F/Lynx all systems go at AW
It seems that it's not entirely Westland's fault - FLynx probably IS the best choice for the small ships SCMR type role. This should hardly come as a great surprise - the T800 engined Super Lynx has been selected on merit in a number of competitions and clearly meets the requirement very well.
That the same aircraft is not necessarily best for the AAC is perhaps even less of a surprise. The AAC has aspirations for a platform that can do more than the very light utility role that it did with the Scout and original Lynx.
Hilife's kneejerk anti-Westland prejudice ignores the fact that the manufacturer's product line does includes a suitable aircraft - the AW149 (which is the militarised version of the 'best-in-class' AW139, so all of this negativity about AW is clearly misplaced!
)
The problem is surely with the knuckleheads who decided that SCMR/BLUH could be met by a single common platform.
With the exception of the heavy end (where the Chinook has no real competition) there'd be little wrong with an AW equipped SH force - AW149 for the AAC, and lots of folding marinised Merlins for the Commando Squadrons.
That the same aircraft is not necessarily best for the AAC is perhaps even less of a surprise. The AAC has aspirations for a platform that can do more than the very light utility role that it did with the Scout and original Lynx.
Hilife's kneejerk anti-Westland prejudice ignores the fact that the manufacturer's product line does includes a suitable aircraft - the AW149 (which is the militarised version of the 'best-in-class' AW139, so all of this negativity about AW is clearly misplaced!
)The problem is surely with the knuckleheads who decided that SCMR/BLUH could be met by a single common platform.
With the exception of the heavy end (where the Chinook has no real competition) there'd be little wrong with an AW equipped SH force - AW149 for the AAC, and lots of folding marinised Merlins for the Commando Squadrons.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
There was a political assumption/requirement that it had to be Westland - and I suspect that meant Lynx
I/C
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much so Ian. It may well prove that in their insistence they may have poo-poo'd the opportunity to flog the 139/149 to the UK. I think they may have realised that no other mug would have bought FLynx in a non naval role. To be honest, even in the naval role it won't be terribly attractive in the future. Why would a navy spend more on FLynx when Super Lynx can do the job for less? I really cant see an export market for FLynx and certainly not for BRH. The order books are pretty buoyant for export Super Lynx at present and for the foreseeable future so who else would buy FLynx? Ah, thats right - AWs R&D asset - The UK MoD. Nice shot in the foot UK procurement, nice shot in the foot. 
It's truly bizarre that we would have been forced to pay a company (Finmeccanica) for not buying something. The wops must be laughing all the way to the bank.
It's truly bizarre that we would have been forced to pay a company (Finmeccanica) for not buying something. The wops must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Hilife's kneejerk anti-Westland prejudice ignores the fact that the manufacturer's product line does includes a suitable aircraft - the AW149 (which is the militarised version of the 'best-in-class' AW139, so all of this negativity about AW is clearly misplaced!
Sorry Jack, but a couple of home truths for the blinkered.
AW139 - ‘Best in class’?
• In hindsight, do you think CHC would have selected the AW139 for interim SAR?
• Ask the Irish Air Corp why they restrict max speed to 115 – 120 Kts?
• Ask yourself why some large operators don’t want to take delivery of the remainder of their orders and options due to low dispatch reliability.
• Inquire as to just how many cockpit windows have popped out in flight.
• Serious tailboom cracking..... let’s not go there.
The brochure states 15 pax! Body bags maybe, but not breathing and upright as 10 to 12 civil is a much more realistic figure and therefore even fewer fully equipped mil pax.
As for the AW149, this is an unproven paper helicopter, so please explain to me and any other disbelievers why this makes it the ideal candidate for the AAC?
The AW139 has bags of power (although the PT6A/C-67 series GG is heavy and thirsty and utilises old technology) and has the potential to be an excellent civil helicopter, but with no proven front-line experience behind her, I cannot see how you consider this or its big brother as a ‘Best in Class’ solution for the AAC.
I’ve no doubt you’ve already read the ‘Danish report on EH-101 procurement and introduction’ thread on the Mil forum. In spite of the errors the Danes openly admit existed in their procurement process, there is a common theme and not even hidden in between the lines.
Put the brochure down and take a good look at the world around you.
Sorry Jack, but a couple of home truths for the blinkered.
AW139 - ‘Best in class’?
