|
Lynx put forward for USN LAMPS competition
Came across this on Secret Projects Forum and not sure how many people were aware that the Lynx was proposed to the USN. Sikorsky discussed with then Westland to market the WG13 as LAMPS II ( became LAMPS III) , just under 5 decades ago. The proposed Sea Lynx was seen as advanced for its time and would nicely fit / tick the boxes.https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2a7851e43.jpeg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....631b72773.jpeg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0ce37a6a7.jpeg |
I remember hearing some noise about that, and the "maintenance man hour per flight hour" being unfavorable being in the same conversation. The SH-2G would have been money better spent, but the obsession with RAST/Beartrap led in another direction.
|
There is (or certainly, there used to be) a model Lynx in USN colours on display at the San Diego Air & Space Museum in Balboa Park.
|
I was undergoing Initial Officer Training at that time and was directed to give a lecture on the US Navy LAMPS project. I wasn't happy about doing it because I knew nothing about RW - all I wanted to fly was fast jets. However, it's strange how these things work out. A couple of years later I had damaged sinuses and was posted to helicopters.
|
The VC10 of the rotary world; nice to look at but over-engineered and expensive to run. The USN had a lucky escape.
|
Lynx In Service
The basic Lynx airframe development suffered badly from the need to develop a new engine at the same time. The same mistake was not made with Merlin.
The Gem always was a struggle in service but the rest of the airframe was fine once the vibration was understood and all the bits that should have been bigger at the end of development flying had been reinforced. The Lynx was and is an excellent shipborne platform, much better than anything similar and the grid/harpoon/winch set up was a vast improvement on RAST IMO. With Sea Skua in GW1 the Lynx ability to find and strike was something the SH 60 could not do, though the Seahawk had the better radar. All in, the RN did well out of the Lynx. Costly? Maybe, but not more so than any military helo. N |
The finest small-ship anti-submarine helicopter ever fielded by the British Army.
|
Originally Posted by diginagain
(Post 10329414)
The finest small-ship anti-submarine helicopter ever fielded by the British Army.
|
Originally Posted by racedo
(Post 10329544)
How did RN who specialise in water see it ?
|
the Seahawk had the better radar. Configuration control was fraught. The original spec had a different magnetron. Once replaced/upgraded, accidentally fitting an original Control Indicator would result in much smoke. This was exacerbated by the tube manufacturer announcing it was being sold to the US, and a frantic search for another. Not easy given it was TS. Same tube in Blue Fox, which was not widely appreciated. Two front line fleets would have been useless within months. Bofors saved the day. But the general quality of the Sea Spray family of radars has been proven and persists. |
Originally Posted by Bengo
(Post 10329375)
The basic Lynx airframe development suffered badly from the need to develop a new engine at the same time. The same mistake was not made with Merlin.
The Gem always was a struggle in service but the rest of the airframe was fine once the vibration was understood and all the bits that should have been bigger at the end of development flying had been reinforced. The Lynx was and is an excellent shipborne platform, much better than anything similar and the grid/harpoon/winch set up was a vast improvement on RAST IMO. With Sea Skua in GW1 the Lynx ability to find and strike was something the SH 60 could not do, though the Seahawk had the better radar. All in, the RN did well out of the Lynx. Costly? Maybe, but not more so than any military helo. N When Burt Palmer and the gang on USS Paul F Foster (IIRC, DD 964?) went out and did that coalition thing with the Lynx in the northern Persian Gulf (his Seahawks with radar, etc, Lynx with Sea Skua, nice teamwork, and nice shooting Team Lynx!) the after action reports had a ripple effect. It was the needed rock to drop into the duck pond that was the USN air mentality; it got the debate off of top dead center and in time Hellfire came to LAMPS. (Granted, it wasn't the only rock dropped into the pond. We'd been yammering to no avail for a couple of decades regarding LAMPS and forward firing ordnance, but the CV mafia always told us "we'll always have that covered, bombs and missiles on ships and boats, no worries, you get no money." And then "From the Sea" happened, and "roles and missions fighting in the Pentagon Happened" and the Strike people realized that, ya know, a few dollars thrown to the helo goons means we can go feet dry and be heroes, and let the rotary wing goons deal with the boats and such. OK, some literary license in the above ... brought to you by a second class citizen. No, I'm not bitter. :E |
