Westland Lynx (Merged threads)
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
VP, to go back to what you have been saying;
" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."
"Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement."
"The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. "
"I know it's (the Blackhawk) 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."
You seem to be going around in circles VP 'me old China', by your own assumptions and as for knowing what the DAAvn is pushing for, I'm surprised that you continue.
Maybe you do have the WAH, 'to do that', if you can get hold of them and after all that's all it does. How about putting drop tanks or mixing ordanance on the mission pylons for the extra endurance required for long strike missions with the 60?
As for the 'according to current requirements...no need to shift more than a couple of guys', yea right. HELLO VP ARE YOU THERE?
Then again, we will always have the good old US of A to help us out, if we were ever to get into such shananagans, wouldn't we?
As for the "Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx" statement, just who started calling it the Future Lynx?
If that IS the case, shouldn't we be calling it by a different name.?
You may be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but traditionally one would have to knit something out of it first.
"Pray tell me why you'd want something that big, heavy, old and expensive to meet the BRH requirement?"
Your examples are MELB, Kiowa Warrior, EC635 etc.
Why not a few R44s
Small, light, new-ish, inexpensive and quiet. After all, you just want a BRH don't you?
" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."
"Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement."
"The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. "
"I know it's (the Blackhawk) 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."
You seem to be going around in circles VP 'me old China', by your own assumptions and as for knowing what the DAAvn is pushing for, I'm surprised that you continue.
Maybe you do have the WAH, 'to do that', if you can get hold of them and after all that's all it does. How about putting drop tanks or mixing ordanance on the mission pylons for the extra endurance required for long strike missions with the 60?
As for the 'according to current requirements...no need to shift more than a couple of guys', yea right. HELLO VP ARE YOU THERE?
Then again, we will always have the good old US of A to help us out, if we were ever to get into such shananagans, wouldn't we?
As for the "Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx" statement, just who started calling it the Future Lynx?
If that IS the case, shouldn't we be calling it by a different name.?
You may be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but traditionally one would have to knit something out of it first.
"Pray tell me why you'd want something that big, heavy, old and expensive to meet the BRH requirement?"
Your examples are MELB, Kiowa Warrior, EC635 etc.
Why not a few R44s
Small, light, new-ish, inexpensive and quiet. After all, you just want a BRH don't you?
SS,
For what it's worth I've had nowt to do with the setting of the requirements for any of the new kit. I do know those that have though, and have to assume that they know what they are doing when reaching the best, affordable, compromise. Currently that compromise is to trade the old BLUH requirement to BRH, which is a light recce helo to support WAH and ground forces. Rather unsurprisingly our friends over the pond are doing something similar, trading the cancelled RAH-66 programme for a lightweight ARH, which will be something like Kiowa or MELB I suspect.
You can choose not to believe me if you wish, it's entirely your choice. You may well be right about what's actually needed, rather than what your old corps 1* tells me is needed. After all as a passed-over sergeant I've no doubt that your knowledge, expertise and judgement is considerably greater.
For what it's worth I've had nowt to do with the setting of the requirements for any of the new kit. I do know those that have though, and have to assume that they know what they are doing when reaching the best, affordable, compromise. Currently that compromise is to trade the old BLUH requirement to BRH, which is a light recce helo to support WAH and ground forces. Rather unsurprisingly our friends over the pond are doing something similar, trading the cancelled RAH-66 programme for a lightweight ARH, which will be something like Kiowa or MELB I suspect.
You can choose not to believe me if you wish, it's entirely your choice. You may well be right about what's actually needed, rather than what your old corps 1* tells me is needed. After all as a passed-over sergeant I've no doubt that your knowledge, expertise and judgement is considerably greater.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
"You may well be right about what's actually needed, rather than what your old corps 1* tells me is needed. "
And who better to know what is needed more than the old !*, Eh VP! After all there are no others with fingers on so many pulses are there. Or was that fingers in pies with retirement in mind? (sound familiar!!)
