In short, they all need a damned good shoeing because the RAF/Army using the RN’s left overs is about as predictable and night following day.

Shocking

Wildcat will be an incremental improvement over Lynx but as many have said, not worth the just shy of thirty million each. Once again, the Army gets shafted because they have to have Westland’s and RN’s finest. It has the same engines as the 9a but nearly half a tonne heavier (I think) so maybe we can deduce performance issues from that.

The Army version will be qualified for GPMG and M3M, no missiles at all. The EO turret position, dictated by the requirements for the RN versions radar, means it will have a field of view much poorer than the MX15 equipped 9a’s currently in Afghanistan. This lack of depression angle might not be a problem in a maritime environment but not at all good for the land environment, where the Wildcats primary role is to find stuff.

The AAC had this choice, Wildcat for shit all, take your pick.

Don’t forget, Wildcat is a replacement for all Lynx variants and Gazelle so whilst it is not specced as a light utility type, that is what it will de facto become. A role in which it will be compromised.

So in summary;

Merlin, an overly complex maritime thoroughbred that has (predictably) been foisted on the other services because of dubious industrial concerns and the RAF/AAC political shenanigans.

Wildcat, nearly £30 million for a great frigate/destroyer helicopter number when we have very few of either and for the Army, of marginal improvement in some areas but in others, a step back.

As usual, the MoD spends money like it was going out of fashion

I get terrain masking with respect to roof mounted site, I have had it demonstrated to me on my one and only ever flight in an AH7 back in late 80′s – it just seems not to be massively important to anyones scout helo doctrine anymore – outcome of 10 years of COIN perhaps ?

Plus as I say, Longbow radar and DMB / Spear 2 seem to be the way to go in anti-armour, not plinking individual targets one at a time by laying the laser designator on them ?

The size / weight of the EO sensor ball probably precluded the cockpit roof positioning – note that all the US competitions for OH58 replacement have thrown up designs with the sensor ball on the nose.

I have said before, all Wildcat to RN, I am not excusing it for the AAC – my preference is laid out above, a flexible and useful “medium” helo to support the Apache – but if we want a “recce helo” then maybe we should “do a Nimrod” on the Wildcat and buy from EADS:

http://www.armedscout.com/index/index.asp

Ref: “for what it costs Wildcat is a bit pointless” – no, not my argument, it is not pointless at all, but it is way to expensive for what it is

Ref: “You want a light scout/recce platform then you buy something very small and cheap”

What is a “light” Scout / Recce helo for ? Single engined, based on EC120 or AW109 – not survivable on a modern battlefield, without the weight margin to carry armour for crew, sensors, and defensive aids (active anti-IR missiles, radar jammer, RHAWS, active missile approach, new anti-RPG countermeasures (?) and even gunshot detection kit) – neither the range or endurance for useful mission profiles in COIN scenarios.

The day of the “light” recce helo is dead, OH6 and OH58A in Vietnam is a long, long time ago, and lets face it, they werent that survivable back then !

The Longbow Apache with its radar and EO sensors, and defensive aids suite IS the armed recce helo. A medium twin like the AW149 could be fitted with datalink and act as the stand off missile launcher (16 Hellfire, 12 DMB ?), it could carry a couple of rocket pods and two 12.7mm door guns for Afghan style convoy escort and over watch, 7.62mm door guns for assault transport, or even its own EO / or podded systems for a “medium altitude” stand off surveillance role – but lets not pretend this flexibility, with the concomitant survivability comes at anything other than “medium weight” and a considerable financial cost (just not necessarily as costly as the “make work” that is turning a Lynx 7 into a Wildcat).

Wildcat is a compromise between the two in the worst possible way, far too heavy and expensive to be called light/scout but also far too small and limited to be called medium/lift.