• In hindsight, do you think CHC would have selected the AW139 for interim SAR?
• Ask the Irish Air Corp why they restrict max speed to 115 – 120 Kts?
• Ask yourself why some large operators don’t want to take delivery of the remainder of their orders and options due to low dispatch reliability.
• Inquire as to just how many cockpit windows have popped out in flight.
• Serious tailboom cracking..... let’s not go there.
The brochure states 15 pax! Body bags maybe, but not breathing and upright as 10 to 12 civil is a much more realistic figure and therefore even fewer fully equipped mil pax.
As for the AW149, this is an unproven paper helicopter, so please explain to me and any other disbelievers why this makes it the ideal candidate for the AAC?
The AW139 has bags of power (although the PT6A/C-67 series GG is heavy and thirsty and utilises old technology) and has the potential to be an excellent civil helicopter, but with no proven front-line experience behind her, I cannot see how you consider this or its big brother as a ‘Best in Class’ solution for the AAC.
I’ve no doubt you’ve already read the ‘Danish report on EH-101 procurement and introduction’ thread on the Mil forum. In spite of the errors the Danes openly admit existed in their procurement process, there is a common theme and not even hidden in between the lines.
Put the brochure down and take a good look at the world around you.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Westland has quite a good record for licence building designs and improving on the original.
Such a shame they didn't go down this route rather than flog a dead horse.
Such a shame they didn't go down this route rather than flog a dead horse.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F Lynx
Having a few hours now on the S Lynx with the T800 and glass cockpit I can add that the engines are Very Capable. 1000 deg + on a single engine, cockpit that is designed to reduce pilot workload and a MAUM in excess of 5300kg.
The Mk 9 refit is a UOR needed to fulfill required tasks. and I would suspect that once fitted to the first airframes then the operators will be asking for the rest of the fleet to be fitted.
F Lynx build will be lower base weight, higher AUM and improved performance all around. Nr will always be an issue with the CMRB but tell me an Aircraft that has not got its quirks???
The F Lynx will operate very well from small decks and I am sure that the Army will adapt them to the task required.
My only concern would be availability of spares and support for the fleet. AWL have yet to get that bit right but they are aware of the shortfalls, it will be interesting to see if they rise to the occasion.
NH90.....My experience is that they don't start when they should do and once again they come with the company demanding that too many concessions are accepted on delivery.
Just my thoughts you understand ;-)
The Mk 9 refit is a UOR needed to fulfill required tasks. and I would suspect that once fitted to the first airframes then the operators will be asking for the rest of the fleet to be fitted.
F Lynx build will be lower base weight, higher AUM and improved performance all around. Nr will always be an issue with the CMRB but tell me an Aircraft that has not got its quirks???
The F Lynx will operate very well from small decks and I am sure that the Army will adapt them to the task required.
My only concern would be availability of spares and support for the fleet. AWL have yet to get that bit right but they are aware of the shortfalls, it will be interesting to see if they rise to the occasion.
NH90.....My experience is that they don't start when they should do and once again they come with the company demanding that too many concessions are accepted on delivery.
Just my thoughts you understand ;-)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such a shame they didn't go down this route rather than flog a dead horse.
Eurocopter? I think not. They don' seem to be friends at the moment.
Boeing? They don't have anything that fits the bill.
McDonnell-Douglas? As above.
Bell? I don't think Agusta would be too keen on building the competitors aircraft.
Sikorsky? As above.
Mil? Interesting.
HAL? Only if you like flock wallpaper inside your aircraft. And the Dhruv makes FLynx look like an X Wing fighter.
Sort of narrows the market place down a bit doesn't it?
I think the days of kit built licensed aircraft are a thing of the pre Agusta past. It was a matter of necessity to glue other aircraft together prior to the life line chucked by Finmeccanica/Agusta. There aint a lot of 'love' between helicopter manufacturers nowadays. Westland in the GKN days used to be a reasonably 'neutral' asset for manufacturers to reach into the UK.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gremlin,
I agree the engines are very good and the cockpit environment is none too shabby either. In fact, its rather good. More so for the FLynx. I have to take a bit of an issue with you on a few points though;
From what I understand, the base weight will be lower but that will be without 'role kit'. For example, the IRCM exhausts and particle separators. As you know with the Omani Super Lynx, the intake package is integral to the engine unit so its not really 'role kit'. As with the IRCMs. The base weight doesn't take into account the kit that will pretty much be permanently bolted to it such as the EO etc. The real base weight will in fact be higher than current and does actually give an ever so slightly higher margin than we currently have. But, as has been said already, volume is the issue not mass lift ability due to a cabin thats smaller than an SO3s desk space.
