F/Lynx all systems go at AW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/Lynx all systems go at AW
GKN Aerospace delivered the first complete, state-of-the-art, Future Lynx Airframe to AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, on schedule, yesterday. The Company has achieved challenging technological goals for this airframe including an 80% reduction in parts count when compared with the existing Super Lynx airframe.
AgustaWestland, as the design authority for Future Lynx, has worked in partnership with GKN Aerospace to implement an effective design-to-cost methodology which has driven the product design.
Marcus Bryson, Chief Executive of GKN Aerospace comments "Our goal has been to create a highly effective operational airframe with an extremely efficient design and a truly cost effective manufacturing cycle. We have achieved this through innovations across the manufacturing process and through a close working relationship between AgustaWestland and GKN Aerospace Yeovil and our UK-based supplier team."
GKN Aerospace has made extensive use of monolithic machined components, replacing a traditional fabricated detail structure, to realise the dramatic reduction in parts count. In addition, 3 dimensional digital modelling has ensured highly accurate part-to-part assembly, whilst state-of-the-art assembly tooling has been introduced which can rotate through 360 degrees and has vertical movement for ease of access. Assembly personnel then use a stand alone wireless IT workstation to apply digital assembly instructions developed by GKN Aerospace directly from CATIA. This has eliminated the need for hard copy drawings and will enable future configuration changes to be communicated instantly and efficiently to the required personnel.
Bryson continues: "Throughout the design phase and immediately following contract award by the UK MOD, in June 2006, we placed a dedicated team of engineers within the AgustaWestland design office. This allowed a fully integrated team to develop and this has been critical to our success, and to our meeting - and in a number of cases exceeding - some ambitious goals for the new airframe. Together, our teams have done a quite remarkable job."
GKN Aerospace is responsible for supplying the complete, assembled airframe for 70 Future Lynx helicopters for the Royal Navy and Army. The Company manages the supply chain and carries out airframe assembly, which takes place at its Yeovil facility. GKN Aerospace, Yeovil, has been supporting AgustaWestland through the supply of assemblies for the Lynx family, which now includes the complete assembled airframe, throughout the Lynx programme life. For the last 7 years GKN has supplied all Lynx airframes - including for a number of successful export programmes.
AgustaWestland, as the design authority for Future Lynx, has worked in partnership with GKN Aerospace to implement an effective design-to-cost methodology which has driven the product design.
Marcus Bryson, Chief Executive of GKN Aerospace comments "Our goal has been to create a highly effective operational airframe with an extremely efficient design and a truly cost effective manufacturing cycle. We have achieved this through innovations across the manufacturing process and through a close working relationship between AgustaWestland and GKN Aerospace Yeovil and our UK-based supplier team."
GKN Aerospace has made extensive use of monolithic machined components, replacing a traditional fabricated detail structure, to realise the dramatic reduction in parts count. In addition, 3 dimensional digital modelling has ensured highly accurate part-to-part assembly, whilst state-of-the-art assembly tooling has been introduced which can rotate through 360 degrees and has vertical movement for ease of access. Assembly personnel then use a stand alone wireless IT workstation to apply digital assembly instructions developed by GKN Aerospace directly from CATIA. This has eliminated the need for hard copy drawings and will enable future configuration changes to be communicated instantly and efficiently to the required personnel.
Bryson continues: "Throughout the design phase and immediately following contract award by the UK MOD, in June 2006, we placed a dedicated team of engineers within the AgustaWestland design office. This allowed a fully integrated team to develop and this has been critical to our success, and to our meeting - and in a number of cases exceeding - some ambitious goals for the new airframe. Together, our teams have done a quite remarkable job."
GKN Aerospace is responsible for supplying the complete, assembled airframe for 70 Future Lynx helicopters for the Royal Navy and Army. The Company manages the supply chain and carries out airframe assembly, which takes place at its Yeovil facility. GKN Aerospace, Yeovil, has been supporting AgustaWestland through the supply of assemblies for the Lynx family, which now includes the complete assembled airframe, throughout the Lynx programme life. For the last 7 years GKN has supplied all Lynx airframes - including for a number of successful export programmes.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THREAD DRIFT (apologies)
Can I please ask a quick question.
