Westland Lynx (Merged threads)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack
I have seen a few documents on this and to be quite frank do not recognise the terms above. I personally though the original BLUH requirement was for an aircraft to transport small numbers of troops around the battlefield. The SCMR mission defined here also looks a little limited.
Both together would seem to indicate a retrenchment from the original defintion for these linked but originally separate projects.
Anyone in the know care to comment?
I have seen a few documents on this and to be quite frank do not recognise the terms above. I personally though the original BLUH requirement was for an aircraft to transport small numbers of troops around the battlefield. The SCMR mission defined here also looks a little limited.
Both together would seem to indicate a retrenchment from the original defintion for these linked but originally separate projects.
Anyone in the know care to comment?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys, is FLYNX a new build aircraft or a refurbed Mk8? Anyone want to take a guess on numbers, the rolling brief from about 2 years ago was talking 40 frames, so I guess we're looking at about 25 now?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SiClik/Pr00ne
Jungly AEO has got it about right, this is how FRC views the battlespace capability breakdown for rotary wing.
I'm more cynical as regards the announcement. The BLUH contract was supposed to have been signed at Farnboro last year. The spin in the notes is nonsense, the commitment to Lynx replacement was made a long time ago and has not been delivered. This is recycling old news, another procurement delay has been shown as a triumph of recent investment. I think that this is the easiest bit of FRC out of the way, wait until the medium lift competition - Merlin or NH90 what would you rather fly?
Jungly AEO has got it about right, this is how FRC views the battlespace capability breakdown for rotary wing.
I'm more cynical as regards the announcement. The BLUH contract was supposed to have been signed at Farnboro last year. The spin in the notes is nonsense, the commitment to Lynx replacement was made a long time ago and has not been delivered. This is recycling old news, another procurement delay has been shown as a triumph of recent investment. I think that this is the easiest bit of FRC out of the way, wait until the medium lift competition - Merlin or NH90 what would you rather fly?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well, a winner for Westlands and Defence Industry however a carefull ommission of the words a good thing for the Services. Yet again Westlands announce significant redundancies during the decision making period and the politicians fall over themselves to award them contracts that do not necesarily benefit the end user.
Lynx:- Too small to 'lift' anything of use on the battlefield. Difficult to see how availability/serviceability would be increased or surely the technology would have been incorporated in existing Lynx to improve it's reputation! Range limited, no cabin space etc. etc.
I'd love to see a costing to balance against a further purchase of non radar equipped Apaches for the Army! We already have the best find aircraft on the rotary battlefield but not necesarily sufficient numbers of weapons delivery platforms. Buy more 64D's, increase weapons platforms and use existing ones with radar in the find function as well.
IMHO
Lynx:- Too small to 'lift' anything of use on the battlefield. Difficult to see how availability/serviceability would be increased or surely the technology would have been incorporated in existing Lynx to improve it's reputation! Range limited, no cabin space etc. etc.
I'd love to see a costing to balance against a further purchase of non radar equipped Apaches for the Army! We already have the best find aircraft on the rotary battlefield but not necesarily sufficient numbers of weapons delivery platforms. Buy more 64D's, increase weapons platforms and use existing ones with radar in the find function as well.
IMHO
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK (Wilts)
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this is good news for the Lynx operators. We all know that the airframe and engines are getting tired and a replacement needs to be procured yesterday. That fact that the airframe will be Lynx development is not that surprising given the project risk reduction that the SCMR/BLUH project output can give.
If you want to replace a Lynx with similar but modernised size/capability then there are not that many choices and let's face it in the current climate any thought improved capability is fantasy. We are not going to see a larger, bigger hitting, technologically stunning replacement.
The irritation of the MOD handling of SCMR/BLUH and the unnecessary design restrictions placed on AWHL are ancient history, let’s get on and deal with what we are getting.
HEDP: There are many ways that the Lynx can be improved with a rebuild - new engines, redesigned structure, and modern design - but what you ain't getting on the battle field is a Blackhawk! The capability required by FRC is Land (Find) we are lucky we aren't getting a Kiowa Warrior. As far as you comments on Apache are concerned, bear in mind that it is an excellent attack mission system in an ageing airframe design - the fcs is frankly poor by modern standards (yes I have flown it) as is the PNVS hence DNVG trials. It is too big for recce and the optics are in the wrong place. Now if Land(Find) doesn't have a mast mounted sight then we have a problem....