Quirks are fine but when the quirks outweigh the benefits, it may be time to ask some questions.
Completely agree as it will at least give us a much needed capability that we currently can only dream of. However, it still doesn't remove the fact that the Lynx isn't a useful platform for today or the future in an army role.
Nail on the head there. Fine for the Navy but the AAC will just have to make do with a limited platform because someone couldn't be bothered to demand a proper role for it. Or realistically; make the aircraft fit current/future doctrine and roles. Ie; the core roles of the AAC. Instead they just rewrote it to fit what we were given. Not cricket and will imho, spell the end for the AAC.
I agree the engines are very good and the cockpit environment is none too shabby either. In fact, its rather good. More so for the FLynx. I have to take a bit of an issue with you on a few points though;
F Lynx build will be lower base weight, higher AUM and improved performance all around.
Nr will always be an issue with the CMRB but tell me an Aircraft that has not got its quirks???
The Mk 9 refit is a UOR needed to fulfill required tasks. and I would suspect that once fitted to the first airframes then the operators will be asking for the rest of the fleet to be fitted.
The F Lynx will operate very well from small decks and I am sure that the Army will adapt them to the task required.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
What won't an Army Flynx do that a current Lynx can?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What won't an Army Flynx do that a current Lynx can?
Granted, current Lynx with wheezy Gem engines can't if the temp is above freezing but you get the idea.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at the FLynx launch in 2006 when Guiseppe Orsi said all Military AW helicopters would be built at Westland including the AW149! so how come all those lovely AW109s are being flogged to the likes of the Belgian Air Force and Suis Afrikaans from Northenr Italia or are they civvie cabs? how come no shiny/matt AW149s have not rolled out of AW's Yeovil site yet!?
I am prophesising here; the AW149 will not be bought by the MoD because:
a) even with the backing(!) of AW it STILL hasn't even reached the drawing board yet and doesn't have a launch customer! even the Algerians bought SuperLynx!
b) the MoD will not buy another Rotary Wing Battlefield Helicopter post Workstrand 13/options/PR08/PR09/etc in fact there are too many types already AH, Lynx, Merlin 3, Puma, SK4 and Chinook. Yes retire SK and Puma but there ain't a replacement around yet!.
So AW149 out of contention, Now the MoD will not be allowed to buy ANY thing built by any one other than AW BTW the Blackhawk is a very maintenance hungry SH so you Army chaps pipe down in the cheap seats we heard you whingeing about no Blackhawk and looked at it honest its ****e, the only way the septics keep it goingis that the US Army Air Corps is bigger than the RAF with pots and pots more money! The unit price cost is only achievable if you buy them in the hundreds & hundreds and also we won't get an Israeli discount. So, if you think AW are bad hello Mr Sikorsky! Its this or a Koala!
Now the the might King can hack the Medium lifty bit with the Beautiful Carson fit now paint the grey Mk 6s green and give em the right mods and they are good to go. However the Air Force SH types will not give up Pumas which now cost three times the cost to extend a similar fleet size (well they were similar till the PUs started to be trashed!) £300M compared to £100M. Puma LEP BARGAIN!. So we await FMH eh? Aint gonna happen till 2017/18 oh f**k so what can we do in the mean time? Answers on a postcard to the Right honourable Buff Hoon, Larry Grayson, present incumbent Labour sycophant Quentin Davies!
The FLynx is a compromise but we could have bought 120 A/C back in 2002 for the billion quid discussed now with data fusion and all sorts of whistles and bells. However our lords and masters, and I lay ALL this at the foot of the DEC caught a cold and mucked about with the budget till eventually we are now buying half the original A/C but a hell of a lot less capable. Oh thank you DEC ALM and maybe in future when you rock up to the party bring a requirement rather than say oih yes just what the Navy want but don't put a radar on it. Yea that happened I was there.
So stop stabbing your steely knives at AW or the IPT chaps/chapesses they only buy what he DEC says get.
