# DND to refit some Sea Kings as troop carriers



## Scoobie Newbie (29 May 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060528/sea_kings_060528

The Dept. of National Defence plans to turn five Sea King helicopters -- which have a history of reliability problems -- into troop carriers.

In Afghanistan, Canadian troops don't have their own helicopters. The British, Americans and Dutch all do.

Ironically, the Dutch bought their Chinook helicopters from Canada about a decade ago, and are now using them in Afghanistan, where they occasionally give lifts to Canadian troops.

One defence analyst thinks that in general, this refitting could be a good idea.

"The beauty of that is you could rely on Canadian Forces pilots and Canadian Forces equipment not only to deploy troops but more significantly in some cases to deploy reinforcements and to bring back casualties if you had those," said Col. Michel Drapeau (ret'd).

However, the five Sea Kings to be refitted first went into use in 1970 and were acquired mainly for anti-submarine warfare.

Thirty-six years after their acquisition, Drapeau has doubts about whether they can be made suitable for new missions.

"The Sea King has got a reputation as being an unreliable piece of equipment that has basically outlived its useful life," he said.

The aircraft have the grim nickname within the military -- "flying coffins." There have been at least 14 Sea King crashes since they were introduced four decades ago. Four of them were fatal.

Military sources tell CTV News the Sea Kings could be used in Afghanistan, but most will likely end up providing ship-to-shore troop transport from naval ships.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black used the refitting to blast both the Tories and Liberals.

"What it points to is years of inaction by both previous Conservative governments and Liberal governments to insure our military personnel have adequate and safe equipment," she said.

Drapeau echoed part of that sentiment, saying, "The men and women in uniform have to get the sense of confidence that the equipment the Canadian public is providing them is the best money can buy."

The refits are expected to cost $5.5 million and are intended to be an interim measure. New helicopters for the army aren't due to arrive until 2008.


----------



## boots (29 May 2006)

Yeah, an NDP member is sure one to talk when it comes to what's best for our military...


----------



## big bad john (29 May 2006)

Try this thread that's already running on the same topic:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39557.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32837.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43579.0.html


----------



## HDE (29 May 2006)

Still, it is kinda cool watching the NDP trying to do a 180 and become the soldier's friend.  If only decades of history could be quietly redone :-[


----------



## Bograt (29 May 2006)

When I was at 423, I never heard them referred to as "Flying coffins." I am a little disappointed that the writer couldn't come up with another more dangerous sounding nickname- like Ghost Makers, or 21 Gunner, or "Fly this airframe and you will surely die thingy..."  :



> New helicopters for the army aren't due to arrive until 2008.


What aircraft is the army getting? I'm sure they don't mean the Cyclone... do they?

<sarcasm on>
Excellent piece of journalism.
<sarcasm off>

edited for sarcasm and spelling.


----------



## Hot Lips (29 May 2006)

So let's see...IMP is doing the refit...and that will take how long?
The likely hood of the refit being completed before the new helicopters arrive is?

Couldn't help commenting...I have been inside a gutted SeaKing (in the fuel cell too)...not that I know anything about the mechanical end of the aircraft...I have watched refits in process...they are sometimes quite lengthy...pieces needed to be custom built or custom ordered...and so on

My 2 cents

HL


----------



## GAP (29 May 2006)

??? I really don't see the logic of DND going down this route. Great machine for it's day, but it's day is almost done. 

If it is a matter of utilizing a repair category of the budget to provide helicopters, it's going to blow back in their faces. They would be better off leasing some Chinooks in it's stead.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> ??? I really don't see the logic of DND going down this route. Great machine for it's day, but it's day is almost done.



For what it's worth...

My father was a FE (Flight Engineer) on the Argus (replaced in '80-'81 with the Aurora, which is now an aging airframe) and he retired with the Argus (after 28 years service), to give you a timeline.

When he got out (25 years ago), he said that the Seaking was an old airframe THEN...before he was a FE, he was what was then called an Airframe Tech and had 15 years turning wrenches before OTing to FE.  

