Has Lynx Wildcat Just Got More Expensive?
Share by EmailWe have covered the Lynx Wildcat for a log time and it somewhat of a bette noir for those that argue against ‘protectionist procurement’ but without discussing that (another time) news out today is grist for the mill.
You might have thought that the £1.7billion deal for 60 odd aircraft (about £27m each) included a spot of training but it would appear not.
AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that it has signed a contract with the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to design and develop an integrated training solution which includes the building and equipping of a new modern training centre for the AW159 Lynx Wildcat helicopter.
The state-of-the-art training centre will be located at RNAS Yeovilton in South West England, alongside Royal Navy and British Army AW159 Lynx Wildcat squadrons. The facility will provide training courses for Army aircrew and maintainers starting in January 2013, with training for Royal Navy aircrew and maintainers starting January 2014.
The deal was announced by the Senior Vice president of Training at Agusta Westland, John Ponsonby.
Or, that would be Air Vice Marshall Ponsonby, latter of the RAF
he said;
This contract represents a step change in the way AgustaWestland is partnering with the MoD to deliver world-class training for front line crews, whilst ensuring we provide value for money within every part of the service.
Thats OK then.
The NAO Major Projects Report 2010 mentions Increment A Training Simulators and that through life training and support are to be developed as part of the project but it is not clear whether this is inclusive of the £1.7billion deal.
Category: Business and Politics
About the Author (Author Profile)
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
I must admit, quite why people need so much training eludes me.
I mean, surely if you can fly a lynx, you can fly a ****ing super lynx?
Its hardly, I can drive a car, therefore I am a fighter pilot is it?
DomJ – seriously ? Are you being sarcastic or just bloody daft?
Lets see, different cockpit, (one analogue, one digital), different engines and thus different power curves, operating envelopes etc, different aerodynamics and weights, so different handling characteristics and engine out properties…. need I go on… ?
No being utterly serious.
I dont need new lessons to drive my partners punto.
I can sort of get a chinook is different from a two man traffic coptor, like a HGV is different from a micra.
But isnt this more Micra/Fiesta?
Sure, theres differences, but, lets be honest, the wildcat is supposed to be an upgrade to what went before it.
To go back to cars, I cant imagine they mounted the clutch on the ceiling and controlled the throttle via shouting loudly.
same as they do a check ride with a QHI (sort of driving instructor/examiner)all the time and god forbid they don’t fly for a bit (not as long as you might think) a refresher and then a check ride.
This is can also be split down ie not enough night flying, not enough instrument flying etc etc. I guess it justifys the big bucks wages, and crunching the gears on a lynx slightly more dramatic than crunching on a corsa. Sidenote just last week my neighbour asked to help her as she couldn’t get her sons car into reverse and she needed to get to work, didn’t realise you have to lift the collar on the gearstick, so yes it can happen
Paul, did you take advantage
@ DomJ
Sorry, but I must do this……..
http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm-hotlink.jpg
Flying a helicopter is difficult. Flying helicopter tactically even more difficult than that. And flying one off and on a pitching and rolling flight deck is even more difficult than flying tactically. (Though the ship can’t pitch and roll much beyond a couple of degrees or all play is off.)
And what tranche is your Punto?
Paul G
Ok, but isnt that all done “internaly”.
X
I get flying a helicopter is difficult
I’m not quite sure why two relativly similar helicopters are £78million of training different.
Dom, its pretty standard to need different simulators etc for new models, as much for safety and certification as anything else. Simulators are very expensive which is one of the reasons bringing new aircraft into service is so expensive
Airbus or Boeing don’t have one model of simulator for say the 747/737 or A320/A380 and although having a standard cockpit and flight software is one of the big savings with having an Airbus fleet for example, the Lynx and Wildcat are dramatically different.
There is very little commonality between the two, no matter what the sales hype would have you believe and this is one of the reasons I am sceptical that it would be more expensive to bring a more relevant aircraft into service
With Wildcat, we are starting from scratch more or less (apart from the engines and some systems that are on the Mk9a’s but these were not in service when the decision was taken I think)
To chase the car analogy.
You learnt to drive in a Mk1 Golf. Now you need to drive a Mk5.
If you press the wrong button you crash and explode.
You can get quite a lot wrong in a car and it is very forgiving. Not much in the way of a second chance with an aircraft, particularly a helicopter.
On top of that, you need to train new pilots who haven’t flown anything before.
They would need to hurry up with project, or they will not have anything left to fly off, or no one to fly the Helicopters.
