F/Lynx all systems go at AW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether FLynx is exactly the right answer for the UK is immaterial, it is the answer we are getting
Priceless, just priceless.
Put that on a plaque and hang it on the wall behind the bar.
Priceless, just priceless.
Put that on a plaque and hang it on the wall behind the bar.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Brings to mind the old Blackadder Goes Forth line. "But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort *not* to have a war [read: FLynx]."
(Since the MoD did such a good job in persuading the Danes to hand over their EH101s, maybe they'll be willing to divvy-up some of their Fennecs to help make-up the numbers.
)
I/C
(Since the MoD did such a good job in persuading the Danes to hand over their EH101s, maybe they'll be willing to divvy-up some of their Fennecs to help make-up the numbers.
)I/C
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13 your analogy of why BLUH became BRH is not quite on the money. The AAC justification for a LUH was deemed unnecessary (as that is the bread and butter of another force seemingly)and therefore in order to allow the joint venture with the RN (whom remember could not afford the platform by themselves and that is a key point here) to continue a much better requirement had to be found. Since therefore the Gazelle and its role were en route to Boscombe Down services the RH role was quickly assigned to Future Lynx.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe Mr-T is close with his "LUH was deemed unnecessary (as that is the bread and butter of another force seemingly)", but how about another spin?
If I remember correctly (always doubtful) the BLUH/BRH thing happened (2004?) due to large cuts in the proposed future funding of RW, hence lots of head-scratching and trying to redefine (defend) the requirement. Once directed to break the requirement down into basic functions (Lift, Find, Strike), and use that model to prioritize requirements, the 'lift' element of BLUH looked a tad difficult to defend. I'm not saying it's not required, just vulnerable using that model with limited cash in the offering.
This gave the AAC staff officers taking part in the process a bit of a dilemma; how do we big up the need to retain the 'lift' element of BLUH without loosing 'find' funding into the yawning chasm that was/is medium lift. In short, trying to get what the AAC really wanted (autonimous section sized lift) could risk loosing the platform to the SH fleet and the tricky prospect of justifying a Corps with only one platform (AH), which it could be argued can do the 'find' on its own. Better to accept BRH knowing that FLynx will at least give a bit of utility than risk all.
The dark blue were, of course, very happy to concentrate on the Find function as it helped protect SCMR.
Just a theory of course and I am now a couple of years out of date; anyone at Netheravon or Wilton care to comment?
PS. Hope this doesn't drift into a 'we only need Chinook for Lift' debate.
If I remember correctly (always doubtful) the BLUH/BRH thing happened (2004?) due to large cuts in the proposed future funding of RW, hence lots of head-scratching and trying to redefine (defend) the requirement. Once directed to break the requirement down into basic functions (Lift, Find, Strike), and use that model to prioritize requirements, the 'lift' element of BLUH looked a tad difficult to defend. I'm not saying it's not required, just vulnerable using that model with limited cash in the offering.
This gave the AAC staff officers taking part in the process a bit of a dilemma; how do we big up the need to retain the 'lift' element of BLUH without loosing 'find' funding into the yawning chasm that was/is medium lift. In short, trying to get what the AAC really wanted (autonimous section sized lift) could risk loosing the platform to the SH fleet and the tricky prospect of justifying a Corps with only one platform (AH), which it could be argued can do the 'find' on its own. Better to accept BRH knowing that FLynx will at least give a bit of utility than risk all.
The dark blue were, of course, very happy to concentrate on the Find function as it helped protect SCMR.
Just a theory of course and I am now a couple of years out of date; anyone at Netheravon or Wilton care to comment?
PS. Hope this doesn't drift into a 'we only need Chinook for Lift' debate.
WG13 - I guess 2000 hours on ToW Lynx doesn't mean much because it was all in LFA 1A and flying RHS for at least half of the ToW shoots in 7 years at MW is irrelevant. However, many of the guys I worked with were anti-tank veterans of the N German plain and GW1 so I have a small understanding of what went on - if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat.