SO get on to him that Customer 1 in his high up Ivory tower the ****!
I am prophesising here; the AW149 will not be bought by the MoD because:
a) even with the backing(!) of AW it STILL hasn't even reached the drawing board yet and doesn't have a launch customer! even the Algerians bought SuperLynx!
b) the MoD will not buy another Rotary Wing Battlefield Helicopter post Workstrand 13/options/PR08/PR09/etc in fact there are too many types already AH, Lynx, Merlin 3, Puma, SK4 and Chinook. Yes retire SK and Puma but there ain't a replacement around yet!.
So AW149 out of contention, Now the MoD will not be allowed to buy ANY thing built by any one other than AW BTW the Blackhawk is a very maintenance hungry SH so you Army chaps pipe down in the cheap seats we heard you whingeing about no Blackhawk and looked at it honest its ****e, the only way the septics keep it goingis that the US Army Air Corps is bigger than the RAF with pots and pots more money! The unit price cost is only achievable if you buy them in the hundreds & hundreds and also we won't get an Israeli discount. So, if you think AW are bad hello Mr Sikorsky! Its this or a Koala!
Now the the might King can hack the Medium lifty bit with the Beautiful Carson fit now paint the grey Mk 6s green and give em the right mods and they are good to go. However the Air Force SH types will not give up Pumas which now cost three times the cost to extend a similar fleet size (well they were similar till the PUs started to be trashed!) £300M compared to £100M. Puma LEP BARGAIN!. So we await FMH eh? Aint gonna happen till 2017/18 oh f**k so what can we do in the mean time? Answers on a postcard to the Right honourable Buff Hoon, Larry Grayson, present incumbent Labour sycophant Quentin Davies!
The FLynx is a compromise but we could have bought 120 A/C back in 2002 for the billion quid discussed now with data fusion and all sorts of whistles and bells. However our lords and masters, and I lay ALL this at the foot of the DEC caught a cold and mucked about with the budget till eventually we are now buying half the original A/C but a hell of a lot less capable. Oh thank you DEC ALM and maybe in future when you rock up to the party bring a requirement rather than say oih yes just what the Navy want but don't put a radar on it. Yea that happened I was there.
So stop stabbing your steely knives at AW or the IPT chaps/chapesses they only buy what he DEC says get.
SO get on to him that Customer 1 in his high up Ivory tower the ****!
Funky - our procurement system is awful, mainly because the staff officers involved seem to have little or no relevant operational experience and are often unlikely to disagree with those further up the chain (you don't go to MoD cos it's fun, you do it to get promoted).
The Danish report shows that their procurement system is equally flawed - they believed AW when they assured them that 80% availability was the norm and didn't question that the same AW were unwilling to put that claim on paper.
AW walked all over the Danes in terms of contract negotiation (they are really good at this bit of business) and now the Danes have an aircraft that might be able to do the job but just isn't serviceable long enough.
If the defenders of AW think this shabby, deceitful way of doing business is worth preserving just to save a few West Country jobs then I've got a car you might like to buy
Jacko - the AAC got away with using Scout and Lynx because the lack of lift capability was masked by the anti-tank capability (however thin the veneer on that one). Now the Apache has that bit of the battlefield sewn up, the shortcomings of the Lynx are brought into sharp focus.
Unless you make the Lynx bigger to increase it's cabin capacity (and I mean doubling it not squeezing one extra bloke in), it will NEVER be any use on the battlefield.
We have been crying out for more medium and heavy lift helicopters for years and even the NAO recognised the problems. What have MoD done about it? Continued throwing money at the West Country Pirates to produce a helicopter optimised for all those decisive naval battles we are engaged in
The Danish report shows that their procurement system is equally flawed - they believed AW when they assured them that 80% availability was the norm and didn't question that the same AW were unwilling to put that claim on paper.
AW walked all over the Danes in terms of contract negotiation (they are really good at this bit of business) and now the Danes have an aircraft that might be able to do the job but just isn't serviceable long enough.
If the defenders of AW think this shabby, deceitful way of doing business is worth preserving just to save a few West Country jobs then I've got a car you might like to buy
Jacko - the AAC got away with using Scout and Lynx because the lack of lift capability was masked by the anti-tank capability (however thin the veneer on that one). Now the Apache has that bit of the battlefield sewn up, the shortcomings of the Lynx are brought into sharp focus.
