# Royal Canadian Marines?- The Sea King Spin-off- Hold on Tight



## Agamemnon

Ha! marines!   :boring:

We cant get to the battlefield without the US or the brits...our own choppers damage our ships...our submarines kill their crew...and you ask for marines?

And just to clear something up...besides for their amphibious trainning..(witch we could all do) our infantry...are wayy more effective they the US marines.(Don't know abt the brits...)

ever go training with them??? horrible.

One of the advantages of having our "mini army" is that our standarts are very high.In the US if your poor ( and most people are) your gonna go in the armed forces.


----------



## Inch

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> ...our own choppers damage our ships...our submarines kill their crew...




I says pardon? You're generalizing due to one tragic fatality on one Sub? What damage do our helos do to our ships? I'm quite interested in this little fact since I will be flying helos off our ships in the near future, do you know something we don't?


----------



## Agamemnon

So your saying our 40 + year old seakings are combat capable? Your right i did exagerate...but it was a wake up call.....the seaking demand too much maintenance for what they put out...i read it in a report a few motnhs ago whats the maintenance/fly time percentage?

And the sub? the cre of the chicoutimi said they wouldint want to go back in those subs.


----------



## Inch

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> So your saying our 40 + year old seakings are combat capable? Your right i did exagerate...but it was a wake up call.....the seaking demand too much maintenance for what they put out...i read it in a report a few motnhs ago whats the maintenance/fly time percentage?
> 
> And the sub? the cre of the chicoutimi said they wouldint want to go back in those subs.



Yes they are combat capable, why wouldn't they be? There's 3 of them deployed on the East coast right now. Here's a news flash for you, ALL helicopters are maintenance intensive, that's just the nature of the machines. That report you read is the media's way of making them seem impossible to maintain. Any numbers you have read include standard things like A and B checks by the technicians before and after the aircraft goes flying, preflight inspections by the aircrew (there's 3 of us doing it for 20min = 1 hour of maintenance right there), plus all the standard maintenance actions like oil changes and of course repairs. Even the 20 minutes it takes to get fuel counts as maintenance. Now here's the big thing, those "hours of maintenance per hour of flight" numbers you saw are total BS. Sure it may take 30 hours of maintenance, but it's man hours, ie 5 techs and doing their thing only takes 6 hours for a total of 30 man hours. 

Of course you have a reference for the statements you claim the Submariners made, right?


----------



## aesop081

Inch,

haven't we all been over the whole sea king thing before ?  Why is it new posters on here insist on disputing the guy whu actualy flies the thing ?

For Agamemnon.......I am posted to a sea king squadron at the end of this  month.....I am looking forward to flying on it because its a capable machine that has alot of fighting left in it !


----------



## Inch

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> haven't we all been over the whole sea king thing before ?   Why is it new posters on here insist on disputing the guy whu actualy flies the thing ?



We sure have and I wish I could tell you. I'm just a driver though, WTF do I know?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...obviously not enough,...they still get you everytime :-[,............remember there is nothing more rightful than " well I heard that......."


----------



## Inch

You've got a point Bruce, but I can't let lies propagate and bring down the integrity of the board now can I?


----------



## Agamemnon

You want refrences? buy "the devoir" newspaper...every so often they have an article on these kinds of subjects...

you might want to cool down there...The seakings are old...dangerous .how many people gonna get killed before you say "oh well maybe its time we scrap em" ?!?

*you want a source here ya go :*


They are known as the "ancient" Sea Kings, the "geriatric" Sea Kings, the "venerable" Sea Kings. They have been called "flying coffins." Purchased with considerable fanfare by the federal government in 1963, when they turned heads with their impressive exploits, the Sea Kings are now a sick, aging fleet, with pieces literally falling out of the skies.[...] Twenty-eight of them remain in service, and those still flying are often hit by flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures and gearbox problems. Pilots have died flying them, falling into oceans, crashing into muskeg â â€œ more so the older they get.[...].

-CBC News Online | Updated July 23, 2004

*oh heres for the maintenance :*

The Sea Kings were supposed to have been retired by 2000, but the air force prolonged their life by spending $80 million to keep them flying until 2005. The Sea Kings require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and they are unavailable for operations 40 per cent of the time. 