A well-qualified aviator can re-train to a different aircraft rather quick, this ranges from a couple days to a couple months. The really expensive military training is usually after the type conversion, when the pilot learns about operating near the limits of the new type. That can take hundreds of flight hours.
DomJ: “I’m not quite sure why two relativly similar helicopters are £78million of training different.”
That’s the whole point of we are trying to explain, they are not relatively similar at all ! It’s the same shape, and it has rotor blades, that is about it – honest !
Lynx and Lynx Wildcat are two completely different aircraft, although they may look similar. Lynx, whose origins date back to the sixties uses manual engine throttles, archetypal instruments with old fashioned gyroscopes and cockpit indicators that wouldn’t look out of place on Apollo 13, they are that old. Lynx Wildcat on the other hand uses FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control), digital displays and no doubt digital fuel management to name but a few. Rather than a car analogy, I would say its more like climbing out of a BAC Lightning and then strapping yourself into a Block 60 F-16C.
But I would’ve also thought that training was part of the package. Mind you, to give you an idea how AW works, they once delivered a Lynx to Boscombe Down and the delivery pilot took the sheepskin seat covers back with him because, “You haven’t paid for them!” That’s what I call a quality after sales service!
Also, with regards to training, is that just pilots or does it include ground support and technician training as well?
Indeed, its not just learning how to fly it, but as S O put it, also to training how to fight using it, pushing it to its limits etc etc
I for one, rather like the Wildcat.
The new facility will consist of the following
The Wildcat Training Centre will be equipped to provide air crew and maintainer training using a wide range of synthetic training technology including two Full Mission Simulators (FMS), Flight Training Device (FTD) and Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT). All devices will be capable of delivering Army or Royal Navy conversion and mission training. Each of the Full Mission Simulators has six degrees of freedom to provide the acceleration sensations associated with helicopter flying together with a visual system that complies with JAR-FSTD-H Level D, to give highly realistic and cost effective training. The maintenance training facility will be equipped with a suite of synthetic training devices covering the aircrafts mechanical, avionic and weapon systems.
The training centre will also contain a suite of briefing rooms, integrated electronic classrooms and a learning management system will be operational and providing training for the Army from early 2013 and for Royal Navy from early 2014.
If the current lynx is analog and the new one I assume glass cockpit them its very much a whole new learning curve. As the RAF suffered with a similar problem when people thought it would be easy to go from Hercules K to J same aircraft after all!!!!!!!!
TD I’d rather stick hot pins in my eyes! beauty is only skin deep however i reckon she was born inside out
Paul, if it had to be good looking they’d have never made the Sten Gun!
As a naval helicopter it gets my vote, army…………NO!
RS, ha ha i was talking about the woman who wanted me to look at the car!!!! wildcat quite pleasing on the eye (well compared to her)
DOH! (Richard head in hands) That’ll teach me to speed read!
Baring in mind TD’s helicopter strategy, we do need a light trainer; would it make sense (from a maintenance/supply) point of view) to buy Wildcats for the Navy as small ship borne assets and for the RAF/AAC/RN as trainers? Yes they have two engines (increased running costs Vs more reliability?) and are expensive at the moment but would a bigger order reduce the individual unit costs?
Sorry Gareth, but we dont need a trainer. All rotary wing training has been carried out under PFI by the Defence Helicopter Training School (DHTS) using Squirrels and Griffon’s – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Helicopter_Flying_School
The training contract is currently up for re-negotiation see: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/20/352081/agustawestland-eurocopter-teams-to-contest-uk-military-training.html
@ Jed – Fair enough. Just trying to lower the cost… Back to the drawing board
A common helicopter for the RN and for army light utility/recce was a good idea; another Lynx, bad idea. Should’ve gone slightly bigger, AW149 or similar. Too late now, I guess.
And why isn’t unarmed recce being done by a UAV?
——————————
One of the biggest issues I have with this is that the army Wildcat is unarmed.
The main justification given for discarding the Gazelle when switching from Lynx7 to Apache was that it was not worthwhile having an expensive recce helicopter, with two expensive crewmen, pootling about the battlefield looking for the enemy if they couldn’t do anything about it when they found them.
Is it sensible leaving army Wildcats unarmed? Is it really a good use of resources to have to call in an Apache when a Wildcat stumbles across a lone pickup truck full of insurgents?
From what I see on TV, the most popular sales option for Toyota trucks in the middle east and Africa includes aircon, tapedeck, and dushka. Not to mention the half dozen folk hanging off it with an assortment of RPGs, PKMs etc.
