F/Lynx all systems go at AW
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab@SAAvn
My reference to moving REME to support u/s aircraft was one of the many internal Regimental tasks that were once absorbed by the integral Lynx fleet.
In isolation moving REME may be a lame requirement when fulfilling the 'limited movement of men and material' role, but when this potentially lame task is added to limited movement of Regimental and Brigade planning teams, and Regimental re-bro teams and the other internal limited lift tasks then I can buy into the limited lift concept.
The main reason why I buy into this limited movement of men and material role/task is that FLynx/BRH/Wild Cat is a recce/ISTAR capability and therefore anything lift orientated should be a by product secondary role when it isn't employed with Finding stuff for the AH to Strike/Attack. And any lift capacity that we do have should (and will) be taken up with lifting our own organic requirements.
And although Brandnew you appear to claim to be informed I sense that you are defending your lords and masters stand point and may possibly be protecting your corner?
Each one of your points could easily be provided with a counter argument/point. You actually answer your own question and I agree with you, FLynx does have a place on the battlefield:
You cannot judge an airframe solely by the amount of disposable weight - the capability for LUH is well established - the US Army have realised this and invested in ARH.
And that is the key (as the US Army found out), but look at your words - they have procured an ARH and not an LUH. As per the 101st, the US LUH/small lift is conducted by their integral Blackhawks - but their Blackhawks do not do Recce/ISTAR, hence the US identified and articulated requirement for an ARH. This is where I feel as though you may be over enthusiastic with the AAC FLynx Lift/Utility discussion and miss a key point:
FLynx was procured as a Battlefield Recce Helicopter (BRH)
The clue is in the title - it's job is supposed to be recce and ISTAR. Why are we as a Corps even trying to pretend that we will satisfy some of the NAO reports SH lift shortfalls, why are we trying to be the jack of all trades? Where is the doctrinal requirement and Main Building request for us to focus our roles and tasks on lifting men and material around the battlefield, when our true job, our real role is recce and attacking.
The moment we start saying that we are good little mini SH's then we lose our identity and our true role and it would be an easy natural step to wear the same uniform and cap badge as the other SH aircrews.
Brandnew, forgive me for saying this but I believe that you are trying to make our FLynx/BRH fit todays and recent conflicts (i.e. Peace Enforcement/Support) without looking at potential (and highly possible) future conflicts and crisis. You may be trying to do this to resolve the NAO report on the dearth of SH lift, you may be doing this in an attempt to win the current media battle that is constantly crying out for more lift helicopters in Afghanistan (and therefore make the figures balance by including Lynx as a lift capability). You might just be the unlucky AAC staff officer in JHC that has been told to drive this whole capability enhancement through ensuring maximum airframes and bums on seats for AAC personnel.
Whatever your motivation or rationale I believe that a pause is required just to ensure that before we dive head long into establishments, re-organisation, re-locations etc etc that we use this excellent opportunity to see where we as a Corps are (and we should be very proud of what we are delivering) but also accept where we are going.
We have an opportunity to really add value to Defence and make a true AH/BRH capability that will bring much across the entire spectrum of conflict. Trying to claim that we are a lift asset waters down our true raison d'etre.
Our business is tactical hunting, finding, tracking, killing, striking and attacking - that is what I believe we offer Defence. Lifting, dropping, picking up, moving, shifting, inserting is a limited task that we can do when we have spare capacity and resources from our main job, but lets be in no doubt that it is the specialised field of the SH community.
With 34 airframes (and how many actual fielded Squadrons) we are kidding ourselves if we try and build a pure Wild Cat Regiment that believes that it's main task is limited movement of men and material. Because that is exactly what will happen and especially if we are dislocated from AH, then all we will become is the mini SH's to plug and mitigate the lack of investment of UK PLc/MoD in SH lift.
Ask any Lynx crews when they last did a true recce task with AH or cueing other Strike/Offensive assets and I would be very surprised to hear of any recency, currency and competency as all that Lynx is doing to the best of its technical ability is help plug the SH shortfall.
My reference to moving REME to support u/s aircraft was one of the many internal Regimental tasks that were once absorbed by the integral Lynx fleet.
