# Recycling the Sea King



## Ex-Dragoon

Just a question for the flying types out there. How feasible would it to take the Sea Kings with the fewest flying hours on them and have them rebuilt and modified to carry the Searchwater radar like the RN AEW Sea King variants do? It would give the Navy a nice little capability. Thoughts?


----------



## aesop081

Razor blades. Definitely razor blades.

OK, maybe pop cans too.......


----------



## Zoomie

At least two or three will be spared for gate guardians - stick them on a stick and don't look back.


----------



## medicineman

Zoomie said:
			
		

> At least two or three will be spared for gate guardians - stick them on a stick and don't look back.



...with an umbrella under in case parts continue to fall off onto any gawkers  ;D.

MM


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The average CF Sea King, despite being nearly 50 years old, has only about 1/3 the airframe hours of it's heli-logging cousin.

The two big issues are:

1. Money. Who would pay for the required full gut and avionics/sensor upgrade?

2. PYs.  What other capability are you willing to give up to provide bodies for this capability?

Btw, why do we need AEW?


----------



## captloadie

Well, if we already had our replacements, we probably could get a nice chunk of change from them, if the below article is factual.

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-danish-sea-kings.htm

However, seeing as we don't have a viable replacement operational, we will likely miss out.


----------



## chrisf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The average CF Sea King, despite being nearly 50 years old, has only about 1/3 the airframe hours of it's heli-logging cousin.



Wouldn't flying in a salt-water enviroment vs flying on land close up a big gap between then in wear and tear?


----------



## aesop081

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Wouldn't flying in a salt-water enviroment vs flying on land close up a big gap between then in wear and tear?



CF corrosion control programs for maritime fleets tend to be pretty aggressive. This would likely mitigate the situation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Wouldn't flying in a salt-water enviroment vs flying on land close up a big gap between then in wear and tear?



It is not so much corrosion (which is carefully monitored), as the wear and tear a sea king suffers just sitting on a ship for 6 months.  Basically, because the ship is always moving, the helicopter is, too.

Back to basic question:  why would we need to do this?


----------



## beenthere

Why would we need to is right. However if there was a need there's no doubt that it could be done and the Sea Kings would provide great service in a number of roles.
The scrapyards have provided civilian operators with aircraft that make lots of money long after the military gave up on them. 
 Columbia Helicopters uses the same type (Boeing 107) and if I'm not mistaken some of the scrapped Canadian CH-113 Labradors for logging, fire figting and other purposes. They have a first rate maintenance facility that will  keep their helicopters flying so far into the future that they haven't even considered replacing them.
They're in business to make money so they can't afford to make mistakes.


----------



## beenthere

http://www.colheli.com/colheli.html Columbia Helicopters. They have 8 of our old worn out Labradors making money for them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is not so much corrosion (which is carefully monitored), as the wear and tear a sea king suffers just sitting on a ship for 6 months.  Basically, because the ship is always moving, the helicopter is, too.
> 
> Back to basic question:  why would we need to do this?


You don't think having an airborne early warning capability for the navy would be a good thing? I think anything that extends what we can detect and track would only help with picture compliation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You don't think having an airborne early warning capability for the navy would be a good thing? I think anything that extends what we can detect and track would only help with picture compliation.



Ex-D, 

What do you think we bought the Cyclone to do?


----------



## beenthere

Considering the progress of the Cyclone to date and the potential for getting it into service within the next decade recycling Sea Kings may be necessary.


----------



## beenthere

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/New-S-61T-Helos-for-the-US-State-Department-06198/
Sea Kings being recycled.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/life-begins-at-50-for-upgraded-sea-kings-25534/


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Let us also not forget that there will be no ships to carry a sea king on in our navy very shortly.

The haul down system being installed in the frigates is not compatible with a sea king.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Let us also not forget that there will be no ships to carry a sea king on in our navy very shortly.
> 
> The haul down system being installed in the frigates is not compatible with a sea king.



Ah good point I would have thought it would have been a universal system but am proven wrong. Thanks SKT.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Let us also not forget that there will be no ships to carry a sea king on in our navy very shortly.
> 
> The haul down system being installed in the frigates is not compatible with a sea king.