Back to other stuff - if you want a heli platform to give suppressive fire you use a Chinook with miniguns (Sierra Leone), if you want to swarm a target (especially at night) you run the risk of mid-air collisions (Aussie Blackhawk and others) if you have too many assets in one place. Better to have fewer, larger aircraft that can deliver more troops at once (the RN on MCT for example). I don't think the RCS or the thermal signature differ much from Puma to Lynx so as targets go they are very similar and equally likely to be shot down.
There are a few specialist insertion tasks where a Lynx might be useful but the chaps that do those usually have their own aircraft.
You have definitely not justified the purchase of Flynx in any way, shape or form for the AAC, no matter how good the aircraft might be for the RN role.
One of the few roles it might have excelled in was as an anti-helicopter helicopter but no weapon systems meant that all that fast, aggressive manoeuvering capability was confined to airshows and my SCT
It will get used, again not as the weapon of choice but as a fill-in 'well we've got it we might as well try to do something with it' type of role. The AAC (and JHC) will end up short-changed again and AW will have a full order book and plenty of profit with another cash-cow to milk for a few years.
Back to other stuff - if you want a heli platform to give suppressive fire you use a Chinook with miniguns (Sierra Leone), if you want to swarm a target (especially at night) you run the risk of mid-air collisions (Aussie Blackhawk and others) if you have too many assets in one place. Better to have fewer, larger aircraft that can deliver more troops at once (the RN on MCT for example). I don't think the RCS or the thermal signature differ much from Puma to Lynx so as targets go they are very similar and equally likely to be shot down.
There are a few specialist insertion tasks where a Lynx might be useful but the chaps that do those usually have their own aircraft.
You have definitely not justified the purchase of Flynx in any way, shape or form for the AAC, no matter how good the aircraft might be for the RN role.
One of the few roles it might have excelled in was as an anti-helicopter helicopter but no weapon systems meant that all that fast, aggressive manoeuvering capability was confined to airshows and my SCT
It will get used, again not as the weapon of choice but as a fill-in 'well we've got it we might as well try to do something with it' type of role. The AAC (and JHC) will end up short-changed again and AW will have a full order book and plenty of profit with another cash-cow to milk for a few years.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why all the talk of a "weapons platform" in respect of Flynx? The Apache is a weapons platform. The Puma isn't; the Chinook isn't; the Merlin isn't; a Bedford 4 ton truck isn't. Lynx (post ATGW) and, hopefully Flynx, isn't.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WG13 - I guess 2000 hours on ToW Lynx doesn't mean much because it was all in LFA 1A and flying RHS for at least half of the ToW shoots in 7 years at MW is irrelevant. However, many of the guys I worked with were anti-tank veterans of the N German plain and GW1 so I have a small understanding of what went on - if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat.
Back to other stuff - if you want a heli platform to give suppressive fire you use a Chinook with miniguns (Sierra Leone), if you want to swarm a target (especially at night) you run the risk of mid-air collisions (Aussie Blackhawk and others).
if you have too many assets in one place. Better to have fewer, larger aircraft that can deliver more troops at once (the RN on MCT for example). I don't think the RCS or the thermal signature differ much from Puma to Lynx so as targets go they are very similar and equally likely to be shot down.
There are a few specialist insertion tasks where a Lynx might be useful but the chaps that do those usually have their own aircraft.
You have definitely not justified the purchase of Flynx in any way, shape or form for the AAC
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Danunda
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab@saavn me old fruit, you are talking complete bollox there son - to quote - "BtW I believe 847 are the only ones to have engaged anything operationally with the TOW system" and "many of the guys I worked with were anti-tank veterans of the N German plain and GW1 so I have a small understanding of what went on - if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat."
Best you admit defeat now, as 3AAC did indeed take part in engagements with TOW and FITOW in GW2, and i can name at least 8 or 9 other folk than me who did it. One of whom was awarded the DFC - I was his pilot, but that's for another moan .....
enjoy your winching...