Now, I am not a maritime aviator, but he was and I remember him talking about the effects the maritime environment has on airframes (sea salt, turbulent air from constanct waves, how hard ASW Ops could be on the airframe, etc etc) and, being that he was Sgn FE Leader in 415 and received a CDS Commendation, I am assuming he knew he shite.

for those interested about the Argus...

http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/arguslst_e.asp

Now, check out this one on the Seaking and look at the _*"Years Procured"*_ info...

http://www.forceaerienne.forces.gc.ca/equip/ch-124/intro_e.asp

yikes!


----------



## bubba (29 May 2006)

Whats the refit going to consist of ,two tone green paint.lol Well past it's retirement date.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2006)

All the lables and decals will now have to be bi-lingual.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 May 2006)

bubba said:
			
		

> Whats the refit going to consist of ,two tone green paint.lol Well past it's retirement date.



Yes it is very important that all Naval personnel and equipment be transformed into instruments of the Jarmy......CADPAT for Seakings...woo hoo!!


----------



## C and P (29 May 2006)

Hey Cuteboots, why bash the NDP?  It was the Conservatives who sold the Chinooks to the Dutch.


----------



## Franko (29 May 2006)

C and P said:
			
		

> Hey Cuteboots, why bash the NDP?  It was the Conservatives who sold the Chinooks to the Dutch.



Good point    

As for the Seakings being retrofitted for the land elements....you'll never see this guy volunteering to go for a spin in one.

Sorry, just known too many friends go down in them over the years. I just don't trust them one bit.

Regards


----------



## Enzo (29 May 2006)

This isn't the best plan I've heard today  :

So many questions, some addressed above. Bottom line, I concur w/ Recce, I wouldn't be in a rush to board one. I can see the headlines now.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (30 May 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> This isn't the best plan I've heard today  :
> 
> So many questions, some addressed above. Bottom line, I concur w/ Recce, I wouldn't be in a rush to board one. I can see the headlines now.



unless it was at an airshow, ground display and had free sandwiches on it or something?

(just kidding to all the Seaking drivers out there...all in good fun   ;D)


----------



## Hot Lips (30 May 2006)

There are some that have been in refit for what seems to be years in my experience...some of the Airframe mechanics/AVS Techs love the Seakings and say they are a great rotary wing aircraft and others have mentioned they think they have gone the way of the dinosaur...

Would be really nice to see new aircraft purchased...

HL


----------



## Wizard of OZ (30 May 2006)

I am pretty sure this idea is dead.  It surfaced a while back in like February or something like that.  But they looked at the cost and risk and arrival of new helos for the Navy and possible some new birds for the boys in green and decided against it.  I will try and find the article it was in once found I will post here, for your enjoyment.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (30 May 2006)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure this idea is dead.  It surfaced a while back in like February or something like that.  But they looked at the cost and risk and arrival of new helos for the Navy and possible some new birds for the boys in green and decided against it.  I will try and find the article it was in once found I will post here, for your enjoyment.



Um ok but I have a parishioner at Shearwater (St Michael's Chapel) who is a SeaKing pilot and he told me that they had started on this.....I'll check with him again and see whether in fact they are still working on this.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (31 May 2006)

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-ch124troopcarrier.htm

This link shows that they are getting 5 ready to go some time in Nov/Dec of 2006.  These 5 will not be going to Afghanistan but will be sent to the Standing Contingency Task Force, They are not capable of operation in the stan.  I remember this idea was killed by the CDS last year.  Hope this makes things a little clearer.

We will soon have 5 Sea King Medium lift Troop Carriers.


----------



## misfit (31 May 2006)

Why can't the CF use Griffons in Afghanistan for troop transport? Too small? Are there any CF aircraft operating over there?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (31 May 2006)

For the specifics you would need a griffion driver.  But from what I understand they don't have the poser to lift or Climb in the atmospher there and that hot dry air does not allow them gain any/enough lift to be useful to carry anything.