If you don't mind me once more repeating 2 quotes from you with your resources/contacts;
" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."
"...........although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement.
It doesn't seem to me that the old 1* knows what he wants....does he!!!!
"as a passed-over sergeant I've no doubt that your knowledge, expertise and judgement is considerably greater"
At one stage perhaps it was VP, perhaps it was. But for now, I just hope that the country gets the correct kit to make my country a safer place!!!
ATB,
SS
p.s. Same arguments back in July.
p.p.s. (edit) With your limited experience hands on, so to speak, at what rank does someones opinion count VP?
And who better to know what is needed more than the old !*, Eh VP! After all there are no others with fingers on so many pulses are there. Or was that fingers in pies with retirement in mind? (sound familiar!!)
If you don't mind me once more repeating 2 quotes from you with your resources/contacts;
" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."
"...........although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement.
It doesn't seem to me that the old 1* knows what he wants....does he!!!!
"as a passed-over sergeant I've no doubt that your knowledge, expertise and judgement is considerably greater"
At one stage perhaps it was VP, perhaps it was. But for now, I just hope that the country gets the correct kit to make my country a safer place!!!
ATB,
SS
p.s. Same arguments back in July.
p.p.s. (edit) With your limited experience hands on, so to speak, at what rank does someones opinion count VP?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just went off and checked my facts.
Lynx AH Mk 7 has a max endurance of 2:10.
On Telic, this meant that the crews had to go home practically as soon as they got a hand over in place.
A MAJOR limitation.
Perhaps the people making the requirements should actually speak to the current operators, then we might get a piece of kit we like.
Oh no, that would never work would it. Nobody likes the new bagger cab do they.?
Lynx AH Mk 7 has a max endurance of 2:10.
On Telic, this meant that the crews had to go home practically as soon as they got a hand over in place.
A MAJOR limitation.
Perhaps the people making the requirements should actually speak to the current operators, then we might get a piece of kit we like.
Oh no, that would never work would it. Nobody likes the new bagger cab do they.?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK (Wilts)
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Have you considered the possibility that the AH were being tasked beyond their stated capability. Let's face it the endurance of a Lynx is hardly a national secret.
BTW As far as I am aware it was WHL who started using the phrase Future Lynx whilst the MOD stuck with BLUH and SCMR for some time.
PS. I previewed the SH60 and would rather fly a Lynx in the SCMR role. It's great for ASW from an Arleigh Burke though.....
Have you considered the possibility that the AH were being tasked beyond their stated capability. Let's face it the endurance of a Lynx is hardly a national secret.
BTW As far as I am aware it was WHL who started using the phrase Future Lynx whilst the MOD stuck with BLUH and SCMR for some time.
PS. I previewed the SH60 and would rather fly a Lynx in the SCMR role. It's great for ASW from an Arleigh Burke though.....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VP does seem to be very well informed. Am I right in thinking there is a Lynx P in your title or have you been moved to main building recently?
Rant on.
Bearing in mind what happened today and previously this year I can't help but think that the DECs need to pull their collective fingers out and buy something to replace the shagged out Lynx.
These operators strap the Lynx to their backs every day knowing that the cab could fall out of the sky at any time. Don't get me wrong the Lynx is a great small ship flight A/C but we should have procured somehing back when LLUH was on the table.
If its built at Wastelands then jobs are secured good arguement but WHL have the license to build lots of lovely cabs more suitable for the Army than FLynx.
FLynx is a WHL propaganda exercise, it doesn't and never will meet either BLUH/SCMR or the BRH URD. A lot of work has been carried out by the DPA and WHL to change the FLynx but its the best thing WHL make for the job.
If they had bothered to develop something suitable in the first place rather than trying to prop up their dodgy arms deals then we might have got somewhere.