Best you admit defeat now, as 3AAC did indeed take part in engagements with TOW and FITOW in GW2, and i can name at least 8 or 9 other folk than me who did it. One of whom was awarded the DFC - I was his pilot, but that's for another moan .....
enjoy your winching...
Last edited by lynxgem; 6th Jan 2009 at 18:43.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Quote: Wasn't FLynx originally supposed to be to meet BLUH?
No, the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter was a separate autonomous capability requirement. All the time BLUH was being discussed Wastelands told the MoD that we were not an inteligent customer (partially agreed as we have politicians dictating spends!) and that we needed to buy FLYNX because if we didn't then Wastelands would go under!. We in the MoD were not allowed to call it anything other than a capability requirement, we were only just allowed to call it a helicopter!.
There was a benchmarking study carried out in 2002 that identified that there was nothing on the market which even met the requirement. Even the Blackhawk, and we specifically looked at the UH60M you know the GTI version. And we asked very nicely if it was marinised, as its supposed to fly off a ship sometimes alas came the answer no. In addition there were ILS issues, Whole Life Cost issues, Reliability & Maintainabilty issues associated with Blackhawk and it missed out on a whole raft of the DLODs, on top of that it would have been made by Wastelands and the cost would have been 3 times that of a US built aircraft. So cue much head scratching by the customer and shuffling of feet!
When did BLUH become BRH and why?
As stated previously back in 2004 Workstrand 13 came out which came up with Rotary Wing Battlefield Find, Lift and Attack elements. Now it was carved up that AH would do the Attack element (No brainer) Chinook Heavy Lift and SABR would do Lift. The decision was made that Find needed a platform and as Wastelands lobbied very hard and the FLYNX had a sensor on the nose low and behold a new requirement was generated the Battlefield Recconaisance Helicopter was born and lo it was good. The extra benefit was that it was a recce platform that also offered a 1000 kg of lift which was considered at the time as being useful.
Of course the winner that clinched it for the politicians was that RW Find and RW Lift decision cut the RW procurement budget from Ł4.1 Bn to Ł3.0 Bn overnight. So any cash that would have been spent on de-risking a recce platform or indeed on inserting a metre long plug in an FLYNX (yes that was considered) were clawed back into the centre, so rejoice we have BRH and ain't she a beauty.
Quote: Wasn't FLynx originally supposed to be to meet BLUH?
No, the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter was a separate autonomous capability requirement. All the time BLUH was being discussed Wastelands told the MoD that we were not an inteligent customer (partially agreed as we have politicians dictating spends!) and that we needed to buy FLYNX because if we didn't then Wastelands would go under!. We in the MoD were not allowed to call it anything other than a capability requirement, we were only just allowed to call it a helicopter!.
There was a benchmarking study carried out in 2002 that identified that there was nothing on the market which even met the requirement. Even the Blackhawk, and we specifically looked at the UH60M you know the GTI version. And we asked very nicely if it was marinised, as its supposed to fly off a ship sometimes alas came the answer no. In addition there were ILS issues, Whole Life Cost issues, Reliability & Maintainabilty issues associated with Blackhawk and it missed out on a whole raft of the DLODs, on top of that it would have been made by Wastelands and the cost would have been 3 times that of a US built aircraft. So cue much head scratching by the customer and shuffling of feet!
When did BLUH become BRH and why?
As stated previously back in 2004 Workstrand 13 came out which came up with Rotary Wing Battlefield Find, Lift and Attack elements. Now it was carved up that AH would do the Attack element (No brainer) Chinook Heavy Lift and SABR would do Lift. The decision was made that Find needed a platform and as Wastelands lobbied very hard and the FLYNX had a sensor on the nose low and behold a new requirement was generated the Battlefield Recconaisance Helicopter was born and lo it was good. The extra benefit was that it was a recce platform that also offered a 1000 kg of lift which was considered at the time as being useful.
