# Canada converts Sea Kings for battlefield role with SCTF



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Janes said:
			
		

> The Canadian Air Force has initiated the conversion of five CH-124B Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters to a battlefield transport role (in a similar way to the UK's Commando/ Sea King HC.4 from the Westland version of the Sea King).
> 
> The converted Sea Kings will become part of the new Standing Contingency Task Force (SCTF) announced in Canada's 2005 Defence Policy Statement. The Sea Kings are being converted to the transport role at a cost of approximately CAD5.5 million (USD4.8 million). They will have their sonobuoy dispensers and AN/UYS-503 acoustic processing system removed, and 12 troop seats will be added, along with the AN/ARC-210 1794C radio with secure two-way communications.
> 
> "We are also looking at an engine air particle separator as a follow-on activity," Major Max Shaw, weapons systems manager for the CH-124, told IDR.
> 
> The helicopters will not be fitted with any new weapon systems other than the C6 (MAG 58) 7.62 mm general-purpose machine gun, which they can already carry. They are also already equipped with a self-defence suite consisting of the AN/ALQ-144 infrared countermeasures jammer, the AN/AAR-47 missile-approach warning system and the AN/ALE-47 decoy dispensing system.
> 
> Maj Shaw stated: "The objective here is to keep it simple, this is an interim measure so the present navigation system and the present radar remain."
> 
> The conversion modifications are being undertaken by IMP Aerospace (Halifax, Nova Scotia) and the air force's Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron.
> 
> The work on all five aircraft should be complete by November, just in time to participate in a proof-of-concept exercise for the SCTF in November to December 2006.
> 
> The SCTF will be a quick-reaction sea-based force comprising a naval task force of three to five ships, including an amphibious ship; air assets including four to six heavy-lift helicopters and CP-140 Aurora surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft; and a land component built around a light task force of approximately 800 to 900 soldiers.
> 
> Lieutenant-Colonel Danny Houde, Directorate Air Strategic Planning, told IDR that the Sea King helicopters will be used "to provide a lift capability until other options are developed, for instance the arrival of the Cyclone into the field force sometime down the road". Canada's air force is acquiring 28 Sikorsky H-92 helicopters (designated the CH-148 Cyclone) as a replacement for the Sea Kings in their maritime role, with first delivery beginning in late 2008.
> 
> There has been no decision on whether the Cyclones or a different helicopter would be used for the SCTF lift role, but Lt Col Houde said: "At the moment, the CH-148 Cyclone is the option that we are looking at."


----------



## beenthere

Awsome.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Interesting.


----------



## childs56

"I do not beleive it. Only because a few guys on here said it wouldn't happen no matter what". 

On a better note good for them. The army needs a capable chopper that can actually do it's job. Nothing like a refit and hopefully some new parts for the Sea King. 

Cheers


----------



## Armymatters

In the part regarding the possible usage of the Cyclone in the standing task force role, are they looking at converting some of the ASW platforms, or are they follow on orders for additional airframes? Just a quick quiery.


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> In the part regarding the possible usage of the Cyclone in the standing task force role, are they looking at converting some of the ASW platforms, or are they follow on orders for additional airframes? Just a quick quiery.



Thats a good question actualy.

My take on it is that final product will not only be an ASW aircraft but also orientated for ASuW.  Remember we started with 41 CH-124s and now have 28 ( 27 if you count the latest crash).  Spread the 28 CH-148s between both line sqns ( 423 & 443) the OTU (406) and HOTEF, account aircraft down for perodics, some down for long-term snags, if the air force is to fulfill its obligations to supporting the fleet in the maritime role ( essential if  SCTF is to move by sea) more airframes will be required in order to add a new full-time capability.  IMHO 28 ASW/ASuW aircrafts is an insufficient number, reducing it to provide a transport capability will leave SCTF, and the navy as a whole, vulnerable.

My 2/10 of a dollard though


----------



## kj_gully

CTD said:
			
		

> On a better note good for them. The army needs a capable chopper that can actually do it's job. Nothing like a refit and hopefully some new parts for the Sea King.
> 
> Cheers



Well, i don't know about all new parts, we are sending crew seats from our Cormorants back to IMP to be retrofit into the sea kings. Remember the Gulf War when we took Frigate 20mm AAguns and chaff and put them on the tanker? Still looked like a tanker to me.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Well, i don't know about all new parts, we are sending crew seats from our Cormorants back to IMP to be retrofit into the sea kings.



I'm sitting not 50 feet from those new seats as I type this.  They look very spiffy in the back of a Sea King, Thank-you very much   

Once you start strippng out a Sea King, there is alot of room inside.  I think you guys will be suitably impressed with the results.

As for how the whole Cyclone buy is going to work out, I have heard of no official changes to the Project at this point, as a result of SCTF.  There is a whole lot of speculation, but I won't waste your time with that.

Cheers


----------



## kj_gully

Maybe once the Cam paint comes off we could paint them yellow! Better yet paint them yellow now, and paint the Cormorant green.


----------



## h3tacco

While SKT won't waste your time with speculation I will ;D

What the Cyclone fleet will look like in the future is currently being debated/considered but as I see it comes down to three options.

1. Keep 28 Cyclones and use some in the SCTF role. ie role fit the mission kit 
2. Purchase additional Cyclones specific for the SCTF role.
3. Purchcase another helo type for SCTF role. 

There are probably other options floating around but I think those are the most likely but only time will tell.


----------



## BKells

Doesn't the Sea King require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour it is in the air?

Wouldn't the money be better spent on new helicopters?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You are aware that new helicopters are being purchased right?


