a monolithic tail boom and a pair old G-LYNX stabs chucked on it .
Jackoniko, I'm not trying to be harsh towards AW as I fully appreciate the position they are in as a commercial company. The org I tend to be harshest against, is our own (MoD all the way through the process to ticking the boxes in the options brochure). We have no money and we want the 'gold plated solution'. Add in to that a procurement process that is as efficient as chocolate fire guard and the numerous requirement changes, lack of direction and general headless chickeness that is apparent then you see AW have their work cut out for them trying to come up with the right solution. Traditionally, it has been too easy to blame Westland for various **** ups concerning the issues we've had with our helicopters which makes it easier for the IPTs to slopey shoulder the responsibility.
dangermouse, I wholeheartedly agree with regard to your second point and that is quite often the crux of the issue (and something that is rarely advertised by the procurement and IPT agencies). Again, it's seen as easier to perpetuate the myth that AW are ****e. Don't get me wrong, they are a frustratingly arrogant company to work with but the base line is, they are a commercial entity and not a division of MoD Plc. If we don't get our ****e in one pile and direct what we want, why should they spend money on trying to answer a question we haven't asked?
As to your fourth point;
fourthly to WG13: Nr control should be fine as the T800 is isochronously governed to the best of my knowledge, the Gem sure aint!! There are already Lynx with this engine flying for years so the control laws should have been pretty well fixed by now I hope.
Back to you, nimby;
With respect to cabin size, it seems that there is an assumption that this is supposed to be principally a volume trooplifter and not a flexible sensor and weapons platform with troop carrying capability (that extra mass isn't airframe). WG30 dropped off the list of things to do back in 1986 and what you're talking about is AW149. With respect to handling, I'll wait and see what the flight trials show but WG13 laid out the basics, based on earlier variants.
(I seem to remember Westland promised that current Lynx could carry 8 fully armed troops as well as 8 TOW missiles for 2hrs 30 minutes).
As time has marched on, that requirement has been dropped. Not withstanding the rear seat requirement, the requirement still cannot be met. Hence why that has now been dropped from the primary role and its primary has now become ISTAR. As for flexible sensor platform, again it's not really is it? Now, I know thats not the design fault as when we first got into this, we wished to use it in the low level recce (AH support) role and a sensor on top of the nose wasn't too much of an issue in the weeds. Time has seen the way we operate change significantly but unfortunately, the requirement hasn't kept up. As I said, not AWs fault. On the other hand, as has been seen on countless occasions, AWs drum beats to the RNs more often than not (geographic proximity to VL = lots of former matlots at AW or the FAA are a great R&D dept for AW?). Why on earth would the RN want a sensor anywhere else other than where it currently is? More to the point, why on earth would the export naval market want a sensor anywhere else than it is?
I think the RN are generally happy with their lot because current Lynx suits them down to the ground (or oggin) and FLynx is a nice progression. Lynx is a great little naval platform (as can be seen from the export market) but as was the case first time round, as a non naval platform, it is a massive compromise. The Qatar Police realised this.
Dangermouse - it's just your vehement defence of AW whenever they are criticised that made me think they owned you
BTW the engine governing will have exactly no bearing on Nr control - it is in autoratation or harsh manoeuvring that the Nr control on a Lynx is exciting and, since the one that shed a blade in Germany many years ago was alleged to have been a result of persistent rotor overspeeds, it is a cause for concern amongst Lynx pilots which is why the Nr overspeed warner was fitted.
Meeting the spec has always been a Westlands excuse for producing a product that doesn't do the job since the spec is always bastardised to meet the limitations of the particular airframe that they have available.
Nimby - the limited movement of men and materiel is a stated capability of the AAC and the Lynx is the only beast they have to do it with. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect the FLynx to fulfill that role at least as well as the old Lynx (ie not very well) but it seems it will be worse.
What on earth do you need another sensor and weapons platform on the battlefield for when you have the Apache? This has been window dressing from the start in an attempt to justify the procurement of FLynx. Big deal - new structures and fuselage shape - it's still a Lynx with Lynx limitations which is now being over-engined in an attempt to make a silk purse from a sows ear. The airframe needs to be bigger - then add better engines and you might have a battlefield helicopter. Granted it won't then be a Lynx but it might be some use operationally.
The only reason the AAC heirarchy have backed FLynx is that without it, their sum total of helicopter presence is AH 64. Such a small but specialised capability does not need a whole Corps to sustain and support it and their very raison d'etre would vanish leaving them very vulnerable to cost-cutting takeovers.