The only planes operating are the Hercs from what I get.  No fighters or Helicopters from Canadians (unless you count the CH-47 we sold to the Dutch) in theater.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (31 May 2006)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-ch124troopcarrier.htm
> 
> This link shows that they are getting 5 ready to go some time in Nov/Dec of 2006.  These 5 will not be going to Afghanistan but will be sent to the Standing Contingency Task Force, They are not capable of operation in the stan.  I remember this idea was killed by the CDS last year.  Hope this makes things a little clearer.
> 
> We will soon have 5 Sea King Medium lift Troop Carriers.



Wiz:  beware taking CASR as gospel.  They've floated a lot of pure speculation in the past...  SCTF is not active, but is only a concept right now - and is due for an experimental trial later this year.  It is entirely possible that we'll use the SK as a pseudo-troop lifter in the absence of an available dedicated airframe to test the concept - but I'd be speculating myself...  

As for Griffons, straying out of my lane:  with door guns and armour, they can't carry much of a useful load in any theatre, let alone much in a hot/high environment with fully-laden troops.  I'm sure that the Tac Hel guys here could enlighten us further.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 May 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Wiz:  beware taking CASR as gospel.  They've floated a lot of pure speculation in the past...  SCTF is not active, but is only a concept right now - and is due for an experimental trial later this year.  It is entirely possible that we'll use the SK as a pseudo-troop lifter in the absence of an available dedicated airframe to test the concept - but I'd be speculating myself...
> 
> As for Griffons, straying out of my lane:  with door guns and armour, they can't carry much of a useful load in any theatre, let alone much in a hot/high environment with fully-laden troops.  I'm sure that the Tac Hel guys here could enlighten us further.



But they are great for taking Generals to meetings in Kingston, Petawawa, Borden, Trenton, Valcartier...well you get my drift.....


----------



## armybuck041 (31 May 2006)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> The only planes operating are the Hercs from what I get.



Yes, and they are getting pretty long in the tooth as well.... Especially when you use a tactical aircraft strategically for as long as we have.... Makes about as much sence as using a converted Navy airframe for troop hauling. 

I've been kicked out of Hercs that broke down more times than i've actually lifted off lately. I remember the Aussie's in xxxxxxxx laughing at us getting on and off a Herc no less than 3 times before it finally passed the post start-up check. 

Not trying to turn this into a flame war, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that the Airforce (I mean the portion of it that actually has a role in powered flight) has provided me some of the biggest operational dissapointments and a few rediculous unplanned adventures. Nothing like promising the troops a helo extraction only to end up having a Heli-Deuce come rumbling down the road 

All this being said, I must admit that 427 is doing a pretty decent job. Probably has allot to do with who they are tasked to support these days. 

Oh well....


----------



## Good2Golf (31 May 2006)

misfit said:
			
		

> Why can't the CF use Griffons in Afghanistan for troop transport? Too small? Are there any CF aircraft operating over there?



Politics, politics and politics.  

Putting Griffon in now would (unjustifiably IMO, but never underestimate either a) how nasty politics can be, or b) ignorance in believing that dissimilar capabilities somehow compete against each other [heavy lift/light utility] ) erode the CDS' position on procuring "big honking helicopters".  

Sadly, Griffon absolutely has a use in Afghanistan today and a capability to do what many there want of it.  On the Chief's last visit to our unit before I redeployed, I told him I'd come back in a heartbeat to fly Griffon for the operators while we waited for BHH's.  He ack'd that and affirmed that he'd sign my 12-month waiver personally if that came to pass.  Unfortunately, I don't think it will...for a while anyway, until a contract for heavy rotary lift is signed.   

I will likely be back in AFG in a Chinook before I come back to support operators with a Griffon.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## misfit (1 Jun 2006)

So its not a question of operational effectiveness? Would a Griffon be able to operate in some of the high altitude areas of AFG? Would it be able to withstand enemy fire...and respond with force? 

Sorry if this strays too far from the original topic about Sea Kings.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jun 2006)

misfit said:
			
		

> So its not a question of operational effectiveness? Would a Griffon be able to operate in some of the high altitude areas of AFG? Would it be able to withstand enemy fire...and respond with force?
> 
> Sorry if this strays too far from the original topic about Sea Kings.