----------



## h3tacco

BKells I will answer you question first with another question how many hours of maintenance does any other helicopter require? Everyone throws around the 30hrs without comparing it anything else?  That is my biggest pet peeve with people who bring up 30hrs maintenance/hour flying. 

The Sea King fleet currently has its isssues but the SCTF Sea King is an interim solution that will provide a decent solution in a very short amount of time for a small cost (relatively speaking).


----------



## Kat Stevens

So, not only do they get to fall out of the sky on to nice soft ocean waves, they also get to fall down onto those nasty rocky Afghan mountains?  Equal opportunity deathtraps, cool!!      >


----------



## aesop081

BKells said:
			
		

> Doesn't the Sea King require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour it is in the air?
> 
> Wouldn't the money be better spent on new helicopters?



That would be 30 man-hours per flight hours.  If you dont understand "man-hours", here's how it works : 6 Guys working on an aircraft together for 5 hours makes 30 man-hours.  Clear as mud ?

now i dont know if the "30 hours" is the actual figure.  But the fact that it is "man-hours" is something the media usualy leaves out of their reporting.


----------



## dapaterson

AESOp - my sentiments exactly.  And if we consider the comprehensive overhaul/rebuilding that the Bisons are currently undergoing, coupled with their routine maintenance once back in service, what will their ratio of man-hours of maintenance vs hours of operation look like?


----------



## aesop081

dapaterson said:
			
		

> AESOp - my sentiments exactly.  And if we consider the comprehensive overhaul/rebuilding that the Bisons are currently undergoing, coupled with their routine maintenance once back in service, what will their ratio of man-hours of maintenance vs hours of operation look like?



The media twists its story to fit its editorial position and then the misconceptions are perpetuated by folks like BKells that have no understanding of the subject ( other than what the media feeds them) and make the kind of comment that precipatated my comment.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Remember the Gulf War when we took Frigate 20mm AAguns and chaff and put them on the tanker? Still looked like a tanker to me



40 mm Bofors actually and none were from the CPFs.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Isn't the Cormorant taking up more maintainance time these days than the sea king??

Just wondering...


----------



## 3rd Herd

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So, not only do they get to fall out of the sky on to nice soft ocean waves, they also get to fall down onto those nasty rocky Afghan mountains?  Equal opportunity deathtraps, cool!!      >



Got a good deal on some steel umbrellas since it may seem Pat Bay will have less cluttering up the air over Victoria. Okay fun aside my hat goes off to SeaKing and the others who keep this piece of kit in the air and have the 'cojouns' to fly in them, there's are bigger than mine. To certain recent posters on this site "No matter what piece of kit you have there are going to be maintenance hours with it", end of story.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Got a good deal on some steel umbrellas since it may seem Pat Bay will have less cluttering up the air over Victoria. Okay fun aside my hat goes off to SeaKing and the others who keep this piece of kit in the air and have the 'cojouns' to fly in them, there's are bigger than mine. To certain recent posters on this site "No matter what piece of kit you have there are going to be maintenance hours with it", end of story



What makes you think we have bigger balls than anyone else in the military?  I have a little over 1100 hours on Sea Kings.  I assess the risks everytime I go flying (just like every other aviator flying every other type aircraft in the world).  If I'm not comfortable, I don't go.  it's not like I'm driving in a LAV III in Afghanistan- that takes balls!

We fly in a demanding and unforgiving environment (low level, at sea, often at night).  The aircraft is old and most of the sensors are obsolete.  Usually, our accidents or incidents can be traced back to some sort of crew or maintenance error.  That said, seldom does the aircraft just spontaneously quit working and crash.

If there is one thing that I would like every Army.ca member to take away from my post it is:

SEA KING HELICOPTERS ARE NOT INHERENTLY UNSAFE!!

Some of you may be flying off of a ship with us in the very near future on exercise or on operations.  I want you to feel comfortable and confident doing so.

Cheers.


----------



## Inch

Amen brother.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 40 mm Bofors actually and none were from the CPFs.



You're both right.  Protecteur was armed with both 40mm Bofors and 20mm CIWS in 1990.  I believe the 20mm were taken from CPFs, or diverted from ones that were to be fitted to CPFs.  A point to note, the Navy website on the Protecteur has got an error.  It states that she was rearmed with 20mm Bofors vice 40mm.

Here's the site- http://www.navy.dnd.ca/PROTECTEUR/about/ship_about_e.asp?category=92 if anyone knows who updates it, maybe they could correct it.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan

2 quickie type questions.
1) Where are these "amphibious assault" ships coming from?
and 2) When will these ships actually come into service?
Maybe its not so much the seakings we should be worrying about.
Just my 2 cents.

Daniel


----------



## ArmyRick

Interesting use of re-roling choppers. I bet in their "aged state" sea kings will be more usefull than griffons in the battlefield mobility role.


----------



## FSTO

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> 2 quickie type questions.
> 1) Where are these "amphibious assault" ships coming from?
> and 2) When will these ships actually come into service?
> Maybe its not so much the seakings we should be worrying about.
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Daniel



1. Don't know. The Navy (plus Army and AF) are still doing the proof of concept. There is a plan to do some war-gaming this fall with USN or RN providing the platform. The plan is to initially lease one and then build one in the future.

2. NLT 2014.

What will we get?
Well as for AirCraft, Sikorsky is building an updated version of the Super Stallion (a "K" model) which would be nice to have

Link
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI265,00.html

As for ships:
This one has been my favorite:

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/


----------



## kj_gully

Thanks Ammo tech, for getting my back there. I believe those 40 mm Bofors (I'd forgotten those) were also recycled- for the Lahr Air Defense det. Currently our Cormorant Fleet is servicable for only 2 hours/ flight- unless we are tasked SAR. I don't know what our man hours are, butthey are significant.Even if our fleet were healthy, I think it would be a  nightmare to bring civilian contracted maintenance to Afghanistan.