WG13 - I think our posts passed each other in cyberspace
BTW the engine governing will have exactly no bearing on Nr control - it is in autoratation or harsh manoeuvring that the Nr control on a Lynx is exciting and, since the one that shed a blade in Germany many years ago was alleged to have been a result of persistent rotor overspeeds, it is a cause for concern amongst Lynx pilots which is why the Nr overspeed warner was fitted.Meeting the spec has always been a Westlands excuse for producing a product that doesn't do the job since the spec is always bastardised to meet the limitations of the particular airframe that they have available.
Nimby - the limited movement of men and materiel is a stated capability of the AAC and the Lynx is the only beast they have to do it with. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect the FLynx to fulfill that role at least as well as the old Lynx (ie not very well) but it seems it will be worse.
What on earth do you need another sensor and weapons platform on the battlefield for when you have the Apache? This has been window dressing from the start in an attempt to justify the procurement of FLynx. Big deal - new structures and fuselage shape - it's still a Lynx with Lynx limitations which is now being over-engined in an attempt to make a silk purse from a sows ear. The airframe needs to be bigger - then add better engines and you might have a battlefield helicopter. Granted it won't then be a Lynx but it might be some use operationally.
The only reason the AAC heirarchy have backed FLynx is that without it, their sum total of helicopter presence is AH 64. Such a small but specialised capability does not need a whole Corps to sustain and support it and their very raison d'etre would vanish leaving them very vulnerable to cost-cutting takeovers.
WG13 - I think our posts passed each other in cyberspace
Crab, DH on the head of that nail...
Flynx (Wildcat) will be an excellent small ships flight helo, but the AAC version will be an expensive abberation. Why?
1. If the AAC need a "scout" helo it should be in the Squirrel/Fennec class, not the Flynx. Do they really need a "scout" anyway at the moment? Why have we spent nearly a £Bn on AH MTADS/MPNVS if we still need a dedicated "scout"? The role in Afg is already overtaken by a plethora of ISTAR UORs.
2. The AAC don't really need a "scout", what they want is a continuation of the corps structure to continue to feed enough non-AH 500 hr AAC majors into JHC. It also conveniently prevents the Colonel from having to get in a snatch landrover.....
3. As a small nation with limited RW budgets (as RW is not a core capability for any of the services) the Operational Analysis always tells you to buy the biggest lift platform you can. It is ultimately cheaper to use a big platform half empty sometimes than it is to establish and maintain a whole infrastructure for a new type (hmm, think Merlin Mk3 v Chinook...).
So in conclusion, what does Flynx (AAC) have going for it? Err, where it's built and that's about it..
However, despite all of the above, I'm actually glad the order has been confirmed. Why? Simple, this money would never have been recapitulated ( a la Commanche) into platforms we actually want (Chinook/Blackhawk/EC-725 etc) but would simply have been swallowed back into the treasury to pay for a tax break for some "well deserving" loafers at the next General Election.
So, better to have something than nothing. The bad feeling that I've got is that the Government are going to truly expect us to be grateful...
Flynx (Wildcat) will be an excellent small ships flight helo, but the AAC version will be an expensive abberation. Why?
1. If the AAC need a "scout" helo it should be in the Squirrel/Fennec class, not the Flynx. Do they really need a "scout" anyway at the moment? Why have we spent nearly a £Bn on AH MTADS/MPNVS if we still need a dedicated "scout"? The role in Afg is already overtaken by a plethora of ISTAR UORs.
2. The AAC don't really need a "scout", what they want is a continuation of the corps structure to continue to feed enough non-AH 500 hr AAC majors into JHC. It also conveniently prevents the Colonel from having to get in a snatch landrover.....
3. As a small nation with limited RW budgets (as RW is not a core capability for any of the services) the Operational Analysis always tells you to buy the biggest lift platform you can. It is ultimately cheaper to use a big platform half empty sometimes than it is to establish and maintain a whole infrastructure for a new type (hmm, think Merlin Mk3 v Chinook...).
So in conclusion, what does Flynx (AAC) have going for it? Err, where it's built and that's about it..
However, despite all of the above, I'm actually glad the order has been confirmed. Why? Simple, this money would never have been recapitulated ( a la Commanche) into platforms we actually want (Chinook/Blackhawk/EC-725 etc) but would simply have been swallowed back into the treasury to pay for a tax break for some "well deserving" loafers at the next General Election.
So, better to have something than nothing. The bad feeling that I've got is that the Government are going to truly expect us to be grateful...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. The AAC don't really need a "scout", what they want is a continuation of the corps structure to continue to feed enough non-AH 500 hr AAC majors into JHC. It also conveniently prevents the Colonel from having to get in a snatch landrover.....
Ouch.