Is that what they call the 'bear trap'? What makes it unsuitable for other airframes? I thought other navies with different helicopters adopted our system and use it all the time?


----------



## h3tacco

While many different countries (USN, RAN, JMSDF, etc)  use a Helicopter Hauldown Rapid Securing Device (HHRSD) "aka beartrap" each one is designed and rated for its own airframes. The probe and trap for the Sea King is different than the probe and trap on the Cyclone. They handle different aircraft weights, different moments and have different clearances. Further differences are that a Sea King has a tail probe while the Cyclone does not, which means a completely different means of straightening the aircraft prior to bringing it in the hangar.  To accommodate the Cyclone the entire HHRSD has been modified on the Halifax-class frigates and it is not backwards compatible.  

It is probably technically feasible to make the new HHRSD "partially" compatible with the Sea King however it is not worth effort to test and certify the new HHRSD with the Sea King. And you probably still could not get in the hangar as the tail guide winches for the Sea King are now nose guide winches for the Cyclone. 

Plus even if we modified our current Sea Kings to the RN Sea King ASaC Mk 7 they would not fit into the Frigate hangars as the "bag" makes the aircraft considerably wider.    







So a potential AEW Sea King could probably only sail on the current AOR or future AOR/JSS. This alone brings a concept of operations dilemma for a Canadian TG.  

For a AEW Sea King to be really useful basically we would require a larger helicopter carrying ship and different focus of roles for a Canadian TG.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thank you h3.


----------



## beenthere

If the Cyclone turns out to be a bummer the frigates won't have a helo.


----------



## daftandbarmy

beenthere said:
			
		

> http://www.colheli.com/colheli.html Columbia Helicopters. They have 8 of our old worn out Labradors making money for them.



I know a logging company that found a Sea King submerged in a swamp somewhere in Indonesia, refurbished it, then put it into operation.

Did anyone on here lose a Sea King in Indonesia?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

beenthere said:
			
		

> If the Cyclone turns out to be a bummer the frigates won't have a helo.



In the unlikely event that the Cyclone turns out to be a total disaster, there are other helos on the market with a nose wheel.  Assuming we could procure something before the Frigates were decommissioned...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Assuming we could procure something before the Frigates were decommissioned...



Even then, there would follow on ships to replace the frigates (one would hope, unless a luminary in Ottawa decides that with the worlds longest coast line, we don't need a Navy).

To add to H3's explanation: His (her?) point is valid for all aircraft operating from ships. Each has specific requirements and the ships accommodate them differently. For instance, the French Mistral class LHA's can only accommodate heavy helicopters at spot number six near the stern, the structure of the ship forward is too weak to take their landing. On aircraft carriers, the tension in the arresting wires is set differently for each type of aircraft, as is the pressure used in the catapults. Its just the way ships are: no universal capability to handle aircraft, but rather a specific capability for each type.


----------



## aesop081

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> On aircraft carriers, the tension in the arresting wires is set differently for each type of aircraft,



The adjustments to the arresting wires are based on aircraft weight, not aircraft type. Thus, 2 different aircraft types with the same weight will use the same wire settings.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Supplemental here:

An AEW capability for our Navy would be a great asset and greatly increase the capabilities of our frigates and destroyers. However, IMHO, this could and should be achieved through UAV's  under shipborne control. It would be a shame if the next generation of surface ships were no provided with the appropriate hangar space and console room in the Ops room to accommodate such capability.

PS: CDN Aviator you are partially correct: two different aircraft types may have the same setting because their weight is similar, but (by experience) what is called down to "Wire Control" is the actual type, not the weight. For instance, the air boss will call down something like: "Next trap - Tomcat" or "Next trap - Super" (for super Hornet - F18 E/F) etc. They don't discriminate or change setting for a Hornet on fumes with nothing hanging from the pylons or one all fueled up with all points full of ordnance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Even then, there would follow on ships to replace the frigates (one would hope, unless a luminary in Ottawa decides that with the worlds longest coast line, we don't need a Navy).
> 
> To add to H3's explanation: His (her?) point is valid for all aircraft operating from ships. Each has specific requirements and the ships accommodate them differently. For instance, the French Mistral class LHA's can only accommodate heavy helicopters at spot number six near the stern, the structure of the ship forward is too weak to take their landing. On aircraft carriers, the tension in the arresting wires is set differently for each type of aircraft, as is the pressure used in the catapults. Its just the way ships are: no universal capability to handle aircraft, but rather a specific capability for each type.



