Bill O'Average

Still isn’t what’s required though. The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker.

Cabin is still the same size, although due to new style crashable pax seating, will carry less blokes in the back. The engines are more powerful and with that, thirstier. Due to the dimensions being the same as the old version, similar sized fuel tanks mean it actually has a reduced range.

Crash worthy. It's hard to make a 30 year old design compatible with all the latest and future requirements for a battlefield heli. A bit like trying to make a Ford Anglia pass the Euro ENCAP test.

Will it actually be able to talk to the rest of the future battlefield with Bowman?

The bottom line is that there is no money for procurement of a Gucci accessory to AH. (Due to the purchase of said AH). A 'cut and shut' Lynx is the order of the day. We should at least consider ourselves lucky that they will at least have zero hours and have plastic seat covers. God forbid we extend Lynx even further beyond 2010.

On the plus side, the glass cockpit is nice and the optics will actually be rather good. I feel that we will still get the '1.3L' version as opposed to the '2.6GLX'.

Totally agree with the sentiment regarding

At present, we do about 1% of killing tanks/suppressing the enemy/deep strike type ops. The remaining 99% is taken up with what would be considered by 673 Sqn as niff naff and trivia by 'legacy' aircraft. That would also be true of the near and middle future too. I would think that a decent investment should go into that sphere. A slightly better insurance policy than 67 cold war assets with a sqn emblem not dissimilar to a chavs first tattoo!

VP959

"The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker."

Not true in any way, shape or form. The requirements for BLUH and SCMR, and more recently BRH, were not drawn up in collusion with any manufacturer, even the one in the West Country. In fact, the BLUH requirement was drawn up precisely because a re-engined current Lynx couldn't meet the requirement in the first place (the LLEP and subsequently the LLUH programme).

The BRH requirement does not include carrying pax, other than maybe a couple in the back. The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC.

The Future Lynx airframe is a new design, not a 30 year old one. You may have noticed that it's a different shape, with new crashworthy structure making use of monolithic machined panels, rather than thousands of rivets. The internal volume is the same, true, which is a restriction if it's needed to carry more than 6 + a DG in the back in crashworthy seats, with kit.

BOWMAN is an essential requirement for BRH (as it was for BLUH). IDM is essential as well, to talk to WAH64. If Future Lynx is chosen, then it will have BOWMAN and IDM capability.

Current Lynx OSDs are 2012 for the 3, 7 and 9; 2014 for the 8, BTW, not 2010.

Bill O'Average

Ok, a tad simplistic but when the requirement was written, a fiscal limit was placed that err shall we say sort of limited it to a short list of one or two.

We shall not mention the fact that the requirement didn’t go to open tender due to a certain Somerset company stating that the cost of opening it to competition in the normal sense would double the list price. Cornered market would not be an expression I would use but there you go.

The tail and nose, maybe. And, most would consider adding a big seat with springs in the bottom not exactly in the same arena as 'cutting edge crash worthy'.

The current version can barely do that. The new version requires that the DG has his own 'space'. To give him his own space, with CW seating for pax, plus basic kit, you would be hard pushed to fit a few burly chaps in. This reduces capability. Any more than 5-6 kitted blokes would require SH to ferry them to a loc.
This is not an 'undermine SHF' episode, more of a 'lets buy a cab that doesn’t require a Merlin to ferry a team of 6+ around'.

Wow, a revolution! Would have been nice for AH but you can’t have everything.

Comms to all is a basic requirement, not a major selling point!

I know its akin to walking into a certain religions house of prayer with a pork pie but....a certain product of a certain US company (I shall use the pseudonym Dark, off white bird of prey, answering to the name of SH60) would fit the bill without stepping on the SH toes. Dare I say, the colonials across the pond seem to use it rather effectively with their antiquated version of the AH.


You say that in an almost smug kind of way. One hopes we don’t have too many more three line whip occasions where the Ginger marching suit, boots crunchy and full medals parades are required for chaps who couldn’t attend the BOI before 2012.


VP, I take it you work across the road from the NAAFI at EGVP, failing that, a couple of miles West of a certain Wiltshire Cathedral city? I know you have a busy time ahead but a bit of 'out the box' bollox would be nice! Not all the staff will get an executive position at Yeovil you know.

MaroonMan4

Lets get real world here! There is simply not enough AH to go round. The whole Defence community have seen a significant reduction in their AAvn capability - only 5 years ago each Div had its own AAC Regt, now all of the AAvn assets (less 1 Regt LBH and 847 NAS (soon to be chopped)) are all in 16 Air Asslt Bde.

Lets have a look at the 16 Air Asslt Bde Forecast Of Events and Operational Plot and it does not take the maths of GOC 1, 3 Div and 3 Cdo Bde to realise that he will only see AH every blue moon or on transition to Ops (e.g. NRF).

I also agree that in the current Grand Strategic environment, Peace Keeping/Peace Support/COIN and Peace Enforcement are the forecast for the future. Therefore flexibility (utility, Find and Strike) will be a requirement from CXommanders, rather than the Cold War procured firepower/technology of Apache.