At the hotter parts of the day, there would be reduced takeoff weight/paylod, but it has one of the most advanced EW defensive systems going (few helos have multi-band laser detection), and the MAG58 door gun (a.k.a. C6 to us, M240B to US, etc...) is the preferred door gun of choice in AFG...very accurate and high rate of fire.  I'd fly it tomorrow in AFG WITHOUT ANY reservations!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2006)

They are dragging the issue out again...


Aging choppers headed to Kandahar?
MURRAY BREWSTER Canadian Press
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061025.wseaking1025/BNStory/National/home

Ottawa — Five of the navy's geriatric Sea Kings trained last month with soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan, raising questions about whether the troublesome helicopters are eventually bound for war-torn Kandahar.

The Canadian army is desperately short of helicopter support and military planners have scoured the globe, hoping to lease choppers for the army's increasingly dangerous mission in Afghanistan.

They've come up empty-handed.

The Boeing Corp. — makers of the Chinook heavy-lift helicopter — and Pentagon staff told Canadian officials last month in Washington that no military choppers are available for lease, say defence industry sources.

The refusal is a blow to Canadian war planners hoping to get soldiers off the dangerous explosive-sewn highways around Kandahar and into the relative safety of helicopters.

The Seattle, Wash.-based aerospace giant said it's not in the business of renting aircraft and the U.S. Army, bogged down with the war in Iraq, has “no spare capacity,” said the source, who asked not to be identified.

A proposal to use modified Sea Kings in Afghanistan has been kicking around military circles, but for the moment the air force says it has no immediate plans to let them join the fight.

“We're not sending Sea Kings to Afghanistan,” said Lieut. Adam Thomson, a military spokesman.

“What's going to be decided in the future, I can't speculate on right now.”
More on link


----------



## tasop_999 (25 Oct 2006)

Another hair brained idea that has been logically quashed.  The thing about Sea King in Afghanistan is that Canada is not a country which is allowed to use weapons of mass destruction.  ;D  One could easily consider a Sea King as such a weapon because many of the airframes have more than one crash on them already.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Oct 2006)

The sea kings have been flying in formation at tree top level for the last few days out here in Gagetown. They never fly like that out here maybe the pilot training has already started.


----------



## GMan87 (25 Oct 2006)

Canada has some of the best soldiers in the world, I just wish we'd buy them some damn equiptment. Seriously, this is is just getting embarrassing. You know it's bad when the Air Force's web site is bragging about having the oldest Hercs in any military, because it shows how good the maintenace crews are or something. 

Funny that the NDP complains about not spending enough on the military. Guess when your out of power for so long you can really say whatever you want.


----------



## Slim (25 Oct 2006)

> What it points to is years of inaction by both previous Conservative governments and Liberal governments to insure our military personnel have adequate and safe equipment," she said.



The NDP are a little short in the memory dept...The conservatives tried to buy new helos for the navy, only to have the Fiberals quash the contract and put thousands of Canadians out of work in the process, while spending more money to cancell then would have been spent had the aircraft been delivered. :argument:

F&*^%$G clowns, the lot of them  :clown:


----------



## bilton090 (26 Oct 2006)

I think that more pers. need to be drug tested ! :skull:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2006)

Sea Kings are NOT going to Afghanistan.  Full stop.  The laws of physics and aerodynamics prohibit it (and not even the CDS himself can repeal those laws).

The media is making a leap of logic here.  Sea Kings in Gagetown?  Yes.

Three letters- S.C.F. 

TAsop_999- I strongly suggest that you stop posting on an issue which you so patently know nothing about.

Out.


----------



## childs56 (26 Oct 2006)

As I understand it then, Canadian Sea Kings cannot deploy to Afgan, Canadian 412's cannot deploy to Afgan. 

Our allies, have and or are using, single hueys, twin hueys, 412's and Sea Kings in Afgan. So what gives. 
I am curious to know the laws of physics, and aerodynamics that would limit the deployment of any Helo we own to deploy to Afgan. 

Of course this is saying that most of the mission kit would be removed and the Helos were stripped down to a basic config. Then they could be used as possible, recce, QRF, medivac and maybe a few other missions. 

