Future Lynx
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
??
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.......................
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.......................
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
?
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.
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.
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).
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).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
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?!
Guest
Posts: n/a
What
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.?
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.?
Last edited by Mikehegland; 9th Dec 2004 at 12:47.
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).
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).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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.......;
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,
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.......;
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 5th Dec 2004 at 20:40.
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.....