Lynx Query

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Private_Pepper, May 13, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi all, my first post and I’m hoping to have a few innocent questions answered that I’ve often wondered to myself over the last few years out in the hot sandy places, Forgive me if they come across as the uneducated ramblings of a gravel belly but my knowledge on aviation subjects is limited......

    Why isn’t the Lynx used more often as a troop carrier out in Afghan? With the lack of CH47’s in theatre I would of thought that Lynx’s could help share the burden of the over worked Chinook fleet? Or is it unrealistic to expect a HLS full of Lynx’s in the same way the US used Huey’s in Vietnam and still use Blackhawks today?

    How useful could the Lynx be as a bigger type of weapons platform? I’m not talking going back to TOW’s or anything similar because obviously AH has taken over that role brilliantly. I’m thinking more along the lines of beefing up the Door Gunners role to something like the or Mini gun? The few times I have seen the Lynx DG in use out in Afghan, the impact of the single GPMG seemed to be pretty minimal where as I reckon if it had been a heavier weapons system then it would of brought a lot more to the party. I know it has been done at times but why not on a grander scale? Surely a half dozen or so of beefed up Lynx’s out in Helmand could take a lot of work load off the shoulders of the Apaches?

    In the Balkans and Northern Ireland the Lynx always seemed to be the work horse of the Army. Yet in Iraq and Afghan I’ve barely seen them used compared to the Chinooks, is this purely down to the poor performance of the air frame in the extreme weather and altitude? If so, will this change when the new Super Lynx or Lynx “Wildcat” comes into service?

  2. It took a while to get an aircraft that was capable of carrying more than one person in summer months due to hot and high conditions. The Lynx in recent times has been used more so than other air frames, over flying hours set nearly every month. It is now also fitted with the .50cal M3M! Over the festive period, the rear crew got confirmed! The convoys love the Lynx, and I don't blame them.
  3. Lynx 9a (T800 engined aircraft) should help to redress the balance in a few of your questions. Current Mk7 and Mk9s were limited by wheezy engines that weren't terribly effective in hot and high conditions thus reducing the amount of payload it could carry. That being blokes and the type of Crew Served Weapon (.50 is a lot heavier as well as all the ammo).

    Will it change when Wildcat comes in to service? Hmm, only if you want a naval aircraft with missiles doing the aggressive stuff because the army version will have nothing more than CSW (7.62mm and .50) :x

  4. Cheers Blob, I wasn't aware of that until now. I imagine those 50’s add quite a punch to its capability. I obviously wasn’t the only one thinking about it. I understand that they were used by the door gunners on Op Barras but wondered why it wasn’t the norm in Afghan.

    I don't beleive you about the confirmed kills though, next you'll be telling me that their capable of dropping patrols off in the correct grid square :D
  5. I guess if the AAC start sticking missles onto the sides of Lynx's again then our "leaders" will get a cockstand about what the point of buying Apache was in the first place? Yet I think (as a clueless grunt) that theres a real role for "tooled up" Lynxs working in the gunship type role, especially when the new better performing Airframes come in.
  6. You've hit the nail on the head, lofty ;)

  7. Thanks for the spoon feed, I got there in the end :D

    Having looked up a few things reference the new Lynx, it seems that it's going to be unable to be used to carry a decent amount of troops anyway. The reports say that it will only be capable of carrying 4 blokes in the rear due to new "crash" seat systems being fitted.
    Sadly, the days of cramming as many blokes onto the floor and just holding on for dear life will well and truely be gone.
    I'm just trying to get my head round the defined role of the Lynx these days really, it seems to be jack of all trades yet master of none.
  8. P2,

    You're clearly missing the point entirely. Exactly how is operational capability and supporting Joint capability in a shooting war relevant?!!! :?

    Jobs at Wastelands is clearly far more important. Man up!!

  9. Wouldn't these be cheaper?
  10. Probably not. Nor are they much use for dropping personnel off in PBs, conducting vehicle interdiction and the myriad of other tasks rotary assets can be employed for.

  11. I meant instead of a "tooled up" Lynx; which, by definition, wont be carrying anybody to drop off in a PB anyway. I had heard a rumour that the US was dusting off the Bronco plans.
  12. In Afghanistan at least the US Army are mainly using CH-47s for troop lift and UH-60s for casevac and other jobs, I think I'm correct in saying that while the Blackhawk can of course carry more than the Lynx it is also to an extent hampered by the "hit and high" conditions there.
  13. Don't bother with an edit, you got it right first time!
  14. The US are examining a number of options including the AT-6, Super Tucano and re-opening the OV-10 line. These would primarily be employed for SOCOM style tasks and the trg of host nation mentoring.

  15. We're actively trying to get away from having more varied types of platforms in service. Yep, would be nice to have 'specialised' types to do various tasks but I'd rather we used the tiny amount of money we have more efficiently. We all have a dream sheet of what we'd like but so have most council estate pikies waiting for that lottery win. Difference is, the govnt give them more support and dosh....