Expect to see a couple of dozen very expensive FLynx sat in a storage hangar in 10 years time being polished by WHL IOS experts, whilst the current legacy A/C is still soldiering on.
Rant off.
Rant on.
Bearing in mind what happened today and previously this year I can't help but think that the DECs need to pull their collective fingers out and buy something to replace the shagged out Lynx.
These operators strap the Lynx to their backs every day knowing that the cab could fall out of the sky at any time. Don't get me wrong the Lynx is a great small ship flight A/C but we should have procured somehing back when LLUH was on the table.
If its built at Wastelands then jobs are secured good arguement but WHL have the license to build lots of lovely cabs more suitable for the Army than FLynx.
FLynx is a WHL propaganda exercise, it doesn't and never will meet either BLUH/SCMR or the BRH URD. A lot of work has been carried out by the DPA and WHL to change the FLynx but its the best thing WHL make for the job.
If they had bothered to develop something suitable in the first place rather than trying to prop up their dodgy arms deals then we might have got somewhere.
Expect to see a couple of dozen very expensive FLynx sat in a storage hangar in 10 years time being polished by WHL IOS experts, whilst the current legacy A/C is still soldiering on.
Rant off.
Not anywhere near as close to the "centre" as you suspect, Funky Monkey, just a reasonably well-connected person associated with a certain well-known establishment on a flatt-ish bit of central southern England...............
I agree about the political bits re: a certain indigenous rotorcraft manufacturer though. Buying from them just to keep them in business is wholly wrong, unless they actually deliver the best bit of kit for the price.
What's the betting that any future purchase decision will be driven by politicians, rather than all those hard-working bods who have spent a couple of years trying to evaluate the best option?
From what I've seen, procurement doesn't fail because the procurers get it wrong, it nearly always fails because the decisions get skewed by high level political influence, leaving the procurers with impossible programmes to run.
I agree about the political bits re: a certain indigenous rotorcraft manufacturer though. Buying from them just to keep them in business is wholly wrong, unless they actually deliver the best bit of kit for the price.
What's the betting that any future purchase decision will be driven by politicians, rather than all those hard-working bods who have spent a couple of years trying to evaluate the best option?
From what I've seen, procurement doesn't fail because the procurers get it wrong, it nearly always fails because the decisions get skewed by high level political influence, leaving the procurers with impossible programmes to run.
So what does the AAC actually need? It's got it's AH anti tank capability but needs RAF SH to support it as the Lynx has a pitiful USL or internal freight capability.
It also needs recce helicopters which do not need to be as big or thirsty as the Lynx. So leave the SH stuff to RAF SH and buy more Chinooks and procure a light, fast BRH for the recce.
The only problem is that other than war-fighting and exercises the AAC would not be deployed as their kit would be too specialised. By continuing with a Lynx replacement philosophy DAAVn are able to maintain the size and strength of the AAC and continue to have their non-AH crews as jack-of-all-trades and master of none. The Lynx will never be an SH machine although it's shedloads of fun to fly.
Having seen the SABRSAR circus have meetings, steering groups and roadshows, only to go round in circles as the goalpost kept moving and eventually evolve into SARH which will doubtless turn the same tricks without ever making any decisions, I am holding out little hope for something useful coming out of BLUH, FLYNX etc.
It also needs recce helicopters which do not need to be as big or thirsty as the Lynx. So leave the SH stuff to RAF SH and buy more Chinooks and procure a light, fast BRH for the recce.
The only problem is that other than war-fighting and exercises the AAC would not be deployed as their kit would be too specialised. By continuing with a Lynx replacement philosophy DAAVn are able to maintain the size and strength of the AAC and continue to have their non-AH crews as jack-of-all-trades and master of none. The Lynx will never be an SH machine although it's shedloads of fun to fly.