In isolation moving REME may be a lame requirement when fulfilling the 'limited movement of men and material' role, but when this potentially lame task is added to limited movement of Regimental and Brigade planning teams, and Regimental re-bro teams and the other internal limited lift tasks then I can buy into the limited lift concept.
The main reason why I buy into this limited movement of men and material role/task is that FLynx/BRH/Wild Cat is a recce/ISTAR capability and therefore anything lift orientated should be a by product secondary role when it isn't employed with Finding stuff for the AH to Strike/Attack. And any lift capacity that we do have should (and will) be taken up with lifting our own organic requirements.
And although Brandnew you appear to claim to be informed I sense that you are defending your lords and masters stand point and may possibly be protecting your corner?
Each one of your points could easily be provided with a counter argument/point. You actually answer your own question and I agree with you, FLynx does have a place on the battlefield:
You cannot judge an airframe solely by the amount of disposable weight - the capability for LUH is well established - the US Army have realised this and invested in ARH.
And that is the key (as the US Army found out), but look at your words - they have procured an ARH and not an LUH. As per the 101st, the US LUH/small lift is conducted by their integral Blackhawks - but their Blackhawks do not do Recce/ISTAR, hence the US identified and articulated requirement for an ARH. This is where I feel as though you may be over enthusiastic with the AAC FLynx Lift/Utility discussion and miss a key point:
FLynx was procured as a Battlefield Recce Helicopter (BRH)
The clue is in the title - it's job is supposed to be recce and ISTAR. Why are we as a Corps even trying to pretend that we will satisfy some of the NAO reports SH lift shortfalls, why are we trying to be the jack of all trades? Where is the doctrinal requirement and Main Building request for us to focus our roles and tasks on lifting men and material around the battlefield, when our true job, our real role is recce and attacking.
The moment we start saying that we are good little mini SH's then we lose our identity and our true role and it would be an easy natural step to wear the same uniform and cap badge as the other SH aircrews.
Brandnew, forgive me for saying this but I believe that you are trying to make our FLynx/BRH fit todays and recent conflicts (i.e. Peace Enforcement/Support) without looking at potential (and highly possible) future conflicts and crisis. You may be trying to do this to resolve the NAO report on the dearth of SH lift, you may be doing this in an attempt to win the current media battle that is constantly crying out for more lift helicopters in Afghanistan (and therefore make the figures balance by including Lynx as a lift capability). You might just be the unlucky AAC staff officer in JHC that has been told to drive this whole capability enhancement through ensuring maximum airframes and bums on seats for AAC personnel.
Whatever your motivation or rationale I believe that a pause is required just to ensure that before we dive head long into establishments, re-organisation, re-locations etc etc that we use this excellent opportunity to see where we as a Corps are (and we should be very proud of what we are delivering) but also accept where we are going.
We have an opportunity to really add value to Defence and make a true AH/BRH capability that will bring much across the entire spectrum of conflict. Trying to claim that we are a lift asset waters down our true raison d'etre.
Our business is tactical hunting, finding, tracking, killing, striking and attacking - that is what I believe we offer Defence. Lifting, dropping, picking up, moving, shifting, inserting is a limited task that we can do when we have spare capacity and resources from our main job, but lets be in no doubt that it is the specialised field of the SH community.
With 34 airframes (and how many actual fielded Squadrons) we are kidding ourselves if we try and build a pure Wild Cat Regiment that believes that it's main task is limited movement of men and material. Because that is exactly what will happen and especially if we are dislocated from AH, then all we will become is the mini SH's to plug and mitigate the lack of investment of UK PLc/MoD in SH lift.
Ask any Lynx crews when they last did a true recce task with AH or cueing other Strike/Offensive assets and I would be very surprised to hear of any recency, currency and competency as all that Lynx is doing to the best of its technical ability is help plug the SH shortfall.
Last edited by Front Seater; 4th Jan 2009 at 14:07.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAC has become a well established teeth-arm, with battle winning potential in the Apache. That is its most sexy and visible role, especially in the current limited wars we are fighting.
As a former formation general staff officer and ex-AAC pilot I hope the Corps does not lose sight of its equally important battlefield role in providing organic command and control support to commanders and staff. Without the ability to move quickly around the battlefield, a commander's ability to get and stay within the enemy's decision-making cycle would be severely degraded and he would be forced onto the defensive, reacting instead of proacting. That is not how battles are won.