I personally wouldn’t want to tackle that in a Wildcat with a single door mounted GPMG. A £27m aircraft outgunned by a second hand Toyota. It’s a wasteful use of an asset to have to call on an Apache in that situation.
Brian, good point about the Wildcat’s lack of weapons. The least we could do is bolt a light-weight missile to it like the Mistral for taking out miscreants in Toyota’s. The French used them in the first Gulf War in ’91 on their ALAT Gazelles for ‘plinking’ anything hostile that moved.
Hi BB,
RE”I personally wouldn’t want to tackle that in a Wildcat with a single door mounted GPMG. A £27m aircraft outgunned by a second hand Toyota. It’s a wasteful use of an asset to have to call on an Apache in that situation.”
- that’s what I tried to say, in a diplomatic & roundabout way early today, by quoting OH-58D for comparison (on the RAF 16 thread)
- armed to the teeth; can track, fire on or hand over targeting to others for six targets; can even take out other helos if they are sent to harass the mission; available since over a decade
- can’t do loops, though?
the AW159 pdf quotes the armenents as cabin door7.62mm,12.7mm and 20mm forward firing pod and also rockets. Still think it will end up as a 4* taxi in the army role though,
BB
Agreed wholeheartedly. Army Wildcat can be armed and therefore should be armed. Options AugustaWestland mention are pylon mounted fixed 20mm cannon pods and rockets. I like the sound of the American APKWS (laser guided 2.75 inch rockets) to be fitted to AH-1′s, OH-58, AV8B’s, A-10′s. Given our inventory of CVR-7′s on AAC AH-64′s and surplus stock from Harrier GR9′s we could go with the laser guided (or GPS guided or antiradiation homing) version of those. No doubt Thales will try and flog their Light weight multi-role missile as well.
I think the Wildcat should be manufactures in only one version based on the RN design. IT should be configures for the Armed Recce/Light Attack role, marinised and have a weapons package including Son of Ses Skua, Brimston/Hellfire, fixed 25/30mm, CVR-7,Stingray, and door mounted pintal MG. Obviously the Army will not need all of these but with a common fleet there should be savings and they will provide a good shipborne assets to escorts HCs during Amphib ops, fire support for ground troops and attack/defence ops in litorial environment. It will also be able to support and or suppliment the WAH-64D in a similar way the Kiowa Warriors do in the US Army.
In fact you could actually reduce the buy as both services would be using the same machine and hence the need for as many reserves.
The need for a Light Utility platform for the Army is one I question. In the short tern we would probably better leasing additional 212s like the ones in Cyprus until the level of funding stabilize and a clear picture of what FF2020 entails appears.
When calling for a fixed 25/30mm I am refering to a Gun Pod not incorporated into the airframe
LJ, “The need for a Light Utility platform for the Army is one I question.” I believe that’s one of the reasons why they changed the designation from Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH) to Battlefield Recconaisance Helicopter (BRH).
As for other types, the Canadians have been using the 412 in Afghanistan and suffer from a lack of power that we did with the Lynx Mk 7 due to the heat and altitude. Any additional types will need a power upgrade to cope.
Hi LJ,
I second your motion. This below is a snapshot of UK’s share in the NATO Europe helicopter inventory (the research was undertaken in 2008 when every nation said that they could not send any to Darfur):
Attack/ Transport&Utility / Observation, counts in this order:
United Kingdom 67 267 133
Regional Subtotal 659 2171 145
If the last 133 are not training machines (PFI’ed these days as noted), the there are plenty of the lighter helos somewhere, and RN/RM having the Lynxes is not a bad idea.
You missed Pte JF’s favourite ” I like the sound of the American APKWS (laser guided 2.75 inch rockets)” which finally moved to mass production last year. Our thread “Panzers to A-stan” had links to some pretty impressive testing results/ video.
having the Lynxes is not a bad idea
- sorry, Wildcats (to stop any confusion)
LJ
I think the plan is for the AAC to ‘donate’ 6 armed recce Wildcats to the RM’s 847 NAS as now. I also think with the Wilcat’s modern weapons buses the RN version could carry all AAC weapons without a problem. It would make sense to qualify Hellfire/Brinstone as well. I’d quite like to see an under chin mounted 30mm traversing cannon on AAC Wildcats where the radome is on RN version. Ground clearance looks like it could be an issue though. Shame.