Having seen the SABRSAR circus have meetings, steering groups and roadshows, only to go round in circles as the goalpost kept moving and eventually evolve into SARH which will doubtless turn the same tricks without ever making any decisions, I am holding out little hope for something useful coming out of BLUH, FLYNX etc.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea Lynx wheel question
The Sea Lynx seems to have adjustable rear wheels. I understand that on a ship without much space, the helicopter has to be turned into the wind.
-How does this work?
- Are the rear wheels adjusted with hydraulic pressure, or are they just "unlocked" and go into the desired position trough a pedal-turn?
- How doed a landing on a Fregatte work? They have a landing hook ...
Any help is highly appreciated
Thanks in advance ...
Hotzenplotz
-How does this work?
- Are the rear wheels adjusted with hydraulic pressure, or are they just "unlocked" and go into the desired position trough a pedal-turn?
- How doed a landing on a Fregatte work? They have a landing hook ...
Any help is highly appreciated
Thanks in advance ...
Hotzenplotz
Last edited by hotzenplotz; 9th Mar 2005 at 14:02.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Lynx wheels are normally angled so the helicopter can rotate about the harpoon, which locks into the landing grid. The nosewheel has only two positions (fore/aft or left right for castoring).
To move the helicopter fore/aft the mainenance folks unlock the aft wheels and rotate them to the straight ahead position. This is not the normal position.
Unless this has all changed, of course. I last flew the Navy Lynx in 1982...
To move the helicopter fore/aft the mainenance folks unlock the aft wheels and rotate them to the straight ahead position. This is not the normal position.
Unless this has all changed, of course. I last flew the Navy Lynx in 1982...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Somewhere European!
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn,
Yep, no changes, apart from the fact that like most naval helos it's got fatter.
Hotzenplotz, the harpoon is engaged into a metal grid placed at the centre of the deck after the aircraft has landed. It is not the same as the Canadian bear trap system which effectively 'winches' the aircraft onto the deck. If the sea state is particularly rough the Lynx has the ability to push through to negative blade bitch allowing it to hold itself on deck. Been needed a couple of times too. The Harpoon is quite effective as demonstrated during the Falklands war after 'Antrim' (I believe, but not 100% sure) was hit and rolled over the Lynx was still found attached by the harpoon inverted underwater.
The castoring on deck is not used all that much as it is preferable for the ship to manoeuvre into wind prior to launching. However if the sea room is restrictive or the ship has to remain on course with a trong side wind the aircraft has the option to rotate into wind.
On the RN Lynx the wheels have only the two positions which are set by the ground crew. Fore/aft in order to pull it out onto the deck and then 45degrees approx to enable castoring and a braking effect if a running landing is required (shags the tyres though!). I believe, but again am not 100% sure, that the french lynx has the ability to turn the wheels from the cockpit.
Like Shawn, haven't flown the beast for many a year but it was fantastic to fly and had many a problem free flying hour!
Yep, no changes, apart from the fact that like most naval helos it's got fatter.
Hotzenplotz, the harpoon is engaged into a metal grid placed at the centre of the deck after the aircraft has landed. It is not the same as the Canadian bear trap system which effectively 'winches' the aircraft onto the deck. If the sea state is particularly rough the Lynx has the ability to push through to negative blade bitch allowing it to hold itself on deck. Been needed a couple of times too. The Harpoon is quite effective as demonstrated during the Falklands war after 'Antrim' (I believe, but not 100% sure) was hit and rolled over the Lynx was still found attached by the harpoon inverted underwater.
The castoring on deck is not used all that much as it is preferable for the ship to manoeuvre into wind prior to launching. However if the sea room is restrictive or the ship has to remain on course with a trong side wind the aircraft has the option to rotate into wind.
On the RN Lynx the wheels have only the two positions which are set by the ground crew. Fore/aft in order to pull it out onto the deck and then 45degrees approx to enable castoring and a braking effect if a running landing is required (shags the tyres though!). I believe, but again am not 100% sure, that the french lynx has the ability to turn the wheels from the cockpit.