-CBC News Online | Updated July 23, 2004


*and the new ones were getting arent so conforting...*

The Sikorsky is "the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians," said Graham during his announcement at the Shearwater Naval Air Station near Halifax. 

-Last Updated Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:49:43 EDT 
CBC News

*AND FINALY here just to give another source...oh wait you need more dead people? here ya go! ]*

The Sea King saga: it's not over yet
by Dawn Calleja
Canada is getting new helicopters. The old ones should have been sold for scrap ages ago. 
2004-12-06 
Canada's Sea Kings should have been sold off for scrap long ago. But they're still flying--though just barely. Over the years, 10 people have been killed and 111 injured in crashes of the ancient navy choppers. But at last, the government has inked a long-awaited replacement contract. It only took 30 years.

1963: Canada's navy buys 41 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters to help monitor Russian sub activity.

1972-1977: The navy upgrades the Sea Kings to increase reliability. By the 1980s, they would be outdated and ill-suited to modern warfare.

1977: The military starts looking to replace the Sea King fleet.

1986: DND finally issues a request for proposals for new choppers, expected to be flying by 1995.

Aug. 5, 1987: Defence Minister Perrin Beatty announces the Sea Kings will be replaced by the EH-101.

1992: EH Industries (now AgustaWestland) and Paramax sign a joint contract for 43 choppers worth $4.7 billion. During election campaign, Chrétien's Liberals vow to kill the deal for this "Cadillac-type" machine.

November 1993: Newly elected Liberals cancel the contract, a move that costs taxpayers $500 million in payouts to contractors.

1994: Liberals release a white paper promising to replace Sea Kings by end of the decade: "The Sea Kings are rapidly approaching the end of their operational life."

July 23, 2004: The government taps Connecticut-based Sikorsky to replace the Sea Kings with 28 H-92 Superhawk maritime helicopters.

Sept. 1, 2004: Losing bidder AgustaWestland files legal action to force Ottawa to give it the contract or start the bid process over because it was "biased, unfair," and Sikorsky's H-92s face "major redesign hurdles..."

Nov. 23, 2004: Despite the legal action, the government formally inks a $5-billion deal with Sikorsky, which will deliver the first Superhawk in 2008. By then, the Sea Kings will be 45 years old. 




* I got all this with 10 min of google...*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and how many of these articles are from the flippin pilots?......are you not catching the fact HE FLIES THEM?


----------



## Agamemnon

i'm going to go to my campus library to get the devoir article about the sub crew.

and why would i need anything about pilots?!? they dont decided much...and besides as staff arent you suposed to be impartial...?

I just proved that they are dangerous? you want pilots? go to the cemetary


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Much as I am tempted to make a smart-ass reply, I won't, except to say you have drawn my ire in both official languages now and this is a warning to slow down with the remarks or you will be on the ramp wondering who packed your chute.
....any pilots care to rebuttal?


----------



## Agamemnon

Ok so when you dont agree you threaten?

i braught refrences why dont you bring some oh mighty bias admin?!?


----------



## Sea-dog

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Ha! marines!   :boring:
> 
> And just to clear something up...besides for their amphibious training.(witch we could all do) our infantry...are wayy more effective they the US marines.(Don't know abt the brits...)
> 
> Agamemnon Hi,
> It is good to see ,you believe in your armed forces,but be carefull to generalize.It is not sooo easy to be in the Marines. Above all to do amphibious training,the Canadian Armed Forces will have to integrate with the Navy,and therefore you will require new training with a variety of different equipment.
> Having good soldiers in its self is not enough,you need the right equipment to support these forces.
> 
> The Israeli defence force has proven that it can only win any given battle if there is a absolute balance between the quality of the men and the quality of the equipment used in any given battle.
> If any one factor is missing it results in failure.
> The sum total of body bags will one day convince your Government that it is cheaper to spend the money now,intergrate,cross train and modernize the forces,before you have a big disaster.
> 
> Never over estimate your own forces ,never under estimate the enemy.Know your enemy,but also know your yourself !
> Bubbles Up !


----------



## Agamemnon

Oh your right!

i wasint over estimating the canadian troops but merely pointing out the quality that we have...that huge armies dont really have...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Ha! marines!  :boring:
> 
> We cant get to the battlefield without the US or the brits.



We never could!   How do you think the CEF got to France?  Or the CASF to England?  They used English troop transports.   

Korea?  US transports.