Harsh but essentially fair....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the AAC to do?
WG. I am sure that you are right about the RN appreciation of FLynx; the spin has certainly gone our way.
It is also true that, in the almost stony silence from informed sources within town or the Air Wing of HQLF, the speculators and media have raged across various fora pronouncing that the MoD is FLu**ed. It is certainly difficult to find a Land based picture as sensor and weapon rich as the glossy above.
Evalu8ter. Thank you, I must agree and 'harsh' did make me smile. It no longer matters what you can/cannot stow in the back or under the seat, what the look down angle of the optical/laser turret might be or providing enough blades in the air to keep the AAC going. As of last Thursday, 34 of these airframes will be delivered to the Army. So what are they going to do with them?
The US don’t appear to have a solution. Lt Gen James Thurman, US Army Ops Director said
(as the DoD cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter in Oct 08).
A number of us are struggling to understand what these stated TORs might mean:
Master of None is certainly too harsh.
Eval is probably right in that recent press statements will have to be satisfied:
How is the AAC to respond? What weaponry do they seek and what will they call this Cat? Manx would suit many of the comments in Prune but I have to favour Toyger.
It is also true that, in the almost stony silence from informed sources within town or the Air Wing of HQLF, the speculators and media have raged across various fora pronouncing that the MoD is FLu**ed. It is certainly difficult to find a Land based picture as sensor and weapon rich as the glossy above.
Evalu8ter. Thank you, I must agree and 'harsh' did make me smile. It no longer matters what you can/cannot stow in the back or under the seat, what the look down angle of the optical/laser turret might be or providing enough blades in the air to keep the AAC going. As of last Thursday, 34 of these airframes will be delivered to the Army. So what are they going to do with them?
The US don’t appear to have a solution. Lt Gen James Thurman, US Army Ops Director said
the war-fighting capability for a manned, armed, reconnaissance helicopter is crucial to supporting our ground combat commanders and remains a critical requirement for the Army
A number of us are struggling to understand what these stated TORs might mean:
Future Lynx will be optimised for either the maritime or battlefield environments, with the versatility and flexibility to be able to be rapidly switched from one role to another. The aircraft will have a multi-role capability able to perform a range of tasks including battlefield reconnaissance, maritime surface attack and utility lift tasks.
Eval is probably right in that recent press statements will have to be satisfied:
Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters that act as scouts, perform light close air support and escort other helicopters on dangerous missions.
Experts said an influx of Future Lynx helicopters would reduce the number of soldiers killed by roadside bombs by providing an alternative to ground patrols.
Future Lynx can carry out third-party designation of targets, particularly for the Apache AH Mk1 helicopter, by using the L3 Wescam MX-15Di stabilised electro-optical laser designator turret.
Experts said an influx of Future Lynx helicopters would reduce the number of soldiers killed by roadside bombs by providing an alternative to ground patrols.
Future Lynx can carry out third-party designation of targets, particularly for the Apache AH Mk1 helicopter, by using the L3 Wescam MX-15Di stabilised electro-optical laser designator turret.
Last edited by Data-Lynx; 16th Dec 2008 at 19:33.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is the AAC to respond? What weaponry do they seek and what will they call this Cat? Manx would suit many of the comments in Prune but I have to favour Toyger.
I prefer the name 'Sidrat'.
Experts said an influx of Future Lynx helicopters would reduce the number of soldiers killed by roadside bombs by providing an alternative to ground patrols.
*Less the ones in the training system, RWTS, BDR, 847Sqn RN. How many BRH will actually be available to those troops? Ah, hang on. Its only an ISTAR platform.......
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth do you need another sensor and weapons platform on the battlefield for when you have the Apache?
The the US Army is mistaken in calling for a 4/1 ratio of OAH to AH helicopters.
(as the DoD cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter in Oct 08).
That's going to get un-cancelled. The Army can't decide which helicopters to get, or what the ratio of manned to unmanned Observation Attack platforms should be. The manned choice or choices is probably going to be something more like a Lynx than a Kiowa, meaning more than two seats. However, Armed Observation will remain a distinctly different role from squad-sized assault transport.
The the US Army is mistaken in calling for a 4/1 ratio of OAH to AH helicopters.
(as the DoD cancelled its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter in Oct 08).
That's going to get un-cancelled. The Army can't decide which helicopters to get, or what the ratio of manned to unmanned Observation Attack platforms should be. The manned choice or choices is probably going to be something more like a Lynx than a Kiowa, meaning more than two seats. However, Armed Observation will remain a distinctly different role from squad-sized assault transport.