----------



## geo

Not sure about the Halifax museum story - if memory serves me right, the Bofors 40mm were sitting in war stock inventory till the call came in to up arm the Supply ships.

And the CIWS were systems purchased for the CPFs and sitting on the shelf somewhere pending completion of construction.

Not surprised that the 40mm were stripped off at a later refit though


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Not sure about the Halifax museum story - if memory serves me right, the Bofors 40mm were sitting in war stock inventory till the call came in to up arm the Supply ships.



The museum thing never happened.  And I should know because the Weapons Tech (L) that helped with installations of the 40mm Bofors on the 3 ships came from Chatham and worked for me on HMCS PROTECTEUR when I was a young AD Troop Commander.  This is how the story got going:

My Cpl was helping install one of the guns (which came from the airfields in Germany and were waiting for the MCDVs to be built) and noticed a piece of hydraulic fitting was u/s.  As time was of the essence (or so it seemed..), he zipped up to the Maritime Command Museum to examine their display 40mm gun to see if he could rob a part.  It turned out to be a different model of gun, so FMF Cape Breton built him a new part instead.  Somehow, this all got recounted to the press as an example of good old Canadian ingenuity and got spun into how the "guns came from a museum".  Once again, never happened.  You guys can spike this urban legend- I was there.

Sorry for the hijack.


----------



## geo

Ahhhh.... it all makes sense now SKT....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

My mistake I thought KJ was referring to the single barrel 20 mm Oerlikon type you see on British ships. WHen I see CIWS means a who different thing to me vice 20 mm AA gun


----------



## Navy_Blue

Didn't they put Air defence guys on the ship with shoulder launched missiles??  I met a guy in BC when I was on QL3 and he showed me picks of the Protector or Preserver going thought the Suez.  They had pics with them practicing closing up for action stations with (I think shoulder launched Javelins???).  Is this right??  

Too the original post.  Its sad that now that the media has slagged the Sea Kings for so long the public will just laugh at the military some more.  The Army will probably be cringing too with all the bad press.  I hope this all works out.  Always looked twice when I saw pics of the kippers landing SAS and Royal Marines from the Sea Kings.  They look sharp in green.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Either Javelins or Blowpipes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Either Javelins or Blowpipes.



Javelin GL.  I was the Air Defence Troop Commander on PROTECTEUR from Aug 90-Jan 91.  PRESERVER never went to Gulf War 1- just her crew.  We did a crew swap, intheatre, in Jan 91.


----------



## geo

Still lots of Sea Kings, Brits and Aussies appear to be still happy with their performance

Sea Kings became whipping boys - same as the Iltis
Nothing wrong with a piece of kit that is used as intended. 
Once you decide to use it for something outside of what it was intended for in 1st place,  all bets are off.


----------



## Pearson

From today's Herald

By JOHN WARD The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT 
  

OTTAWA — The military will cannibalize five Sea King helicopters and turn them from sub-hunters into troop carriers as part of a new quick-reaction force.

They will lose their anti-submarine gear and get seating to carry 12 soldiers.

*The helicopters will be part of a fledgling, Halifax-based, standing contingency task force, a mix of planes, ships and soldiers designed to respond quickly to crises. Creation of the force was announced last year in the defence policy statement.*
These Sea Kings are B models, equipped to drop sonobuoys, floating sensors designed to listen for submarines underwater. Most navy ships that carry Sea Kings use the A model, which includes active sonar gear that sends out the pings familiar from many war movies, to find subs.

The contingency task force needed helicopters to be able to ferry soldiers from ship to shore. With nothing else in the inventory to fill the bill, it was decided to convert the Sea Kings.

"We need . . . to have the proper air connectors to be able to take a force from ship to shore and that requires the kind of lift capability that a modified Sea King could provide," said Lt.-Col. Danny Houde, of the directorate of air strategic planning.

The conversion project is straightforward, said Maj. Max Shaw, weapons system manager for the Sea Kings.

"The first part is take the passive acoustics systems out," he said. "Then the other two main elements are adding additional troop seats and adding radios that are compatible with talking to the soldiers."

The $5.5-million project will also eventually install engine filters to improve the chopper’s performance in dusty conditions.

The Sea Kings, most of which are more than 40 years old, have been used as cargo carriers and makeshift people movers in the past. In Somalia in 1992-93, Sea Kings moved 430 tonnes of cargo ashore to support the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

The newly modified troop carriers will keep their navigation and radar systems, as well as the protective gear installed when the navy began deployments to the perilous Persian Gulf area four years ago. These include infrared jamming systems, a missile warning system and chaff dispensers.

Shaw said the Sea King is used as a troop carrier by other countries, so the modifications aren’t radical.

"There’s lots of precedents," he said. "The Royal Navy has provided support for the Royal Marines in many operational sectors over the years and they are quite happy with it in this role."

*The changes should be done by November, when the newborn contingency force will stage its first exercise.*
Houde said the idea of the force is to provide a permanent force of ships, aircraft and soldiers who work, train and deploy together. It would replace the kind of one-off arrangements in which ships, planes and troops are thrown together for a single mission, "then when the mission is over they go back to their holes and don’t necessarily work together again."

The force is being assembled slowly. Eventually, it’s expected to include several warships, *including a yet-to-be purchased amphibious ship, plus helicopters and other aircraft and a force of several hundred troops.*

The Sea Kings are a stop-gap that will help get the program started. Eventually, some other helicopter will be tabbed for the troop-carrier role. It might be a specialized aircraft or a variant of the new Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters that are to start replacing the Sea Kings in 2008.