If you want to replace a Lynx with similar but modernised size/capability then there are not that many choices and let's face it in the current climate any thought improved capability is fantasy. We are not going to see a larger, bigger hitting, technologically stunning replacement.
The irritation of the MOD handling of SCMR/BLUH and the unnecessary design restrictions placed on AWHL are ancient history, let’s get on and deal with what we are getting.
HEDP: There are many ways that the Lynx can be improved with a rebuild - new engines, redesigned structure, and modern design - but what you ain't getting on the battle field is a Blackhawk! The capability required by FRC is Land (Find) we are lucky we aren't getting a Kiowa Warrior. As far as you comments on Apache are concerned, bear in mind that it is an excellent attack mission system in an ageing airframe design - the fcs is frankly poor by modern standards (yes I have flown it) as is the PNVS hence DNVG trials. It is too big for recce and the optics are in the wrong place. Now if Land(Find) doesn't have a mast mounted sight then we have a problem....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with Apache for Land Find is that you would not use it for small scale ops (in the same way that you would not use a Challenger on the ground). Apache is a weapon system for medium/large scale ops.
Seems to me the announcement yesterday is good news for the maritime boys. F Lynx/SCMR will follow on from the Mk 8 as the best (bar none) small ship find/attack helo in the world - coupled with the best find/attack aircrew in the world (the Observer). What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.
Does anyone know anything about the NH90 in the TTH role? Is it any good, how much has it flown, is it in service with anyone yet? Has any real war-fighting nation bought it?
Seems to me the announcement yesterday is good news for the maritime boys. F Lynx/SCMR will follow on from the Mk 8 as the best (bar none) small ship find/attack helo in the world - coupled with the best find/attack aircrew in the world (the Observer). What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.
Does anyone know anything about the NH90 in the TTH role? Is it any good, how much has it flown, is it in service with anyone yet? Has any real war-fighting nation bought it?
.
So that will be Cobra then? Why a Radar, thats what REDRAT (SK mk 6) does and does very well.
Guess we'll end up doing the R&D for Westlands again then, and in 20 yrs time we'll get a competent aircraft just in time for us to retire it
Thats great news for the Royal Marines then. NO AH support on Ops.
What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.
Guess we'll end up doing the R&D for Westlands again then, and in 20 yrs time we'll get a competent aircraft just in time for us to retire it
The trouble with Apache for Land Find is that you would not use it for small scale ops (in the same way that you would not use a Challenger on the ground). Apache is a weapon system for medium/large scale
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timex,
You miss the point. It does not matter who will use AH it is not a small scale weapon system.
Thats great news for the Royal Marines then. NO AH support on Ops.
For what it's worth, here is some info on FLynx:
It will have a MAUM at OSD of 6250kg, as against the current Lynx MAUM of 5330kg. It'll be structurally cleared to 6250kg at ISD, but needs BERPIV blades to get there (it'll operate at about 6100kg MAUM at ISD). Overall, the basic mass empty remains close to that for the current aircraft, so the improvement in useful load is quite significant.
The airframe is virtually all new, with extensive use of monolithic machined panels to reduce parts count, reduce mass and reduce time and cost of repair. The tail cone alone has a parts count reduction of close on two orders of magnitude over the current riveted structure. The airframe has been designed to improve maintainability, by trying to fix most of the irritating "features" in the current airframe. This data was gathered from maintainers at the front line during the Assessment Phase.
The engines are new, LHTEC CTS 800Ns, with a very healthy power increase over the ageing Gems. As a consequence, hot and high performance will be massively improved over the current Lynx.
The MRGB will be a refurbished and uprated current Lynx box, with new conformal gears and a new top cover, to improve reliability and increase torque capacity. Additional reduction gearboxes are fitted at the front of the engines to reduce the rpm into the MRGB.