Lone wolf, the interest on the US side had to be real. In 1974 USN CAPT. Bill Stuyvesant ( RIP-Bill had the reputation of being Mr. Helicopter in USN circles ) and I were sent to Westland to fly the prototype Lynx and report back on what we found. We each flew it separately on a very rainy day in Yeovil and with weather at 300 and 3/4 *with Asst. Ch. Pilot Roy Moxam, who flew the first part of my flight as a vibration test flight. Some VFR on top, some in cloud. This was during development. It was certainly a very limited opportunity, as we each got about 45 minutes to fly the machine. It was 1974, so there wasn’t any simulator to practice in, nor did we have the clout to tell Westland we’d prefer to wait for nicer weather. Actually, doing an eval-cold, in not so hot weather perhaps said more anyway. What we reported to our respective constituencies was that other than fixing their N/rev vibration signature ( which was Westland priority uno at that stage ) the Lynx had all the other necessary attributes to be a viable candidate. There were a couple of nits, but they were being worked on and not major issues. * Westland had their own radar and they had arrangements with the nearby Yeovilton Royal Navy field control as to airspace etc, and so were able to perform certain types of test flights IFR, a huge advantage. I was impressed and with the approval of my SA Ch. Pilot contacted the FAA about setting up a similar arrangement in Connecticut. I can still hear them laughing. At least they didn’t call Oklahoma City to schedule me for a psych eval. |
Originally Posted by Bengo
(Post 10329375)
The basic Lynx airframe development suffered badly from the need to develop a new engine at the same time. The same mistake was not made with Merlin.
The Gem always was a struggle in service but the rest of the airframe was fine once the vibration was understood and all the bits that should have been bigger at the end of development flying had been reinforced. The Lynx was and is an excellent shipborne platform, much better than anything similar and the grid/harpoon/winch set up was a vast improvement on RAST IMO. With Sea Skua in GW1 the Lynx ability to find and strike was something the SH 60 could not do, though the Seahawk had the better radar. All in, the RN did well out of the Lynx. Costly? Maybe, but not more so than any military helo. N The previous course has presented him with a specially designed certificate for his "unerring over-use of the Lynx helicopter in teaching". He had it on his office wall for years, so I think was quite proud of the achievement! I've still got all the notes somewhere, but most of it I think is also in his book "Foundations of Helicopter Flight". He was a great chap to learn from. G |
Originally Posted by diginagain
(Post 10329559)
Over the moon, I'd imagine, after the Wasp.
|
Originally Posted by JohnDixson
(Post 10329787)
Lone wolf, the interest on the US side had to be real. In 1974 USN CAPT. Bill Stuyvesant ( RIP-Bill had the reputation of being Mr. Helicopter in USN circles ) and I were sent to Westland to fly the prototype Lynx and report back on what we found. We each flew it separately on a very rainy day in Yeovil and with weather at 300 and 3/4 *with Asst. Ch. Pilot Roy Moxam, who flew the first part of my flight as a vibration test flight. Some VFR on top, some in cloud. This was during development. It was certainly a very limited opportunity, as we each got about 45 minutes to fly the machine. It was 1974, so there wasn’t any simulator to practice in, nor did we have the clout to tell Westland we’d prefer to wait for nicer weather. Actually, doing an eval-cold, in not so hot weather perhaps said more anyway. What we reported to our respective constituencies was that other than fixing their N/rev vibration signature ( which was Westland priority uno at that stage ) the Lynx had all the other necessary attributes to be a viable candidate. There were a couple of nits, but they were being worked on and not major issues. * Westland had their own radar and they had arrangements with the nearby Yeovilton Royal Navy field control as to airspace etc, and so were able to perform certain types of test flights IFR, a huge advantage. I was impressed and with the approval of my SA Ch. Pilot contacted the FAA about setting up a similar arrangement in Connecticut. I can still hear them laughing. At least they didn’t call Oklahoma City to schedule me for a psych eval. John, I am sure there was interest back when the SH-2D was the state of the art for LAMPS after DASH and its failure meant that the fish heads / black shoes had to deal with pilots instead of just some machine to take their torps out to drop on submarines that they found with hull mounted sonar. (All three of them). My recollection is from people who worked in the Pentagon in the 70's, mid to late, who were in the bun fight for money for the follow on. the YSH2E didn't quite make the cut for LAMPS III. We used to call it LAMPS MK II ... that never quite got out of committee. Whatever it was that you all reported from your experiences doubtless filtered its way up into their manilla folders in the offices and file cabinets of NAVAIR: when they were in Crystal City (and even before that) and before the move to Pax River. You know the weirdness of the DoD acquisition process as well as anyone. It isn't just about the airplane. Put another way, it may not matter how well the Lynx flew on that trip. As one Captain put it during a brief "these are the same people (the Brits) who make the Jaguar. Nice car that spends all of its time in the shop." LAMPS Mk III had a prime contractor who was not Sikorsky. The prime on that program was IBM, Federal Systems Division. (I know that you know that, some other people may have forgotten). The Lynx failed to impress the prime. It also failed to impress whomever at NAVSEA was who had a vote on that. |