PJF, the issue of a nose mounted 30 mm cannon is weight and space, the Centre of Gravity will be too far forward and this will affect the controls, that’s why the weapons pylons are always further back, nearer to the CofG. Without looking deeply into it, I guess the traversing cannon would be in excess of 500 lbs, not including ammuntion. Plus the nose would need extensive modification.
The Brimstone would be a good idea though.
I believe that’s one of the reasons why they changed the designation from Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH) to Battlefield Recconaisance Helicopter (BRH).
So Wildcat can fly around the battlefield looking for targets with EO kit and calling them in by datalink (like a Reaper can, but Wildcat has less endurance and more demanding of maintenance); it can plink them when it finds them (like a Reaper, except it can’t carry Hellfire or bombs, or indeed any precision-guided munitions, just rockets and cannon); and it can transport troops (but not very many of them, and even fewer in hot-and-high conditions).
And it costs just under £30 million a pop. 60 for £1.7 billion. That’s $2.75 billion.
Unit cost for a USAF Pave Hawk: $10 million according to the USAF. Unit cost for a Reaper: according to the USAF, a bit over $13 million per airframe (including the cost of the ground station; it’s $53.5 million for four airframes plus ground station).
So let me see if I understand this right: for less than the cost of 60 Lynx Wildcats, I could buy not only 60 Pave Hawks as utility helicopters, which would be able to carry lots more troops each than Wildcat, but also 60 MQ-9 Reapers as recce/light-attack aircraft, which would have far better endurance, be much more reliable, and carry better armament than Wildcat and still walk away with over a billion dollars in my trousers?
In fact, I’d have saved 50% of my total budget?
Wow.
Hi a,
“So let me see if I understand this right: for less than the cost of 60 Lynx Wildcats, I could buy not only 60 Pave Hawks as utility helicopters, which would be able to carry lots more troops each than Wildcat, but also 60 MQ-9 Reapers as recce/light-attack aircraft, which would have far better endurance, be much more reliable, and carry better armament than Wildcat and still walk away with over a billion dollars in my trousers?”
Welcome to the wonderful world of UK defence procurement! Could I interest you in a Nimrod?
RS
I believe the M230 chain gun on the Apache has an all up weight of 59.5kg which is less than Seaspray radar specified for RN Wildcat at 80kg. So probably some margin for traversing motor etc… but admittedly ammo box storage would need a solution. Just wishful thinking..:)
PJF, I’ll wind my neck in!
, it’s a lot lighter than I thought. Although I’m guessing that’s just the weapon weight, then there’s the traversing actuators, airframe reinforcement, feed mechanism etc etc
I’m sure Dunlop did a ‘bolt on’ 12.7mm turret a few years ago which they demonstrated on a Huey, I don’t know if it had any takers though.
As much use as tits on a fish? Check.
Cheaper, better alternative on the shelf? Check.
Ridiculous incompetency from the Civil Service? Check.
Corruption between defence firm and MoD? Check.
Political impotence and lack of courage to bin it? Check.
Admiral/General’s new toy he wanted in the 90s? Check.
Business as usual in Whitehall. I’m surprised trade-descriptions doesn’t apply to Future Force 2020.
RE “trade-descriptions doesn’t apply to Future Force 2020.”
- try to find the description first!
- a lot of it just plays at the headlines level
- anything that then comes through, just contradicts itself
I thought that I was an interested observer when the SDSR went into higher revs, towards the end of the summer… making any sense of it (and the longer running contracts) is turning into a full-time job
a @ 2.29pm
I think we have had this discussion on this site before. I think that most if not all of us decided that Wildcat was NOT good value for money. However it can I believe ‘plink’ things with Brimstone / Hellfire – it was in the initial spec, it may have been removed.
The worse bit to me is that Wildcat (aka Future Lynx) was a requirement initially refined during the cold war, for Fulda Gap tank busting, hence its ability to find targets for the Apaches (similar, as has been mentioned to U.S. Kiowa Warrior).
I seem to remember we all decided that Wildcat is still pretty good as a small naval helo.
As for your discussion of what you could buy with the budget, I would just go with AW149 instead of UH60, but your additional MQ9′s are of very limited utility.
MQ9 is screwed if there is any air defence environment (it cant do nap of the earth, and does not have RWR like Wildcat). It can land be pressed into other roles in an emergency (the battlefield utility aspect of Wildcat) like picking up a casualty and Reaper is screwed if your command of the electro-magnetic spectrum is challanged !
BUT…. as you say, if you could buy all that and still walk away with some change, then why not …. ???