Of course the winner that clinched it for the politicians was that RW Find and RW Lift decision cut the RW procurement budget from Ł4.1 Bn to Ł3.0 Bn overnight. So any cash that would have been spent on de-risking a recce platform or indeed on inserting a metre long plug in an FLYNX (yes that was considered) were clawed back into the centre, so rejoice we have BRH and ain't she a beauty.
WG and Lynxgem - if you read my posts re TOW engagements I clearly specified GW1 - I know GW2 was different but I was told that 847 were the only ones to engage with TOW - if that is wrong I am sorry.
WG - just like every new generation of teenagers thinks they invented sex - every new generation of helicopter pilots thinks that old farts know nothing despite having many years of experience in different theatres - I was QHTI qualified in 1987 - were you?
WG - just like every new generation of teenagers thinks they invented sex - every new generation of helicopter pilots thinks that old farts know nothing despite having many years of experience in different theatres - I was QHTI qualified in 1987 - were you?
if you can quote aToW engagement during GW1 that resulted in an enemy kill I will admit defeat
On 16 November 1990 the Squadron was warned for deployment to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation “Desert Shield”. By 2 January 1991 the Squadron was complete in Al Jubail and training for war against Iraq as part of the coalition forces. On 24 February 1991 the Squadron moved into Iraq in support of Operation “Desert Sabre”, and on the 26 February 1991 it engaged and destroyed 7 armoured vehicles of the Iraqi 12th Armoured Division
In addition, there was the "Battle of Box Hill" when 651(or 661) Sqn engaged a dug in Iraqi position. It was only after that it was found to be a dummy position.
And, of course, there was Jeep's jeep!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WG - just like every new generation of teenagers thinks they invented sex - every new generation of helicopter pilots thinks that old farts know nothing despite having many years of experience in different theatres - I was QHTI qualified in 1987 - were you?
I respect your experience but you are very much out of date with current or future JHC requirements or operational needs and ops (unless SARTU, 22/202 Sqns are JHC assets now?)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Danunda
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my my my dear crabsaavn, your time as a QHTI all those many moons ago must have severly addled your grey cells.....
Go back to your post on 5 Jan, i notice there was no direct reference to that immense ftx undertaken in the desert in 90/91....
as has every other bugger that's used them i might add!
If you are such a learned individual that knew all there was to know, even as far back as 1987, then why my dear chap were you not out getting a suntan with the AAC in Suadi/Q8? Or were you just extremely good at lecturing baby pilots 'what to do when you are engaged/sighted by the enemy' etc, when not having ever been subject to such an experience??? i thank christ that SAAvn is now weedling out such folk from making the APC a thoroughly sh1te time!
Having said my piece, i will now allowthe rest of you to have a decent conversation about that piece of crap that the MOD has procured for the AAC, apologies to the rest of you for interrupting the thread, but I just had to get crab back in his box after his taking bollox!! TTFN!
WG and Lynxgem - if you read my posts re TOW engagements I clearly specified GW1 - I know GW2 was different but I was told that 847 were the only ones to engage with TOW - if that is wrong I am sorry.
Go back to your post on 5 Jan, i notice there was no direct reference to that immense ftx undertaken in the desert in 90/91....
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.
If you are such a learned individual that knew all there was to know, even as far back as 1987, then why my dear chap were you not out getting a suntan with the AAC in Suadi/Q8? Or were you just extremely good at lecturing baby pilots 'what to do when you are engaged/sighted by the enemy' etc, when not having ever been subject to such an experience??? i thank christ that SAAvn is now weedling out such folk from making the APC a thoroughly sh1te time!
Having said my piece, i will now allowthe rest of you to have a decent conversation about that piece of crap that the MOD has procured for the AAC, apologies to the rest of you for interrupting the thread, but I just had to get crab back in his box after his taking bollox!! TTFN!