Unless you make the Lynx bigger to increase it's cabin capacity (and I mean doubling it not squeezing one extra bloke in), it will NEVER be any use on the battlefield.
We have been crying out for more medium and heavy lift helicopters for years and even the NAO recognised the problems. What have MoD done about it? Continued throwing money at the West Country Pirates to produce a helicopter optimised for all those decisive naval battles we are engaged in
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
munky
"paint the grey Mk 6s green and give em the right mods and they are good to go"
Those airframes are probably the hardest used airframes in terms of fatigue in the fleet. Hovered at 21.4 for just about every hour of their lives. They also have no decent personell load when converted to 6C. If they are the answer, then the question is wrong.
"Blackhawk is a very maintenance hungry"
I am not an engineer, but I did fly SeaHawk, and it didn't seem that way to me......
"paint the grey Mk 6s green and give em the right mods and they are good to go"
Those airframes are probably the hardest used airframes in terms of fatigue in the fleet. Hovered at 21.4 for just about every hour of their lives. They also have no decent personell load when converted to 6C. If they are the answer, then the question is wrong.
"Blackhawk is a very maintenance hungry"
I am not an engineer, but I did fly SeaHawk, and it didn't seem that way to me......
Crab, I would also add that the majority of our staff officers in procurement use the revolving door of 2 OJARs to get in and out as quickly as possible. It permits the rapid ascent of the greasy pole and ensures sufficient distance from any subsequent fall-out. In my experience the DECs have got some very capable people, they just don't stay there long enough as it is harmful to their careers.
Anyone that thinks the DEC has real power is delusional; they have to answer to the CMs who in turn answer to higher ups. The DECs are given insufficient funds to match the unrealistic requirements (military and political) that are imposed upon them. They have to massage funding lines in order to support other types, even more so as arbitary budget cuts are imposed from above. What would you have sacrificed to buy 120 Flynx? Chinook? Apache? They make some difficult calls, consequently, they are always the fall guys.
Interestingly, my friends at AW cringe every time the Danes are mentioned. Something about actually wanting stuff to work as per the contract-bit of a novelty for them!
Funky Monkey,
You are quite correct, the MoD needs to streamline the number of types, not increase them. Interesting comment re Puma LEP. However, the LEP is rather more intrusive than some spiffy blades and a lick of paint, hence it costs more. The rationale is that Puma 2 will have to last to 2022 (at least) whereas the Carson SK4 will be OSD in 2017 (yeah, sure...) therefore it has to have a number of obsolescence upgrades in addition to new cockpit, engines etc etc. I can't disagree with your statement that the crabs don't want to give up the plastic pig, nor, more importantly, the command positions that go with them...
I've got a bad feeling that FMH will go the same way as SABR and that both types will soldier on well into the 2020s.
Anyone that thinks the DEC has real power is delusional; they have to answer to the CMs who in turn answer to higher ups. The DECs are given insufficient funds to match the unrealistic requirements (military and political) that are imposed upon them. They have to massage funding lines in order to support other types, even more so as arbitary budget cuts are imposed from above. What would you have sacrificed to buy 120 Flynx? Chinook? Apache? They make some difficult calls, consequently, they are always the fall guys.
Interestingly, my friends at AW cringe every time the Danes are mentioned. Something about actually wanting stuff to work as per the contract-bit of a novelty for them!
Funky Monkey,
You are quite correct, the MoD needs to streamline the number of types, not increase them. Interesting comment re Puma LEP. However, the LEP is rather more intrusive than some spiffy blades and a lick of paint, hence it costs more. The rationale is that Puma 2 will have to last to 2022 (at least) whereas the Carson SK4 will be OSD in 2017 (yeah, sure...) therefore it has to have a number of obsolescence upgrades in addition to new cockpit, engines etc etc. I can't disagree with your statement that the crabs don't want to give up the plastic pig, nor, more importantly, the command positions that go with them...
I've got a bad feeling that FMH will go the same way as SABR and that both types will soldier on well into the 2020s.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLynx
I've been involved with a couple of support contracts in the past based on "hole in the wall" and "avaliability" requirements. In theory it is beautiful, with a single availability requirement you throw the entire risk over the fence to industry and have a fixed price for support as far as the eye can see.