Buying airframes purely to make sure you keep the numbers up isn’t good business, in the same way that defensive weaponry isn’t a justification in itself to have something on the battlefield. If only someone, somewhere had had the foresight to say ‘right keep Wildcat as a maritime platform and lets get the army something a bit bigger, really think about it’s use and carve out a defined role’.

As Jed commented, something to replace Puma and the AAC Lynx would have been good, having the right sort of compromise of size and capacity, with enough fire-power to look after itself.

Sadly we all know that Wildcat exists to give AW something to build and wasn’t challenged as a decision because the powers that be didn’t have the imagination, knowledge or political clout to do so.

For the money Wildcat is poor.

1 – “Why slag it’s reduced lift capability – it is not meant to be light utility helo, the Wildcat was designed as an armed recce / scout helo” — Because it’s taking over the role of a light utility helicopter. Hence its need for a decent light lift capacity. If all you want it is an armed recce then the Wildcat becomes even more of an expensive pile of shit solution.

2 – “Why does any one think a cabin roof mounted or mast mounted site is preferable to a nose mounted one?” — Because it allows crews to put an opaque/semi-opaque terrain feature between them and the enemy, exposing nothing more than the rotor blades while they have a sneaky look at them. With a chin mounted sensor you need to expose practically the entire helicopter in order for the sensor to get a good look at anything. Not for nothing did the old Lynx have a cabin roof mounted job and not for nothing does Longbow Apache have a mast mounted radar.

3 – “The Lynx family are hardly “light helicopters” – The AAC’s light helo is / was the Gazelle” — ‘was’ being the operative word. Now it falls to the Lynx. Which is precisely the point that’s being made. It’s too large and expensive to be a light helicopter, and it’s shit as a medium utility helicopter. It’s created its own, unwanted niche, filling an uncalled for gap between two capabilities that people actually want. Perhaps we should call this the “AgustaWestland Gap”; the point between two desireable extremes that satisfies neither.

1. Why slag it’s reduced lift capability – it is not meant to be light utility helo, the Wildcat was designed as an armed recce / scout helo – the Lynx Mk9A is the AAC’s LUH, and it has the cabin space required for the role – but perhaps not the defensive aids required for the modern battlefield ?

2. Why does any one think a cabin roof mounted or mast mounted site is preferable to a nose mounted one ? Both where flown in one form or another on various testbeds for various variants of “battlefield Super Lynx” , they were a useful capability for cold war anti-armour helos’ and in our case the Apache can pop up from behind cover to unmask its mast mounted radar and detect and classify a lot more targets a lot more quickly. The US Army has removed the mast mounted sites from OH58 D’s in Iraq and Afghanistan to improve their hot and high performance, and because it was considered a high maintenance burden (and it has not, and is not specified for any of its replacements)

3. The Lynx family are hardly “light helicopters” – The AAC’s light helo is / was the Gazelle, although I suppose the term is relative, and the original Lynx might have been described as a “light twin” – obviously its smaller / lighter than a Puma !

4. Challenger I agree – we could have had a much cheaper Super Lynx upgrade for the RN, and an AW149 size hello to replace the Lynx 7 / 9 AND the Puma

Really agree with you’re points on the Wildcat. It’s a useful concept for the navy, but I really can’t see the rationale behind the army adopting it. What they could have really done with was a medium helicopter, an all rounder that could have the same fire-power as Wildcat but also come with a decent lift capacity.

Seems that AW needing something to build was the primary driving force behind the decision, same old story!

- Lower troop carrying capacity,
- The engines on Wildcat are an optional upgrade for older Lynx helicopters, so that’s not really a Wildcat specific selling point,
- The nose mounted sensor is of little use to the army, who would probably prefer a sensor mounted on the cabin roof like the old Lynx,
- The wheels would be better replaced by skids for an Army version,
- Light helicopters are supposed to be cheap and numerous, not cost just as much as medium helicopters. It’s self defeating.

You get the distinct feeling that Wildcat was purchased for the benefit of AW and not either the Army or the Navy.