"The final choice in terms of the lift capability has not been finalized," Houde said. "We are continuing to develop the options, but of course the Cyclone is one of the options being considered."

If I were one to talk out of the only orifice located on the back of my body, I might suggest that Shannon Park will be the new home for the "troops"


----------



## Douke

Interesting,

might not be a perfect solution but I am confident from experienced posters above that it will be a good temporary solution. At least the Sea King can carry a C6 machinegun for cover.

Douke


----------



## gnplummer421

IMHO an excellent stopgap solution. Why not use what we have while we have it. I checked out some of the links from previous pages to familiarize myself with the Cyclone...I don't want to offend anyone, but it looks like a VIP passenger chopper. I guess looks can be deceiving.

I also like the link on the "Enforcer" series Amphibious ships...nice. 

The "Super Stallion" looks very aggressive and sturdy, can we get some of those please? 

If I understand correctly, we will hitch rides with Medium lift choppers from other nations? Man..we should have hung on to a couple of those Chinooks eh?

Anyhoo, I'm happy the military is finally getting some attention and I support any progress with procurements. I think a new era is at hand..slowly.

Gnplummer


----------



## Good2Golf

If they make the cockpit NVG-compatible, I'll fly them over here!  

I would also like the C6 replaced with an M134 7.62 mini or the GECAL hi-rate .50...

Like SKT said, the SK is not inherently unsafe, the flexshaft cable that caused the fire and crash of 12425 in 1994 has been resolved.

As I said before, I'd fly it here in a troop transport role, but put some proper theatre-specific eqpt on it (NVG, M134/GECAL/get rid of the Tacco and Aesop's console for more troops further fwd to help CofG...sorry SKT...unless of course you want to man the LH dor gun?)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Door Gunner, ohhhh were do I sign.


----------



## aesop081

Duey said:
			
		

> Aesop's console



CH-124B, as was explained to me did not employ AESOps.  The employed 2 navigators ( TACCO and SENSO).  Some 081s were fortunate enough to take the course and be breifly employed in that role but it was very limited.


----------



## Zoomie

Duey said:
			
		

> As I said before, I'd fly it here in a troop transport role...



Sorry Duey - I bet there are plenty of SK qualified drivers that are in line way ahead of you for any such tasking.   ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Sorry Duey - I bet there are plenty of SK qualified drivers that are in line way ahead of you for any such tasking.



You'd be shocked at just how short of qualified, current pilots we are...



> Door Gunner, ohhhh were do I sign.



Go see your BPSO- we are desperately short of AESOPs (ie- door gunners...)



> If they make the cockpit NVG-compatible, I'll fly them over here!



Do not get me started on what a fiasco that turned out to be.  You'd think changing a bunch of cockpit lightbulbs would be simple, huh?  Not a chance...


----------



## h3tacco

AESOp081 when we used Bravo's for ASW you are correct it did have two NAVs (one tacco and one senso) however, the last senso course run was only for AESOPs. The Sea King community decided that passive acoustic were a sensor and thus fell under the domain of the AESOp trade. Unfortunately shortly after the last SENSO course (like within a year) the community ran into  a manpower crisis which precluded using the bravos anymore (ie lack of bravo taccos and sensos) and we haven't used the Bravo for ASW probably for the last two years. I wish the Aurora had given passive acoustic to the AESOp trade from the beginning vice to the nav trade.


----------



## h3tacco

Duey currently the SCTF helo still has the TACCO station but the AESOp station has been removed. If given more time and money to give the pilots a proper TACNAV/FMS the Tacco station would be gone as well. Hopefully the M134 will replace the C6 on the cyclone. And as SKT has said the NVG issue has kind of been a nightmare for the Sea King community. A little while ago it was supposed to be the #1 priority but it has run into some DT&E hurdles.


----------



## Good2Golf

Zoomie, I didn't dare go near the "Do you convert a TH pilot onto the SK, or do you train an SK guy to fly tactically low over the ground?"  An interesting question to be sure.   

SKT/H3...trust me, I know the NVG-compatability issue.  What should have been an absolute no-brainer for the Twin Huey was: replace all the red filters in the instruments for ANVIS-B compatible filters at the cost of ~$2.00 per filter.  Got it!  Great! ......uh....*_play forboding music as the engineer creeps into the picture..._*   "Wait, you must pay $2000 per instrument (I shite you not!) to break open the seal between maintenance intervals!"  OK, assuming someone would buy off on that, lets do some math, that would be about $78k per aircraft...pricey, but equal to about 15.5 hours of full-sunk cost flight time for a Twin.  "No, that's too expensive!" says the engineer, "We'll design our own system and implement it on the fleet...efficiency in quantity!"

...you can see where this is going... :

End cost to convert the CH135 cockpits to ANVIS-B compatibility (less the non-compliant fire handles  ).........$115k+ per aircraft... :brickwall:

I'd take the same mod as I flew on our Chinooks in 1990...eight green glo-sticks and a helmet lip-light per pilot, total cost?  $12 + what, $5 per flight for the glo-sticks?

Yes, I'm too seasoned to think that the folks would do it the easy and "combat effective" way...they'll try to fly the thing during the day rather than spend the money to equip them for NVG.  Sadly, and I hope to hell this doesn't happen, but it will take somebody getting injured or worse for someone to come up with the great idea to fly with NVG at night... :  To think that many of us in tac hel have been flying NVG for 16-17 years...and that's decades after the US and UK flew with them...

*_sigh_*

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Zoomie, I didn't dare go near the "Do you convert a TH pilot onto the SK, or do you train an SK guy to fly tactically low over the ground?"  An interesting question to be sure.