As a former formation general staff officer and ex-AAC pilot I hope the Corps does not lose sight of its equally important battlefield role in providing organic command and control support to commanders and staff. Without the ability to move quickly around the battlefield, a commander's ability to get and stay within the enemy's decision-making cycle would be severely degraded and he would be forced onto the defensive, reacting instead of proacting. That is not how battles are won.
Last edited by Clockwork Mouse; 4th Jan 2009 at 12:41.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The AAC has become a well established teeth-arm, with battle winning potential in the Apache. That is its most sexy and visible role, especially in the current limited wars we are fighting.
Along comes Apache as a critical Divisional level DF weapon system, and suddenly everything that happened before 1999 is forgotten. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FLynx, organic Aviation support to ground Commanders will remain an essential task. This seems to have been overlooked in the rush to do everything Apache-like while marching to the JHC tune.
Just because it's called ash and trash, it doesn't mean it is not a critical task that deserves to be supported by the right equipment.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Must rush out and buy this then,
LYNX MK7 MULTI-ROLE HELICOPTER Flight Simulator on eBay, also, Aircraft Accessories, Aircraft Aviation, Cars, Parts Vehicles (end time 22-Jan-09 09:06:01 GMT)
anyone lend me a cool 750,000 and do the British Army do
"Sympathetically dismantled after its decommisioning in March 2008".
LYNX MK7 MULTI-ROLE HELICOPTER Flight Simulator on eBay, also, Aircraft Accessories, Aircraft Aviation, Cars, Parts Vehicles (end time 22-Jan-09 09:06:01 GMT)
anyone lend me a cool 750,000 and do the British Army do
"Sympathetically dismantled after its decommisioning in March 2008".
If you want to fly commanders/REME/REMFs around the battlefield you do not need FLynx to do it, you need something small and simple like....a Gazelle but you are getting rid of those.
If you want to find and fix the enemy you need simply to chose from the plethora of ISTAR platforms available, most of which are more capable and far cheaper than FLynx.
Don't pretend the FLynx will go scouting for targets for the AH64 - the Apache can do that so much better and has the weapons to kill anything it finds.
Most of the justification for FLynx here seems to be based on how the Gazelle used to support TOW Lynx during the last century - a model that was never tested in conflict and is hopelessly out of date given modern sensor technology.
Brandnew - the Lynx has been failing to deliver in hot climates for many years and has only been used because there has been nothing else, not because it is the weapon of choice. BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system so whilst they have used your airframes, they have done so very well.
And justifying Lynx because you can fire a .50 from it and abseil from it....hahahahaha
As to corporate memory pre 1999 - which Corps had to hurriedly retro-fit RWR and Mode 4 IFF so they could play with the big boys? That was the AAC keeping up with the requirements for the modern battlefield - not!
If you want to find and fix the enemy you need simply to chose from the plethora of ISTAR platforms available, most of which are more capable and far cheaper than FLynx.
Don't pretend the FLynx will go scouting for targets for the AH64 - the Apache can do that so much better and has the weapons to kill anything it finds.
Most of the justification for FLynx here seems to be based on how the Gazelle used to support TOW Lynx during the last century - a model that was never tested in conflict and is hopelessly out of date given modern sensor technology.
Brandnew - the Lynx has been failing to deliver in hot climates for many years and has only been used because there has been nothing else, not because it is the weapon of choice. BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system so whilst they have used your airframes, they have done so very well.
And justifying Lynx because you can fire a .50 from it and abseil from it....hahahahaha
As to corporate memory pre 1999 - which Corps had to hurriedly retro-fit RWR and Mode 4 IFF so they could play with the big boys? That was the AAC keeping up with the requirements for the modern battlefield - not!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand healthy debate but we have what we have, and we will get what we get, and it is up to those of us that operate to operate with the best of efficiency and professionalism whenever asked to do so.
Most of the justification for FLynx here seems to be based on how the Gazelle used to support TOW Lynx during the last century - a model that was never tested in conflict and is hopelessly out of date given modern sensor technology.
Unless you mean the 'Battle for Box Hill' where a foreign exchange officer had the Tow to auto and killed a water tank during GW1
- some good obs and recce there!