Some laughed a year or two ago when it was mentioned that the CP140 was being re rolled to ground observation on land as opposed to it's original role of Maritime Patrol. Some will laugh even more when they talk about maybe mounting a bomb or two on the CP140. This has all been brought out in the open and is being very closely watched by our Allies as it will renew their own fleets usage. 

Laugh and point, re role, re arm and re equip what we have now for the near future to fit what missions we have at hand. 
All of our kit at present can and would work well in our missions at hand. The ability of the system to allow it is a whole different story, be it mandate, roles, equipment shortages or other factors.

I don't know the All's of deployments in the future nor do I care to fully speculate on them for what i do know. I also do not claim to be an expert on any one of these subjects. I have and will continue to look at the facts of ability and what is already deployed and what can conceivably be in the near future by our Allies and our selves.

I am not trying to be smart here, just curious and want to discuss this and other issues. 
Anything I have said is not meant to offend any person. Nor does it state any scope with in the CF or abilities. This is just a good open discussion.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2006)

CTD-

Who Precisely is using Sea Kings in Afghanistan, right now?



> I am curious to know the laws of physics, and aerodynamics that would limit the deployment of any Helo we own to deploy to Afgan.



Look up the term "density altitude".  There are other issues inherent to the basic design of the Sea King, but they get close to OPSEC and they cannot be overcome with technology (to my knowledge), no matter how much money you chuck at the problem. It was designed to be a naval helicopter run at Sea Level, not a mountain flier at 10,000 feet. Enough said.



> Of course this is saying that most of the mission kit would be removed and the Helos were stripped down to a basic config. Then they could be used as possible, recce, QRF, medivac and maybe a few other missions



Look dude, aircraft modification and maintenance in the CF is not an episode of "monster garage". You make it sound like a weekend project. It is not. You don't bring an airplane in and "strip it down" and send it on ops.  Like it or not (and I don't always like all of it), 43 year old aircraft are complex, cranky beasts that don't respond well to being "torn" apart.  Not to mention the test/eval/airworthiness paperwork... 



> I don't know the All's of deployments in the future nor do I care to fully speculate on them for what i do know. I also do not claim to be an expert on any one of these subjects. I have and will continue to look at the facts of ability and what is already deployed and what can conceivably be in the near future by our Allies and our selves.



You are not an expert.  I have 1100 hrs on the Sea King, which barely gets me comfortable with it's caps and lims.  Please, take it from me- It cannot be done, for a lot of really, really excellent reasons, no matter how some might wish it so.

Cheers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Oct 2006)

It should be interesting to see how it will work out.  Mind you the Air Det is telling me the birds assigned to the ex are not real dependable.  I hope it works out as I like to be kept busy while at sea.  I have been teasing the AESOPs that they are going to be regulated into acting as stews for the troops as they won't be hunting subs.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (26 Oct 2006)

Just throwing this out there because it came to mind...but the SeaKings at Gagetown, could it be that they have been getting used by the CSOR. I have heard that they will be doing many exercises/operations off of ships to the shore. The new ships the Navy will soon be aquiring will also be used for operations by land forces. So could it just simply be training by the CSOR using SeaKings as the shipboard HELO?

I didnt word this the best way, but hopefully it makes enought sense for people to understand what I am trying to say.


----------



## old medic (26 Oct 2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/15/nmod15.xml

 MoD cost cuts 'will put troops in peril'
By Thomas Harding and Graeme Wilson
(Filed: 15/05/2006)



> The lives of troops will be put at risk if the Ministry of Defence goes ahead with plans to refurbish a fleet of vintage helicopters as a cost-cutting measure, defence sources said yesterday.
> 
> Servicemen, already concerned after the shooting down of a Lynx in Basra last week, said that if 30 Sea King helicopters were taken out of mothballs their low speed and poor performance in the desert heat would make them "sitting ducks".
> 
> ...



http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6281


----------



## childs56 (26 Oct 2006)

My mistake, I thought the RMC's had them over there, but I guess not, their using Chinooks and contract Helo's. Again I thought I remembered seeing a photo of them flying in or around Kabul/ Kandhar, but I guess not.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Oct 2006)

> Just throwing this out there because it came to mind...but the SeaKings at Gagetown, could it be that they have been getting used by the CSOR. I have heard that they will be doing many exercises/operations off of ships to the shore.