” back up the Wildcat slamming you dished out there. The official figures on Wildcat have it heavier, more powerful and longer ranged than the previous mark of Lynx, and somewhat more potent too.”
- I am sure all true. But can take only 4 troops; SF use a model that can add a squad to that. Or, if it was the observation and recce role you had in mind, the Kiowa has had a spec since 1997 that beats Wildcat in that role (and how many of those could you buy for the price of one?)
- AW’s own page indicates a max endurance that exceeds that of the Mk8 at MTOW; Why this comparison? Mk9 has the same engines as Wildcat, and cost peanuts as an upgrade (talking about programme costs, obviously reflecting strongly on unit costs at such low production numbers)

I’d also like to see something backing up the assertion that HC3 was purchased simply to reduce the cost of HM1. If so, then that is exactly what I’ve been talking about, a poor choice of platform selected for the wrong reasons. HM1 was always conceived as a solo buy, with no requirement for a troop carrying variant specified until the RAF requirement emerged. If the MOD/RAF allowed themselves to be bullied/seduced into buying Merlin, then more the fool them and no wonder they’re happy to be shot of it. Hopefully with the in-Service experience of operating HM1 we’ll be able to make it work a little better.

The Merlin was only bought for the RAF as the unit cost of the Mk1 went up too much. The only way to get the unit cost back down was to buy more airframes and as the Navy could not afford more Mk1s they decided to buy Mk3s as they “should” have been cheap(ish).

The problem was when Augusta joined up with Westland the Italians wanted a piece of the pie and as Westland wanted, rightly, to do the blades and RR were chosen for the engine the only bit left for Augusta was the gearbox and other drive train components. So Westlands scrapped their perfectly good, and strong gearbox and the Italians built a new, larger, heaver one made out of bits or wire and tin cans which cant handle the power of the engines the RAF got, let alone the ones it wanted!!

The Merlin Mk3 could, and should, have been good and if it wasn’t for the Political meddling and some seriously odd design quirks it would have been. The fact the RAF have got it working so well in theatre is a credit to the crew and, mostly, the engineers and its sad that all the hard work will be rewarded with the sack!!

PS Dont even get me started on the Mk3a!!!

PSS Brimstone rocks

Topman, you were quick to change there! Nasty crabs indeed, we love you all really!

‘I simply cannot understand the original decision to buy it for the RAF. Perhaps someone can unearth some detail behind the staff requirement?’

You’ve answered your own question here ‘This was surely a case of industry forcing a platform upon a Service, probably through high level politicking and industrial pressure.’

Merlin was lesser poor choice than Wildcat for that the AAC were told it’s this or nothing. Westlands needed the jobs after becoming a marginal seat. Merlin wasn’t so much of as a compromise for the RAF as Wildcat was for the Army.

Interesting to see this topic, isn’t always us nasty crabs that rule the roost on aircraft equipment purchases and bends the requirements to it’s our own needs to the detriment of all others ?

I can’t agree with you completely. Merlin was always a purely maritime requirement and is designed as such. If the Land component decided it wanted a large transport helicopter, then why not purchase something suitable? This was surely a case of industry forcing a platform upon a Service, probably through high level politicking and industrial pressure. I completely agree that Merlin HC3/4 is not a suitable replacement for Sea King Mk4. It is, as you rightly say, expensive to maintain and was never suited to hot/high conditions. I simply cannot understand the original decision to buy it for the RAF. Perhaps someone can unearth some detail behind the staff requirement?

That said, away from hot-and-high (i.e. the mountains of Afghanistan) who is to say it won’t deliver a capable troop lift and cargo transport capability in, say, the littoral environment, at altitudes the Merlin platform was originally designed for? By some accounts it performed sufficiently in Iraq.