What happens in practice is the contract is is signed before the aircraft is fielded. Meanwhile a new defence initiative is announced, oh the number of operating bases has changed, kerrching - contract amendment. Oh you want to fight a war, that was not in your SOIU, you are supposed to be doing 25% training flights in nice flat level circuits only operating some of the kit. You want to operate all the fleet in baking hot temperatures, fly them 15 hours a day with max loads, fitted with a stack of UORs that industry does not recognise; kerching - contract amendment. What do you mean you want to sustain the surge requirement for 5 years, kerching - contract amendment. Now the support budget is not big enough because it has been trimmed to fit the availability requirement.
The beautiful theory is beloved by accountants and only works in theory because no-one has a crystal ball good enough to cover a 10 year contract.
regards
retard
What happens in practice is the contract is is signed before the aircraft is fielded. Meanwhile a new defence initiative is announced, oh the number of operating bases has changed, kerrching - contract amendment. Oh you want to fight a war, that was not in your SOIU, you are supposed to be doing 25% training flights in nice flat level circuits only operating some of the kit. You want to operate all the fleet in baking hot temperatures, fly them 15 hours a day with max loads, fitted with a stack of UORs that industry does not recognise; kerching - contract amendment. What do you mean you want to sustain the surge requirement for 5 years, kerching - contract amendment. Now the support budget is not big enough because it has been trimmed to fit the availability requirement.
The beautiful theory is beloved by accountants and only works in theory because no-one has a crystal ball good enough to cover a 10 year contract.
regards
retard
"Unless you make the Lynx bigger to increase it's cabin capacity (and I mean doubling it not squeezing one extra bloke in), it will NEVER be any use on the battlefield."
Double the capacity of a Lynx would be a Puma, surely - and that kind of medium SH has never been an AAC role.
Isn't the whole point of Lynx that it's there to mop up the smaller jobs - a Milan team, a dog team, transporting a force commander, or a single small group of soldiers?
The vanilla Lynx marked a massive improvement in capacity over the Scout, can it be that the AAC are aiming for another similar shift, muscling in on what has always been an RAF/RN role?
Double the capacity of a Lynx would be a Puma, surely - and that kind of medium SH has never been an AAC role.
Isn't the whole point of Lynx that it's there to mop up the smaller jobs - a Milan team, a dog team, transporting a force commander, or a single small group of soldiers?
The vanilla Lynx marked a massive improvement in capacity over the Scout, can it be that the AAC are aiming for another similar shift, muscling in on what has always been an RAF/RN role?
Surely if it has capacity to deliver a pizza and a box of Celebrations then jobs a good 'un?
I reckon even FLynx will be able to manage that eventually.
Happy Hogmanay all.
I reckon even FLynx will be able to manage that eventually.
Happy Hogmanay all.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack, the AAC don't want to creep into SH roles (we'll just sit tight and wait until the crabs hand them over later on ). All we are asking for FLynx to do is carry a handful of chaps and be 'utility'. Ie; with current Lynx (notwithstanding the high temperature limits) we can carry 6 blokes plus a Door Gunner. To do that with FLynx, you would need to strap two of them to the outside. Can you see that current roles and useage of Lynx cannot be fulfilled by FLynx hence its primary role now being 'ISTAR'. Procurement is about ensuring the package you buy now fulfils future roles and requirements. Its great giving the aircraft engines that actully work in hot/high temps and allowing a dedicated aircraft to carry out ISTAR but these are pretty short sighted and really only fix a gap that we currently have in theatre. God forbid if we ever pull out of Afghanistan, we might need an aircraft that has a bit of flexibility.
Happy New Year.
). All we are asking for FLynx to do is carry a handful of chaps and be 'utility'. Ie; with current Lynx (notwithstanding the high temperature limits) we can carry 6 blokes plus a Door Gunner. To do that with FLynx, you would need to strap two of them to the outside. Can you see that current roles and useage of Lynx cannot be fulfilled by FLynx hence its primary role now being 'ISTAR'. Procurement is about ensuring the package you buy now fulfils future roles and requirements. Its great giving the aircraft engines that actully work in hot/high temps and allowing a dedicated aircraft to carry out ISTAR but these are pretty short sighted and really only fix a gap that we currently have in theatre. God forbid if we ever pull out of Afghanistan, we might need an aircraft that has a bit of flexibility.Happy New Year.