Falklands Lynx
651 Sqn Air-gunners did their TOW conversions prior to deployment of the task force. I think the truth is nobody trusted Lynx albeit the Sqn had operated them since 79.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somerset
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the 3 BAS RM & 656 Sqn AAC Det who deployed within days of the Argentine invasion were operated off the back of either LSL's or the MV Europic Ferry. It was tight enough with 2/3 Scouts or Gazelles on there flight deck. If Lynx had been deployed there is likely to have been room for 1 Lynx, 2 at a push on the LSL deck.
As someone who departed UK with the Task Force it was hard enough man-handling Scouts on the rolling decks. I would not have wanted to have been attempting to move a Lynx when the ML Handler failed and left a top heavy helicopter in a very awkward position and closing the deck.
If the Scout's had been replaced with a like number of Lynx I don't think the AAC would have had enough ML Handlers to cope the the scattered aircraft around the fleet.
3 BAS didnt equip to Lynx until they re-located to Yeovilton and TOW came a few years later if I remember right. They definitely had TOW when I joined the squadron in Oct 1985.
Steve
As someone who departed UK with the Task Force it was hard enough man-handling Scouts on the rolling decks. I would not have wanted to have been attempting to move a Lynx when the ML Handler failed and left a top heavy helicopter in a very awkward position and closing the deck.
If the Scout's had been replaced with a like number of Lynx I don't think the AAC would have had enough ML Handlers to cope the the scattered aircraft around the fleet.
3 BAS didnt equip to Lynx until they re-located to Yeovilton and TOW came a few years later if I remember right. They definitely had TOW when I joined the squadron in Oct 1985.
Steve
Thread Starter
Thanks for the responses; I think thats about covered.
For you guys who flew the Lynx, how does it compare to other types? Particulary the Squirrel, Seahawk and Scout if you have flown them. I alsways wondered why the Australian Military never purchased the Lynx. Also, are Lynxes still using the TOW capabilty after the EIS of the Apache?
For you guys who flew the Lynx, how does it compare to other types? Particulary the Squirrel, Seahawk and Scout if you have flown them. I alsways wondered why the Australian Military never purchased the Lynx. Also, are Lynxes still using the TOW capabilty after the EIS of the Apache?
ISTR our tubes were a bespoke build under license, in the hope that orders to other countries would help offset the costs of developing training rounds, ITOW and FITOW, and that funding was only available until ISD OF Apache. Lx7/FITOW, when it eventually made it into service, was a game-changing combination, unlike the AH1/TOW.
For Op Corporate, Lynx/TOW wouldn't really offer more capability than Scout/SS11, given the limited anti-armour opportunities, and the Sqns deployed were well acquainted with their primary customers; bringing-in Lynx-equipped units might have been an unwelcome disturbance.
To coin a phrase in common usage at the time of it's introduction;
You couldn't get two camp-beds side-by-side in the back of a Scout.
For Op Corporate, Lynx/TOW wouldn't really offer more capability than Scout/SS11, given the limited anti-armour opportunities, and the Sqns deployed were well acquainted with their primary customers; bringing-in Lynx-equipped units might have been an unwelcome disturbance.
Better to wonder why no other armed forces purchased the Army Lynx
The finest small-ship, anti-submarine helicopter ever fielded by the British Army.
For you guys who flew the Lynx, how does it compare to other types? Particulary the Squirrel, Seahawk and Scout if you have flown them.
Last edited by diginagain; 17th Apr 2012 at 15:03.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"For Op Corporate, Lynx/TOW wouldn't really offer more capability than Scout/SS11"
Don't forget that also the Wessex 5 was wired for AS-11 and AS-12
Didn't one fire a missile from the hover up the main street in Stanley in an attempt to take out the Argentine HQ building?
Having said that, from memory I'm sure there were one or two Army Lynx at Yeovilton at the time - maybe early conversion training or trials?
Don't forget that also the Wessex 5 was wired for AS-11 and AS-12
Didn't one fire a missile from the hover up the main street in Stanley in an attempt to take out the Argentine HQ building?
Having said that, from memory I'm sure there were one or two Army Lynx at Yeovilton at the time - maybe early conversion training or trials?
Having said that, from memory I'm sure there were one or two Army Lynx at Yeovilton at the time - maybe early conversion training or trials?
Popping back to TOW for a moment; the bloke who got the job of TOW Marketing Manager for BAe had previously been employed as a Scout pilot until a few controlled airspace infringements in the Heathrow area lead to the relinquishment of his Commission.
Thread Starter
"Quote:
The finest small-ship, anti-submarine helicopter ever fielded by the British Army."
"Quote:
For you guys who flew the Lynx, how does it compare to other types? Particulary the Squirrel, Seahawk and Scout if you have flown them.
You couldn't get two camp-beds side-by-side in the back of a Scout."
Yeah, what I mean is how do the aircraft fly in comparison to each other? Advantages and vices, that sort of thing. For example I have heard the Scout has frightening auto characteristics; is this the case and, if so, did the Lynx inherit these?
The finest small-ship, anti-submarine helicopter ever fielded by the British Army."
"Quote:
For you guys who flew the Lynx, how does it compare to other types? Particulary the Squirrel, Seahawk and Scout if you have flown them.
You couldn't get two camp-beds side-by-side in the back of a Scout."
Yeah, what I mean is how do the aircraft fly in comparison to each other? Advantages and vices, that sort of thing. For example I have heard the Scout has frightening auto characteristics; is this the case and, if so, did the Lynx inherit these?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure if it was anyway possible the Lynx would have been used - it was comical, and depressing, to see a Wasp puffing and panting to lift ONE can of kero from the ramp at Asi. It originally loaded 6 but they were taken off one by one as it became clear it wasn't going to get airborne. Interestingly there was no attempt at a running takeoff, but I guess the small deck mindset would discount that option.
For example I have heard the Scout has frightening auto characteristics; is this the case and, if so, did the Lynx inherit these?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't think of a problem with a running take off.....as long as you had wheels, or could get light enough to drag the skids a little.
Just depends what you need to do at the other end!?
If it is a runway, mega....if not!
Just depends what you need to do at the other end!?
If it is a runway, mega....if not!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Thailand
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"in the early days of AH1 we were looking at close to 100 man-hours of maint per flying-hour."
As a mech of those days I would say that 100 man hours / flying Hr is far too high about 22 being a figure then quoted.
The original Lynx was a joke maintenance wise and the manning on the REME side was far too low. Manning figures had been established on IFTU results, which bore no relation to Real World Field use.
The lack of REME experience was frightening.
I had worked on Lynx for 3 years before I was sent on a Type Course and the majority of SNCO's never did a type course.
john
I too remember John and Rodger.
As a mech of those days I would say that 100 man hours / flying Hr is far too high about 22 being a figure then quoted.
The original Lynx was a joke maintenance wise and the manning on the REME side was far too low. Manning figures had been established on IFTU results, which bore no relation to Real World Field use.
The lack of REME experience was frightening.
I had worked on Lynx for 3 years before I was sent on a Type Course and the majority of SNCO's never did a type course.
john
I too remember John and Rodger.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
You couldn't get two camp-beds side-by-side in the back of a Scout.
@4:10
Oh, and don't forget the 2 casevac pods that could be fitted to the skids, fairly comfortable and probably one of the most 'different' first flights with a Sqn!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
..and here's me thinking that the little window in the lid was for those that enjoyed to watch that sort of thing!!! A kind of field version of the German glass topped coffee table 