This is nothing new, and not indicative of weakness - seems to me we did our share in those three conflicts.  I suspect we were on British boats going to South Africa in 1900 as well.


----------



## George Wallace

Agamemnon

Have you read any of the previous posts from the people who fly the Sea Kings?   Let's see;   CBC reporters say that the car you drive is unsafe.   You drive it every day.   You have had it into your garage on a regular basis and know that it is mechanically sound.   Your mechanic passed it.   Yet CBC says it is unsafe.   Who do you believe; CBC or you and your mechanic?

GW


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Agamemnon obviously is either very young, or very naive.  Anyone who has ever had contact with the media - be it a story on the roses in your garden, or a homicide investigation - will tell you that they almost never, never, ever get things right.  Not because they have agendas, per se (though they certainly do in some cases), but because that is the nature of the medium.  When he/she grows up a little bit, he/she will understand.  Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.


----------



## winchable

And I don't think anyone here is actually saying that they should keep the sea kings around, they're more or less saying the press tends to focus on certain aspects of stories whereas reality is somewhat different from the picture painted by people who's job it is, to get a story.

And what's this about staff being impartial? We enjoy the forum for the same reasons everyone else does, intelligent debate.
We aren't godlike creatures without opinions and fingers for typing them....we're just right all of the time that's all.


----------



## Torlyn

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Ok so when you dont agree you threaten?
> 
> i braught refrences why dont you bring some oh mighty bias admin?!?



First things first, SPELLCHECK.  Second, you brought a pile of references from the CBC...  Gee.  Nice of you to get unbiased references yourself...   :  I mean, if you truly believe what the CBC reports about anything without looking for corroborating evidence, I pity you.  

T

P.S. Che - lol...


----------



## Danjanou

Guys

[sarcasm] Obviously Agamemnon knows what he's talking about. Just check out his profile, he obviously has mor military service/knowledge than the rest of the board put together. [/sarcasm]

It's one thing to be able to spout an opinion after five minutes of Googling a few news reports here. Totally different to spout one based on flying them every day


----------



## Agamemnon

Ok about the spelling i'm french i bet i could speak and write better english they you can french.

my car is a c-55 amg...they alwais said it was a great car LOL..

Oh about military experience...your right i dont have much i'm still finishing my bar in internation law...then i'm going in business at the HEC(to get my masters) then i get to do military law... 

I rather have my degrees then having rushed into the armed forces with a highschool diploma.(i'm not saying its a bad thing...nor am i saying you are uneducated)   :-*

ok so say CBC is wrong and every other news agency... ;D

torlyn ok my refrences are bias? i have 6 people against me and not one ...NOT ONE   has braught a refrence to contradict mine. i'm sorry boys but if you were in actualy politcal debate you would have lost.

what about the 10 dead and 111 injured?!? is it the pilots that are incompetent or the seakings breaking down?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Ladies and gentlemen, as much as a "pile-on" would seem to be in order, lets wait this one out and let one of the Sea King pilots answer this one.
[that is if they are not all dead or so blitheringly incompetent that they can't type] :
Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## Agamemnon

I never said they were incompetent or all dead...i just said isint it a high death toll?

and still no refrences.


----------



## Torlyn

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen, as much as a "pile-on" would seem to be in order, lets wait this one out and let one of the Sea King pilots answer this one.
> [that is if they are not all dead or so blitheringly incompetent that they can't type] :
> Thanks,
> Bruce



Just when I was about to have a little fun...  pickyourbattlespickyourbattles  

T


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> And the sub? the cre of the chicoutimi said they wouldint want to go back in those subs


and which ones have you been talking to? I count quite a few submariners as my closest friends including Lt(N) Chris Saunders and all but 2 from the Chitcoutimi have said they would not go back. Unless you know for certain don't make generalizations bnecause it is clear to all here you have no clue. Inch and Aesop are SeaKing crewmembers so slow down and read what they have posted. They know their aircraft you sure as hell do not.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Agamemnon (or should it be acelethal, via Google)

We have seen 41 years of service from the Seaking fleet, and 10 deaths.