What was it about the WG30 that was not up to scratch?
I know virtually nothing about the proposed WG30 (other than the airframes littering the helicopter museum at Weston Super Mare), but can only assume that Westlands thought it would be the way ahead, and a possible Puma replacement.
Once again, sorry for thread drift, but the WG30 looked like it would have solved many of the lynx's shortcomings, assuming it had enough power/ceiling/lift etc.
What was it about the WG30 that was not up to scratch?
I know virtually nothing about the proposed WG30 (other than the airframes littering the helicopter museum at Weston Super Mare), but can only assume that Westlands thought it would be the way ahead, and a possible Puma replacement.
Once again, sorry for thread drift, but the WG30 looked like it would have solved many of the lynx's shortcomings, assuming it had enough power/ceiling/lift etc.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Throwing stones from my glass house
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLynx
Well that all sounds very promising indeed 
. With all that 3D modelling going on, I wonder, has the Army version got a nose wheel that we can actually steer? 
. With all that 3D modelling going on, I wonder, has the Army version got a nose wheel that we can actually steer?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Thailand
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my spanner benders upgrading course II-I back in 72 at Middle Wallop, we where told about the WG 13, the new heli for the AAC.
Two crew up front and Nine Fighting troops in the back was the line, a mini Huey.
No one ever said the AAC will get this cab because it's the Heli the Navy needs for it's Sub hunters.
The Lynx was a Navy Heli that was forced on the Army.
I understand the navy with their massive, by army standards, small ships crews considered their aircraft a Good Un. As a Nuc Sub Hunter it would have been high on the Spares Supply line.
Army helis where not high on the supply line, unless you where in NI on Operations or during the disastrous deployment of Lynx down to the Falklands, long after the shooting stopped.
it now seems that they navy's latest choice will be the AAC's latest do all.
john
Two crew up front and Nine Fighting troops in the back was the line, a mini Huey.
No one ever said the AAC will get this cab because it's the Heli the Navy needs for it's Sub hunters.
The Lynx was a Navy Heli that was forced on the Army.
I understand the navy with their massive, by army standards, small ships crews considered their aircraft a Good Un. As a Nuc Sub Hunter it would have been high on the Spares Supply line.
Army helis where not high on the supply line, unless you where in NI on Operations or during the disastrous deployment of Lynx down to the Falklands, long after the shooting stopped.
it now seems that they navy's latest choice will be the AAC's latest do all.
john
Originally Posted by mutleyfour
I wonder if it has a busbar, digital AFCS and a much larger cabin capable of lifting a full section of eight?
Last edited by diginagain; 19th Nov 2008 at 13:26.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GKN Aerospace delivered the first complete, state-of-the-art, Future Lynx Airframe to AgustaWestland,
Mutley, you'll fit a full section of eight in it no problems. So long as they are dwarf Gurkhas carrying no more than a small water biscuit each.
Bismark. The Army are getting what the Navy want because it suits the potential export market for AW.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Navy don't want it - it's another white elephant. It is being forced on us by the government - "you can have whatever you want to replace the Lynx as long as it is made by Westland and called Lynx".
And it was never a sub hunter - no sonar.
And it was never a sub hunter - no sonar.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRONG............... The Navy do want it.... it is not a white elephant and to be honest I wouldn't want to fly an aircraft built by the Japanese or the sceptics....
It is slightly wrong to call it state of the art though...... unless you mean state of the art for the 20th Century.
We need a Lynx replacement and this airframe is perfect for the job. The avionics however are a crock of poo and the Lynx IPT need to get to work and purchase a decent Radar.... an IO device that wasn't invented 10 years ago...and maybe some "state of the art" stuff..... The trouble is that the IPT are being driven by what AW will provide them. The Lynx IPT should be demanding a capibility rather than being provided with a solution....
It is slightly wrong to call it state of the art though...... unless you mean state of the art for the 20th Century.
We need a Lynx replacement and this airframe is perfect for the job. The avionics however are a crock of poo and the Lynx IPT need to get to work and purchase a decent Radar.... an IO device that wasn't invented 10 years ago...and maybe some "state of the art" stuff..... The trouble is that the IPT are being driven by what AW will provide them. The Lynx IPT should be demanding a capibility rather than being provided with a solution....