Nr is increased, as a consequence of the carefree handling provided by the FADEC control. This ensures very much more accurate Nr measurement and display, so allows a safe higher Nr. This significantly improves the disc performance and in addtion reduces pilot workload.
The tail rotor and hub is new, to allow sufficient yaw authority with the much increased main rotor power input and higher MAUM.
Fuel capacity will be increased by the fitment of external drop tanks for long range missions. This is made possible by the significant increase in useful load. Current predicted endurance with drop tanks is over 3 hours at 120kts.
The cockpit has four 10" x 8" AMLCD displays, digital map, integrated threat warning displays, switchable PFDs etc, and all the modern widgets you might expect. Front seat entry and egress is improved by increasing the size of the front doors. Cockpit safety has been improved by massively strengthening the floor area, fitting stroking seats and addressing the known issue of the front cockpit section breaking just in front of the front lift frame on impact.
The rear cabin stays pretty much exactly as the current Lynx, with the addition of stroking, energy absorbing seats and four/five point harnesses for passengers. Again, the floor has been strengthened to improve crashworthiness.
It's not all good news though. Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason. The health and safety requirements which have forced the fitment of stroking seats have effectively reduced usable cabin volume in peactime use (it was not viable to stretch the airframe).
I'm no lover of politically induced decision making, and know that four years ago the BLUH procurement team recomended going to competition for this requirement. Their professional view was over ridden by the politicians then and has just been over ridden by them again. Nevertheless, FLynx is a highly capable aircraft, that retains all of the best attributes of Lynx and removes many of the worst.
It will have a MAUM at OSD of 6250kg, as against the current Lynx MAUM of 5330kg. It'll be structurally cleared to 6250kg at ISD, but needs BERPIV blades to get there (it'll operate at about 6100kg MAUM at ISD). Overall, the basic mass empty remains close to that for the current aircraft, so the improvement in useful load is quite significant.
The airframe is virtually all new, with extensive use of monolithic machined panels to reduce parts count, reduce mass and reduce time and cost of repair. The tail cone alone has a parts count reduction of close on two orders of magnitude over the current riveted structure. The airframe has been designed to improve maintainability, by trying to fix most of the irritating "features" in the current airframe. This data was gathered from maintainers at the front line during the Assessment Phase.
The engines are new, LHTEC CTS 800Ns, with a very healthy power increase over the ageing Gems. As a consequence, hot and high performance will be massively improved over the current Lynx.
The MRGB will be a refurbished and uprated current Lynx box, with new conformal gears and a new top cover, to improve reliability and increase torque capacity. Additional reduction gearboxes are fitted at the front of the engines to reduce the rpm into the MRGB.
Nr is increased, as a consequence of the carefree handling provided by the FADEC control. This ensures very much more accurate Nr measurement and display, so allows a safe higher Nr. This significantly improves the disc performance and in addtion reduces pilot workload.
The tail rotor and hub is new, to allow sufficient yaw authority with the much increased main rotor power input and higher MAUM.
Fuel capacity will be increased by the fitment of external drop tanks for long range missions. This is made possible by the significant increase in useful load. Current predicted endurance with drop tanks is over 3 hours at 120kts.
The cockpit has four 10" x 8" AMLCD displays, digital map, integrated threat warning displays, switchable PFDs etc, and all the modern widgets you might expect. Front seat entry and egress is improved by increasing the size of the front doors. Cockpit safety has been improved by massively strengthening the floor area, fitting stroking seats and addressing the known issue of the front cockpit section breaking just in front of the front lift frame on impact.
The rear cabin stays pretty much exactly as the current Lynx, with the addition of stroking, energy absorbing seats and four/five point harnesses for passengers. Again, the floor has been strengthened to improve crashworthiness.
It's not all good news though. Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason. The health and safety requirements which have forced the fitment of stroking seats have effectively reduced usable cabin volume in peactime use (it was not viable to stretch the airframe).
I'm no lover of politically induced decision making, and know that four years ago the BLUH procurement team recomended going to competition for this requirement. Their professional view was over ridden by the politicians then and has just been over ridden by them again. Nevertheless, FLynx is a highly capable aircraft, that retains all of the best attributes of Lynx and removes many of the worst.