The choice facing the RN was the future of the CHF. Without an airframe to replace the Sea King, the force would have been shut down and the role subsumed into the RAF. Whilst I’m sure the RAF would have played ball and flown from decks occasionally, the loss of experience and OC in flying from maritime decks, and in long term maintenance and operations in a maritime environment, would have impacted significantly upon the amphibious capability of the RN and thus, was not an acceptable loss, particularly as it would impact directly upon the Navy’s ability to contribute to Military Task 5, the defence of interests by projecting power overseas.

Wildcat, I completely agree, is another barking choice for Army aviation. We have gained a great attack helicopter completely suited to our future littoral operations and capable of operating over land, a less powerful but more versatile Apache with a whole load of additional capability. The comment about the Army flying a great antisubmarine helicopter is a good one. But going back to the Merlin argument, in Wildcat we have specified an aircraft that can do everything we envision of it including battlefield support hot and high. So there you go – at least we knew about the requirement and included it, but the Army ought not to be complaining that it got what the Joint Services wanted.

Its easy to stand on the sidelines and slag off the situation but it does make you despair, I mean, we have been operating in hot places since before Queen Victoria was on the throne. We have been operating helicopters from aircraft carriers since Suez so to say that there was no requirement I find a weak defence.

Chris and other make the point that it is not as simple as ticking a box that says ‘maritime’ or ‘hot’ as both these have performance and cost penalties. It is a valid point but time and time again we find ourselves going back to assumptions that drive capability requirements and crossing them out, maybe we should learn the lesson

I am with NaB on this, we should accept the performance and initial cost penalties for specifying all environment operation because there is a depressing inevitability to using them everywhere.

As for Merlin, must admit to never being a huge fan because we have allowed a naval requirement (like Wildcat) to dictate what happens across the land environment. Neither Lynx, Wildcat or Merlin are entirely suited to the Land environment, there is a joke about the Army flying the best anti submarine helicopters money can buy and it is hard not to see the point of the joke.

CHF will have those 29 Merlins, to be honest, I think the RAF/Army are well shot of them. Overly complex, expensive to maintain, unsuitable for many operating environments and with a rather wheezy lift capacity that means they can only be used for people and maybe a couple of quads or a stripped down landy. CHF are going to have to fund marinisation, possibly folding bits and pieces and still end up with an aircraft that cannot lift a TES Viking half.

This means Chinook on decks, we would have been better selling the HC3′s and investing in hub folds for Chinooks

It is a real cake and arse party if you ask me.

Probably. So the fault lies with the MOD procurement cell which selected an aircraft designed from the outset as a maritime ASW helicopter. Staff Requirement (Sea) 6646 is summarised nicely by:

“In its original Staff Requirement, the Royal Navy specified some key performance markers for a Sea King replacement. The first was speed and endurance to allow operations at extended ranges and to permit quick reaction to, and attack on, submarine targets. The second feature was an integrated mission system to process data from a suite of sensors to give the helicopter an independent capability to search for, locate and attack targets. Versatility was a third key requirement to enable the helicopter to carry out a wide variety of roles and respond quickly to emergency tasking in flash points around the world. Agility was the final characteristic. The helicopter had to have sufficient power, maneuverability and control margins to allow safe operations from frigate-sized flight decks in demanding weather conditions, day and night.” (http://www.targetlock.org.uk/eh101/)

Nothing there that even considers the remote possibility of ‘hot and high’ operations.

There is always a choice of aircraft. If the RAF ended up with an unsuitable aircraft, then they/MOD failed to make the correct business case and the MOD selected an inappropriate aircraft. We laid down our requirements for an ASW helicopter and got what we asked for, did we not? Politicking and the shoddy way in which the military staffs its project teams can only produce shoddy results.

The RAF did not get a choice on getting Merlin, that is the point. However, you would hope that defence as a whole would anticipate trooping somewhere at least hot, and most probably high!!

AAC,

Not many of the USMC Cobras are all that clever, it a poor aircraft by todays standards as is a lot of their kit. Great bunch of operators though, just need better kit.