Like Shawn, haven't flown the beast for many a year but it was fantastic to fly and had many a problem free flying hour!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
MoD confirms AgustaWestland as strategic partner, Future Lynx as future platform
(Mods - this can probably be merged with the other 4 or 5 threads on the subject...)
Partnering arrangement between MoD and Agusta Westland
Ministry of Defence news release (059/2005) issued by the Government News Network on 24 March 2005
The Ministry of Defence has today announced that it intends to develop a long-term partnering and business transformation arrangement with Agusta Westland, which has been outlined in a 'Heads of Agreement'. The MoD has also indicated that Agusta Westland's Future Lynx is its preferred option for meeting the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack elements of the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirement. These decisions are subject to continuing negotiations with the company and, in the case of Future Lynx, to agreeing acceptable contract conditions and prices.
The MoD and Agusta Westland have committed to work toward a partnering and business transformation agreement that builds on the new integrated operational support arrangements agreed for the Sea King fleet. This support will be further developed to optimise more aspects of managing and sustaining the current and future helicopter fleets.
The Future Lynx decision builds on previous extensive assessment and de-risking work, as well as analysis conducted into future rotorcraft requirements. Competition remains the cornerstone of MoD procurement policy. This applies to the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirements as elsewhere, in particular for the Land Lift (Medium) element.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said:
"I am pleased to announce both our decision to work together with Agusta Westland toward a long-term partnering arrangement, and our decision that Future Lynx is our preferred option for the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack requirement.
"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. This is a key first milestone for the Future Rotorcraft Capability programme, and is part of the commitment we made in last year's supplement to the Defence White Paper to invest some £3 billion in our helicopter fleet over the next 10 years.
2. Exact aircraft numbers for the Future Lynx, delivery schedule and In-Service Date will all be set at the time of the main procurement decision.
3. A final "Main Gate" procurement decision is expected later this year.
I/C
Partnering arrangement between MoD and Agusta Westland
Ministry of Defence news release (059/2005) issued by the Government News Network on 24 March 2005
The Ministry of Defence has today announced that it intends to develop a long-term partnering and business transformation arrangement with Agusta Westland, which has been outlined in a 'Heads of Agreement'. The MoD has also indicated that Agusta Westland's Future Lynx is its preferred option for meeting the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack elements of the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirement. These decisions are subject to continuing negotiations with the company and, in the case of Future Lynx, to agreeing acceptable contract conditions and prices.
The MoD and Agusta Westland have committed to work toward a partnering and business transformation agreement that builds on the new integrated operational support arrangements agreed for the Sea King fleet. This support will be further developed to optimise more aspects of managing and sustaining the current and future helicopter fleets.
The Future Lynx decision builds on previous extensive assessment and de-risking work, as well as analysis conducted into future rotorcraft requirements. Competition remains the cornerstone of MoD procurement policy. This applies to the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirements as elsewhere, in particular for the Land Lift (Medium) element.
The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said:
"I am pleased to announce both our decision to work together with Agusta Westland toward a long-term partnering arrangement, and our decision that Future Lynx is our preferred option for the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack requirement.
"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. This is a key first milestone for the Future Rotorcraft Capability programme, and is part of the commitment we made in last year's supplement to the Defence White Paper to invest some £3 billion in our helicopter fleet over the next 10 years.
2. Exact aircraft numbers for the Future Lynx, delivery schedule and In-Service Date will all be set at the time of the main procurement decision.
3. A final "Main Gate" procurement decision is expected later this year.
I/C
Land find?
What's that then?
What's that then?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So for Maritime (Surface) Attack we're buying an enhanced, limited endurance, pea-shooter that can't even find its own mother. Great call!! That'll not be at all political, then.
TOG
TOG
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the cynical sniping begin. First person to use the term "Wastelands" in a gratuitous swing at the announcement wins. .. errr. . nothing, actually.