or you could buy a totally inadequate helicopter for the job like the USCG did.
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2010/09/the-%E2%80%9Clegacy-bird%E2%80%9D/


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3677646/Romantic-Kate-and-Prince-William-rule-the-waves-in-Canada.html

The Brit press has been having a field day with William practicing waterbirding as an, apparently, emergency landing procedure.

To which I have one question for our resident crew of rotary wing types:  Does the Flight Engineer apply the duct tape before or after the emergency has been declared?   ;D


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To which I have one question for our resident crew of rotary wing types:  Does the Flight Engineer apply the duct tape before or after the emergency has been declared?   ;D



No FE on a Sea King


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3677646/Romantic-Kate-and-Prince-William-rule-the-waves-in-Canada.html
> 
> The Brit press has been having a field day with William practicing waterbirding as an, apparently, emergency landing procedure.
> 
> To which I have one question for our resident crew of rotary wing types:  Does the Flight Engineer apply the duct tape before or after the emergency has been declared?   ;D



The tape on the aircraft slows water entry and protects seals against the repeated water impact.  Over an hour long waterbird session (multiplied by maybe 4-5 sorties in a day) the aircraft will impact the water at least 20 times.  Gallons of water will still drain from the aircraft during each refueling between sortis.

The technique being practised not only allows pilots to get the aircraft safely on the water in the event of an engine loss while in the "dip" (active sonar in the water), but also teaches to do a single engine running takeoff.

The reason that we are the only ones to still do it is, that, our hover height is too low to allow a pilot to recognize an engine loss and have time to fly away before hitting the water. Therefore, we teach how to hit the water and survive.

As noted this is an emergency procedure only and no, there are no FEs on Sea Kings.  Taccos and AES Ops get the dubious honour of being carried around during these sorties to mainly ensure that we haven't sprung a major leak in the back.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Taccos and AES Ops get the dubious honour of being carried around during these sorties to mainly ensure that we haven't sprung a major leak in the back.




... and to provide an extra set of hands to help bail...

 >


----------



## Good2Golf

SKT, any truth to the environmental protection function of the gun tape also being to keep POLs from leaking out into the surrounding water, like the drip pans for wheeled LF vehicles?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

G2G,

I kind of doubt it, as most of the leaking a Sea King does is from the engines/gearboxes- and the tape is nowhere near that.

The old saying in the MH world is that you don't worry about leaks on a Sea King- you start to worry when all the leaks dry up!

Seriously, the old girl was built to a different set of tolerances- you get to learn what is normal and what is not, pretty fast.  Leaking oil and hydraulic fluid- it's kind of , well, manly.  I really got used to the smell and kind of miss it.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> G2G,
> 
> I kind of doubt it, as most of the leaking a Sea King does is from the engines/gearboxes- and the tape is nowhere near that.
> 
> The old saying in the MH world is that you don't worry about leaks on a Sea King- you start to worry when all the leaks dry up!
> 
> Seriously, the old girl was built to a different set of tolerances- you get to learn what is normal and what is not, pretty fast.  Leaking oil and hydraulic fluid- it's kind of , well, manly.  I really got used to the smell and kind of miss it.



I hear you, SKT.  If the chip panel on the Hook wasn't blinking one of its 17 lights we started worrying that the panel might be U/S.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Here is to manly aircraft that leak.  

An era is soon to pass into history!


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Here is to manly aircraft that leak.
> 
> An era is soon to pass into history!



Hear, hear!

BTW, does anyone else in the world still operate an SH-3A?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I gotta think we have the oldest variants out there.  Ours have been upgraded several times, but they are nowhere near the current "gold standard" of glass cockpit, composite blades, 6 bladed tail rotor, 1556 databus, top level engines and gearboxes...well, you get the picture.


----------