I think you should go near the question.  It is going to rear it's ugly head sooner, rather than later.  Too bad you can't get to the Helicopter warfare symposium in Shearwater at the end of March- alot of baggage that we as an Air Force have not dealt with effectively since 1967 is going to get thrown onto the table- in all it's smelly, messy glory.

I think that the distinction between MH and Tac Hel Sqn we currently understand are going to blur rather rapidly in the coming months.  Both sides have a lot to learn from the other.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I think you should go near the question.  It is going to rear it's ugly head sooner, rather than later.  Too bad you can't get to the Helicopter warfare symposium in Shearwater at the end of March- alot of baggage that we as an Air Force have not dealt with effectively since 1967 is going to get thrown onto the table- in all it's smelly, messy glory.
> 
> I think that the distinction between MH and Tac Hel Sqn we currently understand are going to blur rather rapidly in the coming months.  Both sides have a lot to learn from the other.



SKT, short and sweet....

   TH pilot - mission commander / co-pilot
   MH pilot - aircraft commander.  


Hey, I may be at the symposium yet...I redeploy in 4 weeks...I have 37 days of leave to burn and I'm getting a waiver to attend the symp on TD.  If it's a go, I'll see you there buddy!  :cheers:

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081

h3tacco said:
			
		

> AESOp081 when we used Bravo's for ASW you are correct it did have two NAVs (one tacco and one senso) however, the last senso course run was only for AESOPs. The Sea King community decided that passive acoustic were a sensor and thus fell under the domain of the AESOp trade. Unfortunately shortly after the last SENSO course (like within a year) the community ran into  a manpower crisis which precluded using the bravos anymore (ie lack of bravo taccos and sensos) and we haven't used the Bravo for ASW probably for the last two years.



Thanks.



			
				h3tacco said:
			
		

> I wish the Aurora had given passive acoustic to the AESOp trade from the beginning vice to the nav trade.



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........

NO THANKS


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> SKT, short and sweet....
> 
> TH pilot - mission commander / co-pilot
> MH pilot - aircraft commander.



Possibly, but I don't even think that those labels are going to be useful in 6 months time.  The Sea King drivers need, in a very short amount of time, to learn Army vocabulary and how to fly tactically overland.  The Griffon drivers need to lean how to work with the Navy, land on ships, operate off of ships.  Some how, we still have to maintain a naval force capability (ie ASW so our nice big amphib ship does not get sunk 80 Nm from "Hostileland" by some crappy old submarine) and accept a new helicopter into service (along with all of the retraining and OT&E that goes along with that)- all at the same time.

I'm not sure 12 Wing is big enough to do this alone.  There may have to be pan-air force resources added to the mix.  The current line between helicopter sqn roles is going to blur a bunch in the next few years.

Seriously- try to get to Shearwater for 30-31 Mar.  We are likely to have the most serious discussion of helicopter doctrine that has ever been had by the CF.  I see a lot of broken rice bowls coming up...


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> (ie ASW so our nice big amphib ship does not get sunk 80 Nm from "Hostileland" by some crappy old submarine)



SKT, i guess you didnt hear the speech from 14 Wing commander, "ASW is dead"  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> SKT, i guess you didnt hear the speech from 14 Wing commander, "ASW is dead"



He may think that.  What worries me is 70-80 other countries didn't get that memo...


----------



## Good2Golf

SKT, just to be clear, my TH msn comd, MH ac was for a short term solution to the SK's in AFG.  SCTF is a different thing.  I wouldn't count on the Griffon doing much on board ship except for a limited capability in certain scenarios.  Rumblings have the Griffon being a much smaller fleet in the future doing a specific job, that doesn't involve JSS/Amphib as part of SCTF.  I think the only two aircraft doing anything with the SCTF will be the Cyclone and TALC's procured aircraft, then yes, TH crews will need to understand littoral ops and MH guys will be in for a real eye opening...NVG being one of the more challenging mindsets to work one's way into...

As an aside, it will be interesting to see what the Air Force does with the TH/MH communities...knowing the AF, they'll try and slam them together, still under a Colonel Wing Commander, and have 45% of the Air Force's fleet under a Col, then still have how many MP/TPT/FTR WComd Col's tripping all over each other....oh well...maybe someone will kiss us first, before they....oh, nevermind... 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> He may think that.  What worries me is 70-80 other countries didn't get that memo...



You're preaching to the converted my freind


----------



## GO!!!

HA!

I wonder how long it will take to fit the Sea Kings with Anchor line cables?

The blasphemy of a green painted Sea King deploying jumpers...... warms my heart.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> HA!
> 
> I wonder how long it will take to fit the Sea Kings with Anchor line cables?
> 
> The blasphemy of a green painted Sea King deploying jumpers...... warms my heart.



The farther that I can stay away from Afghan... errr "Hostileland" while delivering you lot, the happier I am.  ;D

BTW, I would not expect any paint jobs happening soon.  Hope that doesn't offend your fashion sense to ride in a grey helo...


----------



## ch124xx

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sitting not 50 feet from those new seats as I type this.  They look very spiffy in the back of a Sea King, Thank-you very much
> 
> Once you start strippng out a Sea King, there is alot of room inside.  I think you guys will be suitably impressed with the results.
> 
> Cheers


You are welcome.