OK, OK, I'll admit defeat - the AAC have successfully engaged enemy armour with ToW. Happy now?
As ever, those who can't argue resort to personal abuse and name-calling but I'm used to that on these forums.
As to what I did at Wallop - someone had to teach all the QHIs how to fly and instruct on the Lynx
Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.
As ever, those who can't argue resort to personal abuse and name-calling but I'm used to that on these forums.
As to what I did at Wallop - someone had to teach all the QHIs how to fly and instruct on the Lynx
Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see you've got back in your box, crab.
I wouldn't say its a waste of money. Just not value for money. Prior to us going off on a bit of a tangent, I was trying to inform you that it will not be able to fulfil the current roles Lynx does. Ie the utility stuff. Utility does not encroach on the SH fleet but once current Lynx disappears, it will be interesting to see if SH will be able to fill the gap. Will they have the capacity to? If not, we lose the ability which means a reduced capability.
Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Danunda
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, OK, I'll admit defeat - the AAC have successfully engaged enemy armour with ToW. Happy now?
As ever, those who can't argue resort to personal abuse and name-calling but I'm used to that on these forums.
As to what I did at Wallop - someone had to teach all the QHIs how to fly and instruct on the Lynx
Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.
As ever, those who can't argue resort to personal abuse and name-calling but I'm used to that on these forums.
As to what I did at Wallop - someone had to teach all the QHIs how to fly and instruct on the Lynx
Now - back to the waste of money that will be FLynx.
Enjoy the pot noodles and keep up the good work
WG - if you don't get value for money then you have effectively wasted it. I don't think this thread is about whether or not the Lynx does fill some roles adequately - it is about whether or not that is justification for procuring another, almost identical helicopter which will be even less capable because the cabin space is reduced.
We come back to having to keep the AAC going in its present guise and camouflaging that by inventing ISTAR roles for a LUH with little utility in its CV.
Much as with the Merlin which we had foisted upon us (and yes it is doing a good job but not as good as another Sqn of Chinooks) because the RN wanted a new helo but couldn't afford it by themselves; you will get a helicopter you don't want and don't need because the RN want a new helicopter and can't afford it by themselves.
We come back to having to keep the AAC going in its present guise and camouflaging that by inventing ISTAR roles for a LUH with little utility in its CV.
Much as with the Merlin which we had foisted upon us (and yes it is doing a good job but not as good as another Sqn of Chinooks) because the RN wanted a new helo but couldn't afford it by themselves; you will get a helicopter you don't want and don't need because the RN want a new helicopter and can't afford it by themselves.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WG - if you don't get value for money then you have effectively wasted it. I don't think this thread is about whether or not the Lynx does fill some roles adequately - it is about whether or not that is justification for procuring another, almost identical helicopter which will be even less capable because the cabin space is reduced.
We come back to having to keep the AAC going in its present guise and camouflaging that by inventing ISTAR roles for a LUH with little utility in its CV.
Much as with the Merlin which we had foisted upon us (and yes it is doing a good job but not as good as another Sqn of Chinooks) because the RN wanted a new helo but couldn't afford it by themselves; you will get a helicopter you don't want and don't need because the RN want a new helicopter and can't afford it by themselves.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rotary thread
One of the best argued threads I've seen in years. It's been a great journey ... round in circles
So we've established that SCMR is needed really badly by the RN and FLynx is expected to be OK at that (post #59) and that there's a need for something other than a trooplifter (post #65). And they say WE don't listen.
I think the very interesting development will be the T800 engined Mk 9. Look forward to seeing that.
As for spares, will try to do better 
. Not just us though 
.
N
So we've established that SCMR is needed really badly by the RN and FLynx is expected to be OK at that (post #59) and that there's a need for something other than a trooplifter (post #65). And they say WE don't listen
.I think the very interesting development will be the T800 engined Mk 9. Look forward to seeing that.
As for spares
, will try to do better . Not just us though .N