Sorry for retreading old ground…
As for the survivability issue, I am pretty sceptical about Wildcat as well. Helicopters don’t seem to do very well in a high-threat AAA environment – witness the attack by the (I think?) 11th Air Cavalry Regiment in Iraq in 2003. 22 Apaches went forward, all but two were damaged too badly to fly again before being repaired. And Apache’s a tough bird compared to Lynx.
If Reaper’s not survivable enough, maybe we could wait a year or two and buy Avenger instead? Jet-powered, stealthy, and $15 million each.
Yes, you can’t use MQ-9 to pick up casualties, but you can use Blackhawk for that, and you’ve just bought 60 of them. You can’t really use Apache for picking up casualties either (not if you want to be able to treat them in flight rather than just tying them to the outside of the fuselage, Jugroom-style) but that’s not an argument against having Apache.
The basic problem here, I think, is that the ideal recce platform is nothing like the ideal utility/transport platform, and Wildcat is falling between two stools. There’s no call for an airborne truck to be carrying lots of expensive sensor kit. There’s no call for a recce helicopter to be able to haul an infantry section around the place.
Reaper is screwed if your command of the electro-magnetic spectrum is challenged
So is Wildcat, really; not much use having a recce helicopter if it can’t call in targets because its datalink and comms are being jammed.
Hi a,
RE ” 11th Air Cavalry Regiment in Iraq in 2003. 22 Apaches went forward” … sounds like a frontal attack by air cavalry (which is designed so as not having to do that)
- do you have a source I can read up on?
@ ACC – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Najaf_%282003%29
“On March 24, 32 AH-64D Longbow Apache attack helicopters of the 11th Aviation Regiment were tasked with carrying out a long range penetration mission against armored forces belonging to the Iraqi Republican Guard’s Medina Division which was positioned outside Najaf. Rather than provide close air support near the front lines, the helicopters were going to be used in a manner similar to strike aircraft.
It is believed that Iraqi observers had the 11th AvR’s forward assembly areas under observation. Regardless, when the helicopter force approached Najaf that night, the city’s power grid was shut down for several seconds as a signal that the helicopters were approaching. Heavy antiaircraft and small arms fire targeted the helicopters. Every single helicopter on the mission was hit and one even survived a direct hit from a rocket-propelled grenade.[5] The flight turned back towards base, with some of the helicopters on fire and others running on one engine or shot full of holes. One Apache was brought down and crash-landed in a marsh.”
” the helicopters were going to be used in a manner similar to strike aircraft”
- well, what more is there to say
- if it was that easy, they would not have built the A-10
Beat me to it, Gareth – thanks!
ACC – arguably, Apache is what you get when you desperately want to have an A-10 but are forbidden by Congress from operating fixed-wing aircraft, as the US army (pretty much) is. Of course, Apache can hover – but you get blown to bits if you’re hovering stationary in the air over a battlefield, as the 11th found out – when they tried a second attack they fired on the move. And Apache can take off vertically. Which allows it to operate off small forward arming and refuelling points. Which it needs to do because its range is so poor compared to A-10, because it’s a heli rather than fixed-wing.
In other words, if it didn’t take off vertically, it wouldn’t need to take off vertically!
@ a – so what we need is a STOVL A-10 or a compound helicopter AH-64? Or something like this:
http://www.architectswanderlust.com/?p=16
(Can’t remember who this gave me this link, sorry!)
a: “Apache is what you get when you desperately want to have an A-10 but are forbidden by Congress from operating fixed-wing aircraft”
LOL _ US Army has more fixed wing aircraft than the RAF ! Perhaps they not allowed to fly “combat aircraft” ???
Hi GJ,
Love it; I posted the same link when we were discussing (cheap?) CAS options
a
Sweden looked at buying the blackhawk last October price for 15 blackhawks $550m dollars or about 23m pounds each. So not that much cheaper there also more expensive than lynx over there service life. I will repeat do not look at what the US prices for buying its own equipment they are not realistic. Also reaper is not comparable to the cost of manned aircraft because the ability to field them is limits to the amount of satellite bandwidth thats available. Also the gazelle is being used in exercises in the UK to replace UAVs because UAVs are not allowed to operate in UK airspace except in cardigan bay.
We do not operate air assaults like the US and tend to operate the chinock more in the troop assault role than they do.
Is lynx not useful in inserting small teams for recon ect especially if they operate in pairs or setting up check points or indeed in support to civil powers like in NI over the Years.