Top Tip:

1. Dont rely on Apache coming anywhere near you (trg and Ops) unless in a 16 Air Asslt Bde package.
2. Those involved with BRH/FRH please DEC ALM sort your branding/marketing out - it does have an effect on morale for those of us waiting for this capability as it appears that the confusion in name is signifying confusion on your desks!).
3. Arm the aircraft, provide with sensors, allow it to Find, Fix Strike and that good doctrinal blah.....if not then there are not enough AH and some high readiness Formations (e.g. 3 Cdo Bde) will be wanting when the other high readiness Bde (16 Air Asslt Bde) owns the AH and fights any Chopping across.
4.Don't forget the limited movt of men and material. You want Eagle Patrols around Camp Dogwood. You can do all of your tactical Effects Based Operations with one aircraft (Sect Level supported with aircraft Sensors and Firepower).

Lets embrace BRH/FRH, but lets not think that just because we have AH it will solve everything. Lets look at the world today - which frontline JHC Capability isn't really required? AH is certainly not essential to anything that UK Plc is doing anywhere in the world - Lynx is, but with minimal investment, it could do so much more...I think the procurement boys call it a 'quick win'.

And what has 673 Sqn got to do with this - aren't they just a 'sticks and poles' trg Sqn based at Wallop or are they the OCU/OEU?

cobaltfrog

Maroon Man4

I hate to shatter your illusions BUT!

No decision has been made to chop 847, well at least not when I was talking to Comd JHC last week!!

VP959

B o'A:
"We shall not mention the fact that the requirement didn’t go to open tender due to a certain Somerset company stating that the cost of opening it to competition in the normal sense would double the list price. Cornered market would not be an expression I would use but there you go."

VP:
The reason it didn't go to competition, was simple, and not at all as you say. Reusing the rotables (refurbished) from the existing Lynx saved about £1M per cab.


B o'A:
"The tail and nose, maybe. And, most would consider adding a big seat with springs in the bottom not exactly in the same arena as 'cutting edge crash worthy'."

VP:

Again, not true. The whole structure is new, nose to tail. apart from the rotables virtually the only other bits from the existing Lynx are the windscreens and cabin doors and afew sundry odds and ends. The bathtub structure had to be newly designed to meet the crashworthiness requirements and take the loads from stroking seats. The lift frames had to be redesigned to take the MAUM from 5330kg to 6250kg. The engine deck had to be redesigned to take the GTS800 engines. The panel and interseat console had to be redesigned to take the big displays, new CDNUs, controllers etc, etc.

I wasn't making BOWMAN etc a "selling point" at all, just correcting an earlier post that assumed it wouldn't have it. The same applies to the comment about OSDs. I wasn't trying to be smug, just stating what the OSDs have been set at for years now.

Tourist

What is one of the major drawbacks of present lynx?
Endurance.
And what is planned for F Lynx to fix that problem>
Sod all.
The Westlands people havn't even considered the possibility of carrying droptanks a la Blackhawk

Mikehegland

One of the major drawbacks is endurance????
Don't think it is fella. Whereabouts in the CCD does it mention endurance? It doesn't
Engine performance is the major constraint but there is no mention at all of endurance. Besides, 3 hours is plenty for me and if you want something to go longer than 3 hours then get a Merlin.

Tourist

Don't often see Mk 7 Lynx go 3 hours.
Ask 847 if they would like to have double the endurance. Yes would be the very definate answer. 847 Lynx boys asked that very question of the Westlands team when they came to Yeovs on a sell Bluh visit. Even just the capability for longer range self deploying would be nice, hence droptanks. What with all the extra lifting capacity it should have with uprated wigets etc it seems criminal not to use it.

VP959

JunglyAEO.

Your post makes it abundantly clear that you haven't even glanced at the BLUH/SCMR/BRH URDs.........................

Out of interest, how many Future Lynx dissenters on here have actually read the URDs? Not many, I suspect, otherwise they wouldn't spout such utter tosh.

The procurers and manufacturers can only go on what the powers that be state as requirements. They sweat their n*ts off trying (against immense political hassle) to deliver this. I do wish some of you guys would do some research and find out exactly what your lords and masters have asked for before having a pop at those trying their level best to serve you. The Somerset firm have got their faults, but I know that their engineers try extremely hard to deliver the right bits of kit.

For example, clearly few know what the RoA of BRH is, judging from the comments about endurance. This has nothing to do with Future Lynx capability as it happens, because the BRH requirement is effectively up for grabs by several other light helos. I believe that cabs like Kiowa Warrior, MELB and EC635 are in the running for this, but don't quote me.

I think it must be a British thing, always wanting to rubbish any new bit of kit. In fact, I can't recall a single bit of kit procured over the last 30 years that hasn't been comprhensively slated, yet despite that we still seem to be amongst the most effective and capable fighting forces in the world.......................

Jackonicko

There's also the fact that whenever we buy British we are the launch customer, and we are buying a relatively immature system. Every time we've bought similarly new and immature kit from the USA it has been equally troubled (or sometimes even more troubled). Look at C-130J, Chinook HC3, etc.