----------



## ch124xx

Duey said:
			
		

> Yes, I'm too seasoned to think that the folks would do it the easy and "combat effective" way...they'll try to fly the thing during the day rather than spend the money to equip them for NVG.  Sadly, and I hope to hell this doesn't happen, but it will take somebody getting injured or worse for someone to come up with the great idea to fly with NVG at night... :  To think that many of us in tac hel have been flying NVG for 16-17 years...and that's decades after the US and UK flew with them...
> 
> *_sigh_*
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Should be a good Combat Helicopter symposium at Shearwater ...  Looking forward to seeing the MH/TacHel discussions.

Funding has not been the key showstopper for CH124 NVG. Ask the question at the symposium.


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...Too bad you can't get to the Helicopter warfare symposium in Shearwater at the end of March- alot of baggage that we as an Air Force have not dealt with effectively since 1967 is going to get thrown onto the table- in all it's smelly, messy glory...



I think I've got it sorted, message this week, symposium 30-31 Mar as part of my HHT first week of April, a lot of leave   and CCU in Jun  ;D

'Course, six months from now when I'm buried by that bagge I might not be so happy  :


----------



## Rigger

One item I found interesting in the news article is that "no new weapons will be added". One would think that you would want another C6 on the left side of the A/C. At sea it makes sense only having one gun on one side ( you can decide what side of the A/C you want to present to the threat). During land operations you generally don't know where the threat is. 

Has there been any discussion on on the crewing of this A/C yet, besides the pilots?


----------



## Inch

RiggerFE said:
			
		

> One item I found interesting in the news article is that "no new weapons will be added". One would think that you would want another C6 on the left side of the A/C. At sea it makes sense only having one gun on one side ( you can decide what side of the A/C you want to present to the threat). During land operations you generally don't know where the threat is.
> 
> Has there been any discussion on on the crewing of this A/C yet, besides the pilots?



There's nowhere to put a gun on the left side of the aircraft, unless you shoot it out the window or put the stairs down on the personnel door. In either case, it would make egressing past the gun mount fairly difficult.

One more thing, the C6 is a defensive weapon when mounted on the helicopter, it's not used to lay suppressing fire so the crunchies can advance.


----------



## geo

yup.... that should be the accompanying "gunships" responsibility....


----------



## Rigger

Agreed that the C6 is for defense only. It just sucks that you can only defend one side of the A/C.  Placing another C6 in the window on the left side wouldn't be all that difficult, however the HF antenna would have to move and stops placed on the mount so as not to hit the sponson. As for egressing, that is always the last exit of choice with the push out window and the HF antenna in the way. It sounds like these A/C are destined for a hot dry dusty climate anyways, where inverted water egress will unlikely occur.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

If it were up to me, a second gun would go in the personnel door on the port side.  I'm sure a swinging mount could fit there...


----------



## ch124xx

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If it were up to me, a second gun would go in the personnel door on the port side.  I'm sure a swinging mount could fit there...


I believe that is where the USN UH-3H's have their port side gun.  But they did their airworthiness clearances years ago and would struggle to pass today's standards.


----------



## beenthere

Just keep them away from where people are shooting.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The whole point of this conversion program is more about learning lessons and developing procedures anyway.  I'm not too concerned that our Sea King "Charlies" my not have all the gear that we might like.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The whole point of this conversion program is more about learning lessons and developing procedures anyway.  I'm not too concerned that our Sea King "Charlies" my not have all the gear that we might like.



Exactly!  Folks should think of it more as a "proof of concept" effort than providing a 100% capability...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## GK .Dundas

Duey said:
			
		

> Exactly!  Folks should think of it more as a "proof of concept" effort than providing a 100% capability...
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey


 As I said in another forum ..baby steps amphibious warfare is the next thing to rocket science do it wrong and you end up with ........... Gallipoli ,Deippe.


----------



## ch124xx

Baz said:
			
		

> I think I've got it sorted, message this week, symposium 30-31 Mar as part of my HHT first week of April, a lot of leave   and CCU in Jun  ;D
> 
> 'Course, six months from now when I'm buried by that bagge I might not be so happy  :


Baz: thoughts on the symposium ? A few things have changed since you left or have they ?


----------



## Baz

ch124xx said:
			
		

> Baz: thoughts on the symposium ? A few things have changed since you left or have they ?



The more things change the more they stay the same... especially a lot of the people.  It is certainly the Shearwater I remember but it seems that it is just in the starting blocks waiting for the gun to go off.  Having said that, it is good that some obvious things are under way for the Cyclone: the new building, everybody moving around.  I keep telling myself I'm coming back at just the right time for things to really get rolling.  Seeing that things are actually happening for SCTF (the CH-124B mods) was nice as well.

The symposium was good - it was too bad that more Capts from Shearwater weren't set loose to attend.  The mess dinner following was good as well.

Having the Navy, Army, and Combat Helo guys all in one room was good.  Some good interesting breifings as well, cleared up some questions that in fact were being asked here.  Unfortunately, the briefs were asked to be kept in house so we couldn't just post them somewhere.

I think it's good that everyone got together and tried to talk the same language.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure the communities can do everything as quick as we would like (for us, new SCTF roles, bring in the new helo, and expand our other warfare roles), so we really need some good direction on where each community is going.


----------



## bison33

Odds are it will have FE's!!!! Take a hike you PB sandwich making aseop ;D......I loved working/flying on the seapig in my tech days(after a herc, anything is nice to work on) and I'd be the first FE to volunteer. But I'm a realist....our government will spend all this money, do some trials and then sell them for $500 a pop to some logging company


----------



## Rigger

Bison
Do you have a ref for your statement, is Shearwater now a posting pref for FEs? I find it hard to believe the trade is taking on a new task, we have a hard enough time filling the current positions nevermind new ones. FEs are leaving faster than we can get new ones in. With the addition of the UAVs and possibly now the Sea Kings somebody better start knitting and fast. Don't get me wrong I used to work on the old girl as well and would love to fly on her again. 