Do you have statistics for other helicopter fleets, civilian or military, for comparison based on numbers of aircraft, years of service, and total flying hours? On what basis do you expect agreement that this is an unacceptably high toll, regrettable as any such loss of human life may be. Has the toll of deaths and injury even increased in direct proportion to the age of the fleet? The Seaking pilots and technicians I have know always had confidence in the aircraft and their own skills to fly them where they are needed. It would appear that none of the reference excerpts you chose to quote offer a selection of their views, perhaps because they might contradict the very journalistic spin you are promoting.


----------



## Agamemnon

( the acelethal thing was for my 14 year old cousin he has a habbit of joining bizarre websites with other peopels emails...in this case mine...)

OH if i am proved wrong i will apoligize* but SHOW ME A REFRENCE...for the last 2 pages ive been tagued team with no proof!!

ok so those 2 pilotes feel safe with the seakings...show me written proof.the is all hear-say.


i have given sources,refrences.(2 of em i could get more) and you all say "oh hes not right" show me your proof!!!!


i f you are right i will apoligize and shut my mouth...but...show me the proof.


oh and i loved the making a thread for this...action...but it only makes it look like the hole staff that are in principle stop quarrels...are all jumping 1 guy.and they keep giving low blows like my spellign when i'm french...my origins in the other thread...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well dude the thing you have to learn here is when someone here that we know gives an opinion on a piece of equipment whether good or bad the rest of us usually respect that opinion because their credentials have usually been established. So what Inch says about helos is good enough for me. What George Wallace says about tanks is good enough for me and I assume what I say about ships is good enough for them. You feel you were tagged teamed well that just sucks for you as you went off on a tangent without listening to what the subject matter experts here have told you. If you don't like it you can always leave or you can learn to play nice and learn something that people here try and tell you. Your choice.


----------



## Torlyn

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> ok so those 2 pilotes feel safe with the seakings...show me written proof.the is all hear-say.
> i have given sources,refrences.(2 of em i could get more) and you all say "oh hes not right" show me your proof!!!!



I'll type this slowly so you can (hopefully) understand.  Hearsay?  Your "proof" is from CBC articles.  As Michael OLeary pointed out, 10 deaths in 41 years while tragic, is not a lot.  How many CF members in the last 41 years have died wearing combat fatigues?  Are you going to claim those are unsafe as well?   :  

Until you are going to start listening to what people here are actually telling you, there's no point in continuing these conversations.  Perhaps once you have completed high school you might be a bit better off.  Law School?  Please.

T


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Agamemnon,
I split it because the "other" thread was about "Canadian Marines" not the Sea-Kings worthiness.


----------



## aesop081

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> ( the acelethal thing was for my 14 year old cousin he has a habbit of joining bizarre websites with other peopels emails...in this case mine...)
> 
> OH if i am proved wrong i will apoligize* but SHOW ME A REFRENCE...for the last 2 pages ive been tagued team with no proof!!
> 
> ok so those 2 pilotes feel safe with the seakings...show me written proof.the is all hear-say.
> 
> 
> i have given sources,refrences.(2 of em i could get more) and you all say "oh hes not right" show me your proof!!!!
> 
> 
> if you are right i will apoligize and shut my mouth...but...show me the proof



I will let inch take care of your case because he is in the front sea of sea kings at the moment.   But as an AESOP who is just about to go to a sea king sqn i will tell you this:   What you read in the media is sualy very biases and far from the truth.   We have collectively tried to explain to you that the sea king isn't the flying death trap that you and the media make it out to be.   I'm quite sure that Inch's word should have been enough to shut you up ( after all he IS a CH-124 pilot..... : ) but id it wasn't enough, i'm sure that the fact that i have no problems with the fact that i will be flying them should have added enough to his EXPERIENCED words to shut you up.   Unlike you we are not quoting something we have read and made it our opinion........our opinion comes from the fact that we are the guys doing the job with the equipement and we KNOW........Unless you are an AESOP, Pilot or TACCO....you should stay in your lane. And as far as your education comments go..i joined the CF right after high school and never looked back........i have since went back to school and i resent your implication...

Have a nice life


----------



## Agamemnon

Wow...amazing...
ok you all are right i'm wrong...the hole media is wrong...


torlyn your out of line...because my english skills and my debating skills in english arent as good as yours does not give your the right to insult me. Come to the french forum and debate with me...so i can laugh at you...because the post ive seen the staff post there are horribly written...and impossible to understand yet you understand my english.

actualy i wil lgo start this thread over there.and wait.