Hah! Do I know that IBM was the SH-60B Prime Contractor! We constructed a “ green “ SH-60 in Connecticut, then flew it to Oswego for IBM to install their systems. First time we went up to IBM to ground run the first machine with systems , IBM scheduled a briefing per procedure. Went into their briefing room and there were 60 people in there. Uh-oh. 60 folks for a ground run on an aircraft which we had flown up there carried very bad connotations. IBM never thought to provide any sort of school or operators manual at the time as to how to operate all the bells, whistles etc and I recall taking a look and I couldn’t figure out how to get a comm radio on, much less get any nav equipment functional. It was remindful of the Ben Rich biography of Kelly Johnson and his warnings about NAVAIR. IBM later did the systems for the MH-60K and MH-47E. That was similarly painful. At one point, IBM called a meeting to be held at Sikorsky, with the Boeing Project Test Pilot Ron Mecklin, Boeing PM, and flight test engineers, as things were not going well. The meeting had just started when the Sr IBM exec got up and accused the Boeing and Sikorsky of “ being in cahoots “ which was amusing as we in fact had not up to then had one conversation. |
Originally Posted by JohnDixson
(Post 10330257)
Hah! Do I know that IBM was the SH-60B Prime Contractor! We constructed a “ green “ SH-60 in Connecticut, then flew it to Oswego for IBM to install their systems. First time we went up to IBM to ground run the first machine with systems , IBM scheduled a briefing per procedure. Went into their briefing room and there were 60 people in there. Uh-oh. 60 folks for a ground run on an aircraft which we had flown up there carried very bad connotations. IBM never thought to provide any sort of school or operators manual at the time as to how to operate all the bells, whistles etc and I recall taking a look and I couldn’t figure out how to get a comm radio on, much less get any nav equipment functional. It was remindful of the Ben Rich biography of Kelly Johnson and his warnings about NAVAIR.
IBM later did the systems for the MH-60K and MH-47E. That was similarly painful. At one point, IBM called a meeting to be held at Sikorsky, with the Boeing Project Test Pilot Ron Mecklin, Boeing PM, and flight test engineers, as things were not going well. The meeting had just started when the Sr IBM exec got up and accused the Boeing and Sikorsky of “ being in cahoots “ which was amusing as we in fact had not up to then had one conversation. FWIW, a few H-2 squadron mates of mine got out of the Navy in the early/mid 80's and headed north to be involved in the IBM FSD efforts. I'll send you a PM as see if the names ring a bell. |
That ground run briefing had its humorous aspects. IBM had this neat roundish room and it was set up for briefings. I do recall leaning over to the other pilot and telling him that we were obviously in the wrong place and were about to take part in a moon shot or something like it. The only name I recall from those events was an engineer who had matriculated from Sikorsky. He was very talented and did well at IBM, but did have some uphill situations, as few if any of the IBM folks knew much about aircraft, let alone helicopters. For the special ops machines, they had to provide a flight director display, with computed three D commands and connected with all the nav systems on the machine. Their abysmal performance with that subject area was likely the reason their exec thought we were communicating with Boeing as it turned out that their pilots and our pilots were saying exactly the same thing, and using the same language. Well, of course. |
This whole IBM thing reminds me of the early days of C-17 development. I was on the avionics development team and tasked with reviewing the vendor proposals for the C-17 avionics subsystems IBM submitted a bid for the entire avionics package including the effort to integrate the whole thing. We chose to select various vendors for each subsystem and then integrate the total system ourselves. The accounts above just confirm the wisdom of that choice more than three decades ago.
|
Ken, I know that from the very beginning with the Special Ops folks ( post Desert One ) , we were impressed with the type of people they recruited into the unit. Hence it hardly surprises that the newer MH-60M and 47G are equipped with equipment from a long time avionics supplier. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:20. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.