Cheers


----------



## bison33

riggerFE.........These seapigs conversions are not done yet and who knows what exactly they'll be doing...the government likes to talk and if you recall, they used to have FE's on seapigs in shearwater years ago...for land based flying only though. It only seems logical that IF these 5 seapigs are converted and find a use for some time, that bringing back FE's is the only logical thing. That's my take on it.....besides, can't have a aesop flying around w/o a ship to land on..... with no scope in the back, they'd be lost :'(

But I know how hurting we are for FE's,  but a certain CWO in 1 wing gave us a briefing on what's going on..........your going to love this...make the trade open to civie's/remuster's from any trade. Though at first they'll be looking for skilled/semi-skilled (college boys with AME or similar) and it will be a 4 yr process from joining to being at wings standard. It is happening in SAR world right now.  And once the CAS signs off on it, it's pretty much a done deal........and also, the 3 herc sqn's will be getting 2 M/Cpl's each by either year's end or next year. The CAS signed off on that.


----------



## h3tacco

Just a heads up on FEs on Sea Kings. Shearwater cannot handle the training bill to reintroduce FEs into the Sea King for the SCTF. The third crewman on SCTF helos will be filled by either Navs or AESOps likely till the end of the Sea Kings life. As to future SCTF ops with the 148 that is anyway ones guess but may include FEs.


----------



## beenthere

My understanding of the "new role" is that it's not really new. Sea Kings have been used to shuttle troops & cargo since forever. With all of the ASW gear removed and more seating it will no doubt serve quite well as a utility transport until something else comes along which could be a decade or two.
 With a crew of two pilots and one other crew member none of which need much special training as shuttling troops and cargo is about as basic as it gets the airlift unit could be composed of people with no background in present Sea King operations other than a core element of experienced pilots. 
It would be gross overkill to use Navigators, AESOPs, or FEs to sling cargo or look after passengers and cargo. I'm sure that all of their years of training would be better used in doing something more pertinent than loadmaster duties.


----------



## h3tacco

Beenthere I pretty much agree with you. Sea Kings have done utility work since the begining but basically any helicopter can do utility in a non-threat in environment. You don't need a Nav, AESOp or FE specifically for the ultility role basically just an aft crewman. The current situation of using Nav and AESOps for the SCTF is basically because those are the people we have in Shearwater right now.


----------



## Bobbyoreo

Didnt Canada use them in Somila. I know ive seen pictures of them in Somila...I just dont know if they were used for troop life or what!!!


----------



## mitch83

does anyone know how they are going to select the ground troops for this contingent force i had heard about it but didnt believe we would do it because of man power ...i wonder if its going to be like a usmc type thing?....


----------



## Good2Golf

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> Didnt Canada use them in Somila. I know ive seen pictures of them in Somila...I just dont know if they were used for troop life or what!!!



Yes, a friend of mine flew them off Provider.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Bobbyoreo

As troop helos or something else?


----------



## Good2Golf

I know they did troop and supply lift into Mog, but not sure if they went all the way up to Belet Huen.


----------



## beenthere

They moved a lot of stores from Provider to shore in Somalia and provided an essential service. I don't recall seeing them in Belet Huen but there were distinct phases of the operation where they were doing a lot of ops on shore and others where they weren't as involved.
I have no direct knowledge but would think that the initial deployment phase would be when they were doing most of the airlift to shore.
 When I was there the Belet Huen part of the operation had been well established and only required sustainment.


----------



## ch124xx

beenthere said:
			
		

> They moved a lot of stores from Provider to shore in Somalia and provided an essential service. I don't recall seeing them in Belet Huen but there were distinct phases of the operation where they were doing a lot of ops on shore and others where they weren't as involved.
> I have no direct knowledge but would think that the initial deployment phase would be when they were doing most of the airlift to shore.
> When I was there the Belet Huen part of the operation had been well established and only required sustainment.


PRESERVER vice PROVIDER.  I wasn't there but I understand they did utility lift and recce/surveillance. Sam69 ?


----------



## ch124xx

h3tacco said:
			
		

> Beenthere I pretty much agree with you. Sea Kings have done utility work since the begining but basically any helicopter can do utility in a non-threat in environment. You don't need a Nav, AESOp or FE specifically for the ultility role basically just an aft crewman. The current situation of using Nav and AESOps for the SCTF is basically because those are the people we have in Shearwater right now.


Don't forget that the CH124B config for SCTF PoC in Nov/Dec will be able to swing between straight troop lift with all the seats or be turned around reasonably quickly to use the sidefacing console with the usual (old) sensors minus ASW specific kit plus a few extra seats in the back depending on range/endurance requirements.  In the latter config, the aft crew seats would be back in and the TACCO and AESOP would be back in their more conventional MH roles (minus ASW).  Flexibility, the key to helo ops ?

In other news, I heard an interesting brief from the Royal Navy Commando Helicopter Force.  They are looking to convert more ex-dipper Sea Kings to Commando Role and to potentially put on the new Carson composite main rotor blades to further enhance their Sea King performance.  They are now looking to at least 2020.  Rumour has it they may even use surplus Sea Kings to replace the RAF's Puma's in the SH role.


----------



## kj_gully

Sea Kings did go ashore all the way into Belet Huen, at least once. After landing in the dust ball of all dust  balls, it sat on the ground for days until a maintenance crew could come in and fix it. It was very early in the deployment b4 427 came in with maybe twin hueys still? Probably.


----------



## ch124xx

Any news on how the SCTF exercise ITEEx went ?  What next for SCF ? for the CH124C ?