You miss the point. It does not matter who will use AH it is not a small scale weapon system.
Sorry MK7 not MK6, but still did a great job maybe we should have more of them?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Temporarily unsure of my position
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
timex....now you've done it - mentioned the dreaded Sea King
The helicopter that just won't go away! Why?, because nothing discussed on this thread so far can actually replace it!. Lynx too small, Merlin too big.
Rumour has it that enquiries have been made at that foreign owned company in Somerset to see if they could actually build a few more!. There are rotors available off the shelf that give a 30% increase in efficiency for a start!!
This unspeakable airframe always was the ideal size for the RN.
Standing by for the usual hate mail
The helicopter that just won't go away! Why?, because nothing discussed on this thread so far can actually replace it!. Lynx too small, Merlin too big.
Rumour has it that enquiries have been made at that foreign owned company in Somerset to see if they could actually build a few more!. There are rotors available off the shelf that give a 30% increase in efficiency for a start!!
This unspeakable airframe always was the ideal size for the RN.
Standing by for the usual hate mail
VP959,
So the FLynx combines a new generation airframe (more advanced than that of the SLynx 300) with the engines of the SLynx 300, and some of the avionics. Sounds good so far, though the reduction in cabin volume sounds worrying (exactly what is the reduction, and is it primarily in cabin height, or width, or what? Can these new stroking seats be stripped out as easily and as quickly as the current seating?)
You say: "Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason."
What's missing, in your view, and what's being reused?
And how many airframes are they looking at, Naval and Army?
So the FLynx combines a new generation airframe (more advanced than that of the SLynx 300) with the engines of the SLynx 300, and some of the avionics. Sounds good so far, though the reduction in cabin volume sounds worrying (exactly what is the reduction, and is it primarily in cabin height, or width, or what? Can these new stroking seats be stripped out as easily and as quickly as the current seating?)
You say: "Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason."
What's missing, in your view, and what's being reused?
And how many airframes are they looking at, Naval and Army?
At least its not the RAN Seasprite.
Having said that, considering the Chinook Mk3 (amongst others) fiasco, the words, pot, kettlle and black come to mind.
Oh dear. Maybe we can sell them Lynx...........
Having said that, considering the Chinook Mk3 (amongst others) fiasco, the words, pot, kettlle and black come to mind.
Oh dear. Maybe we can sell them Lynx...........
Jacko,
The cabin volume hasn't been reduced, but the use of stroking seats (for health and safety reasons) precludes putting Bergens under them in peacetime operations. The result is an effective reduction in usable cabin volume, as current practice is to fit stuff anywhere it will go.
The engines are uprated WRT to SL300, thanks to the use of conformal gears in the MRGB allowing a greater torque capacity, plus the new tail rotor giving adequate yaw authority. SL300 is limited to 5330kg MAUM (same as current Lynx) as the airframe hasn't been uprated (whereas FLynx has). Having said that, the SL300 demonstrator managed to take off and hover OGE at 5330kg MAUM at about 9,400ft ISA plus 30deg C during trials, which is a fairly hefty improvement over current Lynx.
The real problem with the reduced system integration is the workload for the poor old left seat guy in the maritime role. The forced cut in things like data fusion will present him with masses of information and a lot of mandraulic button pressing to pull the picture together. Hopefully this will be addressed through incremental growth, as at least the "hooks" for the integration of systems in the future have been provided. The sensors are very good though, so no reduction in capability has been suffered there. As a consequence, the Find role for land forces will be well provided for, with a recce capability which is very significantly better than WAH 64.
I know people will rush to knock FLynx, but despite the appalling political long screwdrivering into the decision making process it is a damn fine aircraft, in my professional opinion.
VP
The cabin volume hasn't been reduced, but the use of stroking seats (for health and safety reasons) precludes putting Bergens under them in peacetime operations. The result is an effective reduction in usable cabin volume, as current practice is to fit stuff anywhere it will go.
The engines are uprated WRT to SL300, thanks to the use of conformal gears in the MRGB allowing a greater torque capacity, plus the new tail rotor giving adequate yaw authority. SL300 is limited to 5330kg MAUM (same as current Lynx) as the airframe hasn't been uprated (whereas FLynx has). Having said that, the SL300 demonstrator managed to take off and hover OGE at 5330kg MAUM at about 9,400ft ISA plus 30deg C during trials, which is a fairly hefty improvement over current Lynx.
