The MOD has announced that the upgraded Lynx Mk.9A has arrived and started operational service in Afghanistan. The first aircraft arrived in theatre courtesy of an RAF C-17 Globemaster III earlier this month. Although no specific date was given for their arrival at Camp Bastion, two aircraft, ZG888 and ZG915, were noted at Brize Norton on April 12 awaiting shipment following their return from flight trials in Kenya earlier this year.
The Lynx Mk.9A is an upgraded version of the Mk.9 and features LHTECH CTS800N engines which offer significantly more power over the original ‘wheezy’ Rolls Royce Gems. This will vastly improve the Lynx’s hot and high performance in Afghanistan. Prior to this operations were severely restricted especially during the summer months.
This additional engine power also allows the Mk.9A to carry heavier weapons as pictures have been released of the aircraft fitted with the 0.50 M3M HMG, which is a significant increase in fire power over the usual 7.62 L7 GPMG.
In addition to the new engines the Mk.9A is also fitted improved secure communications equipment. Given this quantum leap in capability over the previous Mk.7 and Mk.9 variants, it will be a welcome addition to the flight line.
Wow, the ‘state of the art’ in COIN centric tactical helo aviation has come a long way since door gunners in Huey’s in Vietnam…… NOT……
No and the huey’s had a gunner on both sides of the aircraft. We on the other hand must hope that the Taliban only attack on one side !!!
You can’t mske this stuff up
Well keep in mind that the Huey’s guns consisted of two M60′s (a terrible machine gun if there ever was) attached either by a pintle mount or suspended by elastic bands from the ceiling.
The guns on the Lynx’s are the M3M from FN herstal, which is a .50 with a higher ROF than the M60 (or GPMG) and fitted in a recoil absorbing mount (AFAIK, FN Herstal doesn’t sell them to fit anything else). It’s probably not much better, but it’s something.
and unless you land in the middle of all the Taliban, you’ll only be able to fire one of the guns anyway, looking at pictures it does appear the army mounts guns on a different side for each lynx pair though.
Also note http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8698936.stm
a few seconds in you can see one in the background on the right, and at 45 seconds in David signs one of the M3M’s.
With small crew capacity (Army doesn’t do heli-assaults with anything less than a few platoons AFAIK, that’s 8+ lynx’s) my guess is that they’d be used either for VIP transport and probably medivac. Which considering that would free up a Chinook, would make them a very important asset indeed.
Ashley, if the M60 is that bad you’d better ask the RAF why they currently use it on the Chinook in Afghanistan instead of the L7 GPMG? Although I believe this is M60D version. The irony being US forces are changing over to the M240H, which is a modified version of the FN MAG – a GPMG!
Yes Richard, there is a serious question about why the RAF uses the M60 on the Chinook rear door, especially when the US is (has?) replacing(ed) their’s with the FN MAG. I can only think of two possible reasons. They came with the Chinooks (having been bought before the US switch) or the RAF wants to be different. Either way I can only assume the reason they haven’t gone and nicked 20 GPMG’s from the RAF regiment or the army is that they never get used enough to worry about.
It was either certify the GPMG for the Chinook tail or buy a ready certified weapon, which was the cheapest option. The one that you see now!
Ashley, yes take your point… Of course this means that they have to operate in pairs to provide any kind of all round cover. Not ideal though is it? Going bak to the huey, some were fitted with 7.62mm mini-guns in place of the. M60s. With regard to said weapon in uk Chinook, I believe admin has the answer.
I believe the Lynxs of 657 Squadron were fitted with two M134 mini guns for top cover during Op Barras
Ian, the miniguns probably belong to ‘them’, they will undoubtedly have a bigger budget and a free(er) licence to spend it on what they deem fit. AAC probably only get to choose from the standard line up hence the GPMG or the 0.5. I don’t what the weight of the M134 is but it can’t be much more than the 0.50 M3M mount, if it were down to me I’d let them have a few. Also, I’m sure they’ve test fired the 40mm Mk 19 AGL from the Lynx as well.
Re: fitting the Lynx with two door gunners, I believe that’s more to do with centre of gravity issues than actual overall weight. Perhaps if they shifted the (heavy weight) battery from the nose to the rear avionics bay (like they have in the navy Lynx) then this might help somewhat.
Ian, this one’s for you!
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1973/1973%20-%202371.html?
Lynx prototype armed with an M134 Minigun at the 1972 Paris Air Show.
m3m 50cal gives you better range and stopping power then 7.62 machine gun or mini gun. even if they only mount this on one side you can still stay out of small arms rang and lay fire on the enemy.
Scott,
Its true and I accept what you say, but there are situations where the Lynx may need to get down in the weeds for an impromptu casevac or troop drop off/pick-up where the mini-gun would be more effective at closer quarters. What I would like to see is the AAC get the funding for a greater range of weapons to give them that flexibility. As for stand-off, on previous threads I’ve suggested a light weight missile for the Lynx, something akin to the Mistral, that would give the aircrew the ability to take out threats from an even greater range.
Richard,
Weapons for Impromptu Casevac hardly warrant the huge expenditure required to get auth from the DA (Design Authority) when this money could be better spent on long term upgrades for the Wildcat. This is an interim aircraft alleviating the demand for top cover away from the far more capable AH Mk1 and allowing the AH to be deployed more effectively.