----------



## FSTO

ch124xx said:
			
		

> Any news on how the SCTF exercise ITEEx went ?  What next for SCF ? for the CH124C ?



If you have access to the DIN go to the CMS website and click the SCF link at the bottom left. I just forget which link it is but there is a brief and a Lessons Learned (Access) section. Once I get back to work I'll post the link.

Here it is, go to search and type in SCF or SCTF and you'll get a ton of info. (some of it is even useful!  ;D)
http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/SCF/pages/ITEE06.asp


----------



## rmacqueen

ch124xx said:
			
		

> PRESERVER vice PROVIDER.  I wasn't there but I understand they did utility lift and recce/surveillance. Sam69 ?


Glad you cleared that up, I didn't remember anyone from 443 going over (but then again, at my age the mind starts to go ;D)


----------



## 284_226

ch124xx said:
			
		

> PRESERVER vice PROVIDER.  I wasn't there but I understand they did utility lift and recce/surveillance. Sam69 ?



They did indeed do utility lift and recce/surveillance.  Lots of utility lift.  Utility lift, day in and day out.  Did I mention they did utility lift?   ;D

Until then, I'd never seen so many different things slung under a Sea Thing.  I don't think there was a single person on the ship that didn't know what HDS stood for...


----------



## daftandbarmy

For what it's worth, I've spent lots of time jumping in and out of Sea Kings from Norway to N.I. to the Gulf, from sea level to up around 9,000 ft, from minus 30C to plus 40 C, day and night, out at sea and over land, and I'm pretty much one of their biggest fans. Awesome helicopter. The version used by the Royal Navy (Mk 5 I think?) holds 16 fully loaded troops, two ski bundles, 2 loaded toboggans. We could also cram about 30 troops into them with just webbing on if we had to. Great navigation package. Tough as shoe leather. Small enough to drop into fairly restricted LZs (like a ship's deck, small SF base helipad, small mountainside meadows etc). Big enough to undersling a 105 lt gun or a loaded RHIB. Great platform for fast roping and rappelling. Good winch system. They're even great to parachute from. The US President flies in one. Civilian airlines use them. I see them all the time (S61 version) flying underslung logs around on the coast here. And they even float! 

However, as with anything else, good performance is a function of adequate financial investment.


----------



## geo

daft,
Believe the US President has had his ride upgraded over the last year. Was a sea thing but.... no more.


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> daft,
> Believe the US President has had his ride upgraded over the last year. Was a sea thing but.... no more.



This has been covered before......The US President's 'Sea Kings' are not the same model as what we fly.   In the role they play and the priority they would have for maintenance and upgrades, they no doubt have had all the 'Best' upgrades for that line of aircraft.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

IIRC Marine One was being replaced with an EH101s


----------



## GAP

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> IIRC Marine One was being replaced with an EH101s



Those the ones we cancelled?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Yup...well we got the variant for SAR work


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> IIRC Marine One was being replaced with an EH101s





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Those the ones we cancelled?






			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Yup...well we got the variant for SAR work



Yhe ones that the US is buyin for POTUS are indeed EH-101s but are somewhat of a different beast altogether.


----------



## ch124xx

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I've spent lots of time jumping in and out of Sea Kings from Norway to N.I. to the Gulf, from sea level to up around 9,000 ft, from minus 30C to plus 40 C, day and night, out at sea and over land, and I'm pretty much one of their biggest fans. Awesome helicopter. The version used by the Royal Navy (Mk 5 I think?) holds 16 fully loaded troops, two ski bundles, 2 loaded toboggans. We could also cram about 30 troops into them with just webbing on if we had to. Great navigation package. Tough as shoe leather. Small enough to drop into fairly restricted LZs (like a ship's deck, small SF base helipad, small mountainside meadows etc). Big enough to undersling a 105 lt gun or a loaded RHIB. Great platform for fast roping and rappelling. Good winch system. They're even great to parachute from. The US President flies in one. Civilian airlines use them. I see them all the time (S61 version) flying underslung logs around on the coast here. And they even float!
> 
> However, as with anything else, good performance is a function of adequate financial investment.



Spotter comment: Mk4 Commando or "Jungly" version is flown by RN in support of Royal Marines however they have converted some surplus ex-ASW Mk6 Pingers to the Mk6CR "Commando Role" config to take on basic Support Helo tasks from ship or ashore (Bosnia and NI while the Mk4's were or are in Irag).  The Mk5's are used for SAR by the RN while the Mk3 and Mk3A's are used by the RAF for SAR.  The Mk7's (ex Mk2's) are the new ASAC role in the oldest airframes.  Straightforward ?

A team from DND visited the Commando Helicopter Fleet in the UK as a prep for the SCF conversion and other potential taskings.  The CH124, based on the Sikorsky S61, and the Westlands Sea King have pretty similar airframes but have had much more investment in specific mods (nav, nvg, tricked out engines, etc).  With the exception of the gnome engines and the stub wing sponsons the other mods are mostly doable if there was the mandate, funds, time, T&E resources, etc, etc.  The Brits are also more risk tolerant when it comes to aircraft modification programs especially with respect to egress standards.


----------



## daftandbarmy

As you can tell, I was merely cargo. Thanks for the details trainspotter! 

BTW, as far as I know, none of the aircraft I flew in had armour. Definitely didn't have  door guns; helps with the weight. Some of the NI versions had chaff or something attached for anti- SA7 purposes. SK also doesn't have a ramp, so it can be fiddly to get in/out of (or rather, ingress and egress). I also discovered that if you call ahead, the aircrew will sometimes put on a nice cup of chai for you. Very civilized.

I assume our newer choppers will be light years ahead of the old SK.


----------