The real problem with the reduced system integration is the workload for the poor old left seat guy in the maritime role. The forced cut in things like data fusion will present him with masses of information and a lot of mandraulic button pressing to pull the picture together. Hopefully this will be addressed through incremental growth, as at least the "hooks" for the integration of systems in the future have been provided. The sensors are very good though, so no reduction in capability has been suffered there. As a consequence, the Find role for land forces will be well provided for, with a recce capability which is very significantly better than WAH 64.
I know people will rush to knock FLynx, but despite the appalling political long screwdrivering into the decision making process it is a damn fine aircraft, in my professional opinion.
VP
Ah thanks for the clarification. If bergen carrying is an issue, don't I recall an artist's impression of a non-structural strap on ventral pannier for Lynx, some years ago?
How does the maritime sensor fusion compare with that in the latest (Thai/Malay) Lynxes? With its higher AUW capability would there be any percentage in the SCMR FLynx carrying an extra crewmember?
And what legacy kit is to be reused?
How does the maritime sensor fusion compare with that in the latest (Thai/Malay) Lynxes? With its higher AUW capability would there be any percentage in the SCMR FLynx carrying an extra crewmember?
And what legacy kit is to be reused?
Jacko,
The external stowage option may well be looked at again, but I believe that the AAC have tried out the cabin volume demonstrator and declared that they are happy with it.
As to the missing data fusion and other systems integration capability, I'm not sure that it will be an immediate limitation. It will take time for crews to get up to speed with just what FLynx has to offer and it may well prove to be better to shape the required level of systems integration after initial front line experience.
FLynx has very little in common with the Thai/Malaysian/Omani SL300. It has a completely different cockpit and mission system, much better sensors and DAS fit, and a significant improvement in radar fit for the SCMR variant.
I can't tell you on a public forum the exact details of legacy kit that's being re-used, as I'm sure you will appreciate. Suffice to say that it won't pose a problem for the AAC guys and girls and will only (hopefully) be a minor issue for the FAA.
VP
The external stowage option may well be looked at again, but I believe that the AAC have tried out the cabin volume demonstrator and declared that they are happy with it.
As to the missing data fusion and other systems integration capability, I'm not sure that it will be an immediate limitation. It will take time for crews to get up to speed with just what FLynx has to offer and it may well prove to be better to shape the required level of systems integration after initial front line experience.
FLynx has very little in common with the Thai/Malaysian/Omani SL300. It has a completely different cockpit and mission system, much better sensors and DAS fit, and a significant improvement in radar fit for the SCMR variant.
I can't tell you on a public forum the exact details of legacy kit that's being re-used, as I'm sure you will appreciate. Suffice to say that it won't pose a problem for the AAC guys and girls and will only (hopefully) be a minor issue for the FAA.
VP
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the design is so much better than AH for the find role then can I assume that all the sensors are mast mounted, it comes with a radar on the mast and all manner of new gizmo's?
Nyet,
Mast mountiing is incapable of giving the resolution/range needed, due to the stabilisation problem. The compromise has to be to put the EOD where it can be adequately isolated from rotor vibration, so allowing high magnifications with adequate stabilsation to make geo referencing work to an acceptable degree.
As the Find requirement is not primarily NOE, this is not a significant limitation. For the primary recce role the A/C will be at significant altitude, so mast mounting isn't an advantage.
There is no radar requirement for Land Find, only for Maritime Find/Attack. Go figure..............
VP
Mast mountiing is incapable of giving the resolution/range needed, due to the stabilisation problem. The compromise has to be to put the EOD where it can be adequately isolated from rotor vibration, so allowing high magnifications with adequate stabilsation to make geo referencing work to an acceptable degree.
As the Find requirement is not primarily NOE, this is not a significant limitation. For the primary recce role the A/C will be at significant altitude, so mast mounting isn't an advantage.
There is no radar requirement for Land Find, only for Maritime Find/Attack. Go figure..............
VP