I'd love to know more about BRH, but in view of his past record when it comes to reading the runes in a calm and unbiased manner, I'd listen very hard to VP, he seems very far from being some Wasteland stooge.

Mikehegland

TOURIST - Despite what the guys on 847 say, there is not a requirement to "double" the endurance. The endurance of the Lynx (any mark) is not a constraint and therefore there is not a requirement to double it.

p.s. The Mk3 can go well over 3 hrs and believe me you don't wanna try it.

Jungly AEO - Well said mate. The procurement of military hardware in this country has got nothing to do with requirement. A requirement is just a tool for the bean counters to ensure the pennies are not wasted. So, no matter what the requirement is, we will get an aircraft from Wastelands whether we like it or not. Because at the end of the day it is not the armed forces that counts it is votes.

As an aside, a source in the IPT tells me that Wastelands don't actually build the Lynx. They sub contract 85% out to local companies. There are 75 Local companies that build the Lynx (and consequently F.Lynx) and without this contract they will all go under. Therefore, the decision will be political as you so rightly stated.

VP959

Mikehegland,

Trust me, your "source in the IPT" is mistaken. About 70% by value of Future Lynx is supplied by other companies, but few are local to the West Country and many are overseas.

The same would be true of a product from Eurocopter, Sikorsky, Boeing etc. All aircraft manufacture in this day and age ends up being by a conglomerate of suppliers, the key to success is in making sure the one that primes the whole shooting match is competent. I've no doubt that if we returned to the era when aircraft could be manufactured in their entirety by one company things would run more smoothly. Unfortunately the complexity and variety of kit in a modern platform makes this impractical.

BTW, I'm no great supporter of the West Country supplier in any way shape or form. I do happen to know (from independent evidence) that they aren't any worse than any of the other suppliers though (not that that is saying much).

Tourist

What a load of b@llocks!
There was no competition with required specs! They came later!
The MOD had their head so far up their @rse that they hadn't even noticed that they would be soon requiring a replacement for the lynx, and Westlands cleverly presented them with a Fait Acompli that was Bluh and Scummer. Smart procurement my @rse.
And what is this about no requirement for extra range?
Who should the requirements come from if not the operators?!

Mikehegland

The operators don't write the requirement...

what you need to do mate is nip over to the IPT and see whats going on over there. It'll open yr eyes a tadge I'll tell ya. Last year we invited 50 of them over the road to have a look around a Lynx and all that was because they had never seen one...Honest to god....thats true...they had never seen one..!

And besides, who mentioned range...I missed that point...where is range mentioned.?

ralphmalph

what we need is a secure aircraft that can lift the boys wherever they may be?. not a cab that will depend uopn the weak boys in the system?

VP959

Ah........ All now becomes clear! The people you invited over, Mikekegland, were the DLO chaps and chapesses that buy the spares and provide support to the existing aircraft, not the DPA team that buy the new kit.

BTW, the operators (as Customer 2) do help write the requirement, together with the Customer 1 bods and and much crystal ball gazing from the OA people.

The procurers don't write the requirement, neither do the suppliers (although they certainly try hard to influence it to suit their pet products).

Bismark

Lots being said in this thread by some real insiders (some good stuff, some not). TheRN Lynx remains far and away the best small ship helo in the world (way better than the Seahawk or Sprite). It is fast off the deck (ie reactive), has a good sensor and weapon fit (albeit all need updating) and is still the only battle proven navy helo. Of course the greatest capability in the aircraft is the Observer - a capability the Navy must retain unlike the c**bs who seem hell bent on getting rid of them.

From my armchair of retirement there is only one a/c to replace the Lynx - the Lynx. Endurance isn't everything it is the whole package that counts. As for the pongoes BRH should be Scummer should be Lynx.

SilsoeSid

VP959 Mmmm, really? Ok, so not properly procured per say etc, but if heads were allowed out of the sand a few years ago, the topic of conversation would be completely different.

I for one would be quite happy for the Lynx replacement to be made by a certain westcountry helicopter manufacturer as long as the product was right.

The Lynx as a recce heli must also raise a few questions, but in the meantime lets see the quality of product the 'makers in the south' come up with.

In an ideal world, things may have been different.......;

VP959

SS,

Pray tell me why you'd want something that big, heavy, old and expensive to meet the BRH requirement? Current candidates are cabs like MELB, Kiowa Warrior, EC635 etc, which are one heck of a lot cheaper than UH60.

I know it's battle damage tolerant and modestly capable as a lifter, but we don't need all of the armament capability (we have WAH to do that) and according to the current requirement (from Cust 2 BTW) we don't need to shift more than a couple of guys around the battlefield with it either.

Things being what they are, with money for new kit dwindling fast, I somehow doubt that UH60 is a realistic proposition for BRH.

As I recall, AW only made one under licence and sold it to the middle east somewhere. Since then AW have let the licence lapse and probably aren't on such close terms with Sikorsky either.