Modern Elmo - I think you answered your own question - when we actually have a squad-sized assault transport so we can actually get some troops on the ground, maybe then we can afford the luxury of armed recce (but UAVs are so much cheaper).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirdly to GND: of course you are perfectly entitled to ignore manufacturers and RTS advice and put stuff under the seat, just don't coming crying back to the suppliers when it all goes wrong, things are done for a reason after all. I am sure that manufacturers don't do these things out of spite!!
I must say I have been unfair - I have no axe with the ground workers. The put wire B into loom A, as instructed. They have no idea that this is a) not the loom we need, b) likely to be totally incompatible with any new piece of kit we might want to add (thus requiring a new loom (C) at astronomical cost and weight penalty (have the TOW looms been removed???) or that if we decide to start the rotors, the vibration will probably null the effects of even putting the loom in anyway.
Do we have a castering nose wheel yet or is that still superfluous to our obvious requirement????
The rest of the argument is pretty good, it is the wrong aircraft that started out right - where did we 'the user' get it so wrong as it looks as if it (again) will be our fault that we don't get what we need.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks to all the above comments
this is getting interesting and I am glad it's not turning into another flame war
I am afraid I disagree with the comments regarding Nr control, surely when power on it is all down to engine governing. Assuming the aircraft isn't in autorotation then Nr variation can only be a function of either excess or inadequate fuel supply to the engines as thats what is making the blades go round (isnt it?).
A 'proper' control system should have sufficient response time and authority to prevent changes in the desired parameter (in this case rotor speed) now, accepting the fact that some manoeuvres off load (or load up) the disc the current engine governing sytem would seem (from comments here) to lack either or both authority and response time to do that well, hence the Nr variation mentioned. The increase in AUM means more pitch = more drag with an associated increase in the gain required to control the system, which if it does not have sufficient authority to do appears as more instability in rotor speed control. I would expect taht the FADEC in the T800 can only improve the situation and the current Nr variations experienced will be reduced (at a given weight).
Are there any Lynx drivers who have flown Legacy and T800 engined variants that can comment on any differences?
GND just editing this in light of your post (I was typing as you were).
Regarding the staff at AWH, knowing many of them I honestly believe that they have your best interest at heart regarding the products they produce, they are definitely not cold hearted money grabbers and support (as best they can) the UK forces. Unfortunately to err is human and there are inevitably been some problems (but then again that's true for any product). Of course you are working in a war zone but that deosn't change the fact that some rules now HAVE to be met, they are non negotiable regardless of the operational impact you percieve because of them.
I wrote the 'come crying' statement that's all that seems to happen on these pages, everyone blames the supplier who does only what he is paid/contracted to do (for reasons that should by now be painfully obvious), at least throw the 'blame' wider, to the IPTs, the evaluating authority who provided the MAR and the RTSA who all underwrite the suppliers deliverable product. Remember that all those people get to approve it before you see it.
DM
I am afraid I disagree with the comments regarding Nr control, surely when power on it is all down to engine governing. Assuming the aircraft isn't in autorotation then Nr variation can only be a function of either excess or inadequate fuel supply to the engines as thats what is making the blades go round (isnt it?).
A 'proper' control system should have sufficient response time and authority to prevent changes in the desired parameter (in this case rotor speed) now, accepting the fact that some manoeuvres off load (or load up) the disc the current engine governing sytem would seem (from comments here) to lack either or both authority and response time to do that well, hence the Nr variation mentioned. The increase in AUM means more pitch = more drag with an associated increase in the gain required to control the system, which if it does not have sufficient authority to do appears as more instability in rotor speed control. I would expect taht the FADEC in the T800 can only improve the situation and the current Nr variations experienced will be reduced (at a given weight).
Are there any Lynx drivers who have flown Legacy and T800 engined variants that can comment on any differences?
GND just editing this in light of your post (I was typing as you were).
Regarding the staff at AWH, knowing many of them I honestly believe that they have your best interest at heart regarding the products they produce, they are definitely not cold hearted money grabbers and support (as best they can) the UK forces. Unfortunately to err is human and there are inevitably been some problems (but then again that's true for any product). Of course you are working in a war zone but that deosn't change the fact that some rules now HAVE to be met, they are non negotiable regardless of the operational impact you percieve because of them.
I wrote the 'come crying' statement that's all that seems to happen on these pages, everyone blames the supplier who does only what he is paid/contracted to do (for reasons that should by now be painfully obvious), at least throw the 'blame' wider, to the IPTs, the evaluating authority who provided the MAR and the RTSA who all underwrite the suppliers deliverable product. Remember that all those people get to approve it before you see it.
DM
Last edited by dangermouse; 17th Dec 2008 at 13:01.