----------



## aesop081

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Wow...amazing...
> ok you all are right i'm wrong...the hole media is wrong...
> 
> 
> torlyn your out of line...because my english skills and my debating skills in english arent as good as yours does not give your the right to insult me. Come to the french forum and debate with me...so i can laugh at you...because the post ive seen the staff post there are horribly written...and impossible to understand yet you understand my english.
> 
> actualy i wil lgo start this thread over there.and wait.



Well since i am french i will gladly follow you there and debate this..........a la prochaine....


----------



## Agamemnon

encore mieux!  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Je pence que je va aussi..........Oh, and I thought Jungle's warning to you over there was just fine.


----------



## Agamemnon

And as i mentioned in the french bored i didn't want to insult the pilots...i got into the debate...but i hope i have not insulted you all in anyways i hope to continue the debate in french.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You will be told you are as out to lunch in the French forums as you are in the English forums so whats the difference?


----------



## Agamemnon

well once that happens i will apoligize...but i find it wrong to keep insulting someone that is debating in another language then hes own...


----------



## Inch

Unfuckingbelievable. You want written proof? Are you reading my posts? SHAZAM! Written proof is what you are reading. I fly the machines, they are not the death traps those clowns in the media are making them out to be. They are old and need to be replaced, but that's the same with any piece of kit that's outdated and 41 years old. 

As for the safety record of them and the tragic loss of 10 personnel, let's look at some numbers. The Lab crash in 98 killed all 6 on board, in one crash. 10 fatalities over 41 years? That's pretty bloody good if you ask me. Also, we have 28 remaining Sea Kings, each has on average 12,000hrs on the airframes for a total fleet time of 336,000hrs. At 10 fatalities, you're averaging one fatality every 33,600hrs, I know I'll never get that much flying time in my life so the odds of a safe career are in my favour.

But all this aside, I think you're an idiot and not worth the continued arguments. You believe what you want sitting on your couch, and I'll know the truth sitting in my Mighty Sea King.

Oh and for the record, "flying coffins" "geriatric" "venerable" "antique", those are media terms, none of which are used by Sea King crews or technicians. I have absolute faith in my helicopter and the technicians that maintain it as well as the 2 guys sitting behind me and the guy sitting beside me. 

Inch out.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> well once that happens i will apoligize...but i find it wrong to keep insulting someone that is debating in another language then hes own...



If thats the case why would you come to an English Forum and basically tell people they know what they are talking about that they are wrong. Sorry you lost that defence.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Agamemnon, you seem terribly hung up on this language issue, when I thought you were trying to present points on the Seaking fleet. 

Unfortunately, you have provided little more than a few Googled excepts from the news, while upholding them as undisputable truth (which I would expect someone of your claimed education wouldn't do for everything the news decides to print). Those reports demonstrate little more than the reporters' ability to look up "old" in a Thesaurus. We can debate the relative safety of the Seaking fleet, or we can just let this threads run downhill as the one where you got beat up and chased away. Reasoned debate is welcome, the inability to perceive alternate views than one's own, especially from those who may have actual experience, is not.

Feel free to debate in the French forum with the few who are comfortable in that language, perhaps there you will find that the opinions offered to you are not simply given to contradict you personally.


----------



## Agamemnon

The language factor was pointed  to tyr wtv that person's handle is..

I waited in the french forum...only 1 staff member posted...


inch calm down...you know what are the political consequences to that humiliating and tragic seaking accident??

you mentioned the 10 deaths as being low what about the 111 wounded...look i admit i was out of line...but when i mwas talking about pwriten proof i didnt mean your post i mean an article,book something...


off to install my tv.

peace


----------



## Torlyn

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> off to install my tv.



I hope it has french instructions.  Oh, and nice rebuttal.

T


----------



## Agamemnon

at least i can read french and afford it. : ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I waited in the french forum...only 1 staff member posted...



Why would I post in a forum where I don't understand the language. I am aware of my limitations and what I know. Can you say the same?


----------



## Agamemnon

well you can understand me?
 :


and as for the hole debate i thank you all and i apoligize you were right.explanation in french forum


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

This thread has been "entertaining" to say the least, but I think Inch and Aesop summed it up nicely and for those who can afford it  :there is a thread open in the French forums on this.
Move on folks, nothing to see here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> well you can understand me?


I was referring to your french posts.  :


----------