Timex - not only an unsophisticated enemy but no air threat either - some palm-skirted walla-wallas with pieces of sharpened fruit could have passed that operational test. But the Gz couldn't designate for the Lynx and relied on the GOA for obs in a dusty environment - just as well the Tow only had a 4Km max range really (3720m rings a bell).
Mutleyfour - yes and the AAC will always do that but this thread is about how millions of taxpayers pounds are going to be wasted giving the AAC the wrong kit to do the best job they can instead of giving them the right kit to do the job that is required.
- some good obs and recce there!Timex - not only an unsophisticated enemy but no air threat either - some palm-skirted walla-wallas with pieces of sharpened fruit could have passed that operational test. But the Gz couldn't designate for the Lynx and relied on the GOA for obs in a dusty environment - just as well the Tow only had a 4Km max range really (3720m rings a bell).
Mutleyfour - yes and the AAC will always do that but this thread is about how millions of taxpayers pounds are going to be wasted giving the AAC the wrong kit to do the best job they can instead of giving them the right kit to do the job that is required.
Mutleyfour - yes and the AAC will always do that but his thread is about how millions of taxpayers pounds are going to be wasted giving the AAC the wrong kit to do the best job they can instead of giving them the right kit to do the job that is required.
But the Gz couldn't designate for the Lynx and relied on the GOA for obs in a dusty environment - just as well the Tow only had a 4Km max range really (3720m rings a bell).
Also if you look at the ROE in place at the time ISTR we all had to visually ID targets anyway so it didn't matter how good your kit was in sandy conditions. (3750m)
You keep changing your post while I am trying to reply
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
Quote: "You keep changing your post while I am trying to reply".
So now you see the importance of getting and staying within the enemy's decision-making cycle!
Quote: "You keep changing your post while I am trying to reply".
So now you see the importance of getting and staying within the enemy's decision-making cycle!
Brandnew - maybe I should have specified engaging and hitting the enemy with ToW
I know abseiling has been done loads of times but it is hardly a raison d'etre for having a Lynx. Not sure what you mean about ask Odiham re .50 - my comment was meant to convey that being able to mount a .50 is not a reason for choosing Lynx either.
Clockwork Mouse - oooh! Doctrinal Humour - excellent
Timex - no, you changed the bit about Typhoon first
I know abseiling has been done loads of times but it is hardly a raison d'etre for having a Lynx. Not sure what you mean about ask Odiham re .50 - my comment was meant to convey that being able to mount a .50 is not a reason for choosing Lynx either.
Clockwork Mouse - oooh! Doctrinal Humour - excellent
Timex - no, you changed the bit about Typhoon first
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know abseiling has been done loads of times but it is hardly a raison d'etre for having a Lynx.
Again, it comes under 'utility' and unless you can quantify the role to the requirement, guess what? The bean counters will not cough up. The problem is this capability will disappear once current Lynx goes. You could argue that due to Wildcat having less of a carrying capability, this gives you more flexibility because you will need more aircraft to delivery the 'goods' thus having more firepower and spreading your deployable assets over more platforms. Unfortunately, these little jobs haven't been specified and therefore no requirement written. Of course, you could mention a RN/RM boarding party scenario and how that is written into the RN requirement but you'll find I'm on about a slightly different mission.
I think those in the know will agree, Wildcat is a good aircraft and will be a capable platform. Unfortunately, the compromise for the BRH will severely limit what can be done with the aircraft. That spells a lack of something to offer the chaps on the ground and potentially a protracted future for the Corps.
maybe I should have specified engaging and hitting the enemy with ToW
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, you've asked the exam question there, Jack.
BLUH was Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter
When it became apparent that it didn't have much in the way of utility (trades description act comes to mind), the 'U' was dropped and thus was born the Battlefield Recce Helicopter.
Heres a piccie of the old BLUH;
And heres a piccie of BRH;
Can you spot the difference (apart from the price tag)?
BLUH was Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter
When it became apparent that it didn't have much in the way of utility (trades description act comes to mind), the 'U' was dropped and thus was born the Battlefield Recce Helicopter.
Heres a piccie of the old BLUH;
And heres a piccie of BRH;
Can you spot the difference (apart from the price tag)?