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spent 4 and a half years working in Lx IPT supporting in service.
Guess what, all this kit costs, new kit costs even more.
Buy it with guchi digital AFCS, Radar ETC not a problem.....but sorry for a fixed budget you'll get less airframes and that's when it gets non supporting.
Digital AFCS possibly as a MLU.
Guess what, all this kit costs, new kit costs even more.
Buy it with guchi digital AFCS, Radar ETC not a problem.....but sorry for a fixed budget you'll get less airframes and that's when it gets non supporting.
Digital AFCS possibly as a MLU.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lynx IPT should be demanding a capibility rather than being provided with a solution....
I think you'll find that from the Navy's perspective that is exactly what has happened...ie a capability was demanded and it has been solved with FLynx.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean the Seaspray 7000E radar which was first placed on the open market in 2004 and so will be over 10 years old when the "future" Lynx comes into service....? And do you also mean the MX 15 which has been flying in operational aircraft for the past 5 years and so will also be over 10 years old when the "future" Lynx enters service.... (Please don't buy the MX 15...... please, please IPT....buy the MX 20 HD....its much much better)
The only thing "future" about the Wildcat is the airframe..... the avionics are all just collected from various lock up garages and shoved into the airframe without any thought of what the aircrew will do with all these old bits of kit. Maybe we should delete the word "future" and insert the word "yesterdays"..... there you have it..... Yesterdays Lynx.
That said, it will be an improvement on the current aircraft....although not a significant improvement....it could have been much better and it could have gone much further...... there is little ground breaking technology in this aircraft. The biggest problem the Wildcat will face is its introduction into service. Unless a home is found for this aircraft soon and unless the infrastructure to welcome it into the Service is developed soon, then we may well end up with hangars full of them but no one trained to fly or maintain them.
The only thing "future" about the Wildcat is the airframe..... the avionics are all just collected from various lock up garages and shoved into the airframe without any thought of what the aircrew will do with all these old bits of kit. Maybe we should delete the word "future" and insert the word "yesterdays"..... there you have it..... Yesterdays Lynx.
That said, it will be an improvement on the current aircraft....although not a significant improvement....it could have been much better and it could have gone much further...... there is little ground breaking technology in this aircraft. The biggest problem the Wildcat will face is its introduction into service. Unless a home is found for this aircraft soon and unless the infrastructure to welcome it into the Service is developed soon, then we may well end up with hangars full of them but no one trained to fly or maintain them.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spheroid
Same family as 7000E but a few more planks. The AESA system started development flying in 2004 and was not put into production until last year, for the USCG I believe. Given the gestation period of most aircraft programmes you will not get brand new technology the day it comes into service.
Do not confused with the model numbers for EO. Its a bit like like saying you have a Ford Fiesta. In isolation it means nothing unless you state a model and year. The difference between the 15 and 20 families is turret size, the important part is the payload and that is being continually upgraded. If you ask the IPT I think you will find the selected 15 has the toys you are looking for but again it will not be in service for a while yet.
regards
retard
Same family as 7000E but a few more planks. The AESA system started development flying in 2004 and was not put into production until last year, for the USCG I believe. Given the gestation period of most aircraft programmes you will not get brand new technology the day it comes into service.
Do not confused with the model numbers for EO. Its a bit like like saying you have a Ford Fiesta. In isolation it means nothing unless you state a model and year. The difference between the 15 and 20 families is turret size, the important part is the payload and that is being continually upgraded. If you ask the IPT I think you will find the selected 15 has the toys you are looking for but again it will not be in service for a while yet.
regards
retard
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem the Wildcat will face is its introduction into service. Unless a home is found for this aircraft soon and unless the infrastructure to welcome it into the Service is developed soon, then we may well end up with hangars full of them but no one trained to fly or maintain them.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true....but you are assuming that the Current Lynx Force will be responsible for the introduction of the Wildcat.....Not so ...... Not so... A poor assumption to make ...
You are correct in stating that VL has the space to welcome the wildcat....but it does not have the people...
You are correct in stating that VL has the space to welcome the wildcat....but it does not have the people...