Look, for the love of God, please, STOP SPECULATING!  I told everyone several posts ago why Sea Kings are in Gagetown (and I am in a position to know).  It has nothing to do with CSOR.  We are simply trying to get the Standing Contingency Force (SCF) trial out of the way, so we can see if there is a way ahead for us using Maritime Helicopters to adminstratively ferry troops from ships to shore.

Suddenly, everyone is seeing a "Royal Canadian Marine Corps"...or a deployment to Afghanistan.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (27 Oct 2006)

It was a question.. not specualtion.
 As I had said I couldnt word it the way I would have liked.

But anyhow, what is the size of the force that single SeaKing can carry in a troop carrier way?


----------



## old medic (27 Oct 2006)

Read the article I posted above. It clearly specifies how many troops the UK machines can carry.


----------



## icatq (27 Oct 2006)

I'm posting this to support SeaKing Tacco - again  

ASW Sea Kings would lift approximately one person beyond the normal 4 man crew. The UK uses Mk V Sea Kings (nickname - junglies) as troop transports. mostly for the Royal Marines. I have flown these, Lynx and the EH101... so much as I now sit on my arse in NDHQ I can talk from a position on knowledge.

Not only at hot high altitudes do you have no power and no lift, you also very quickly run out of pedal for the rear rotor which means the helo goes around and around making everybody sick - until every dies in a fiery bang! This is generally considered bad form and not appreciated by the passengers. 

That is why we look at twin rotor aircraft - like the chinook. These helos have rotors that counteract each other - and stop the above happening - which is good.

To fly Sea Kings in Afghanistan we would need up rated engines, new gear box, dust filters, NVG compatible cockpits and other stuff. I would also suggest they would need a self defence suite (chaff, flares, ECM etc.) as well as some form of GPMG/ Mini gun. Add armoured seats and.... it really will make a nice static gate guardian.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Oct 2006)

icatq said:
			
		

> To fly Sea Kings in Afghanistan we would need up rated engines, new gear box, dust filters, NVG compatible cockpits and other stuff. I would also suggest they would need a self defence suite (chaff, flares, ECM etc.) as well as some form of GPMG/ Mini gun. Add armoured seats and.... it really will make a nice static gate guardian.



That's all they will be able to do, with all that extra weight; let alone the ten troops and kit weighing in around 3050 lbs (180/per troop + 125/ kit = 305 lbs per troop).


----------



## old medic (27 Oct 2006)

My experience with them is summed up by having stood next to one a few times, but according to the 
MoD web site, the bulk of the troop carrying Sea Kings are Mk4's  http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2374
and their site claims troop seats for 27.
They have five additional Mk6's http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.6281

Maybe someone else can elaborate on the payloads and different models, I'm in over my head.
 ^-^


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

Is there anything to add to this?  All I see is rampant speculation, poor journalism, and SKT, who is in the know, setting the record straight.

Perhaps this one has passed it's expiry date?

Infanteer

PS:  SKT, shouldn't it be SCTF?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Oct 2006)

> PS:  SKT, shouldn't it be SCTF?



Oh No, it is most definitely SCF now.  The "T" (as in Task)  was removed for reasons fathomable only to those of much higher rank than myself...


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

Cool, thanks for the update.  What say you on the thread, anything salvagable here or should she be locked?


----------



## old medic (27 Oct 2006)

I think the SME's have listed the problems of that type of conversion pretty well. 

Based on the article from May, which lists the cost of converting an anti-submarine role Sea King to a troop 
carrying role as 10 million pounds (roughly 21 Million Canadian) per helicopter, I would hope this is a dead
issue.


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2006)

old medic said:
			
		

> I think the SME's have listed the problems of that type of conversion pretty well.
> 
> Based on the article from May, which lists the cost of converting an anti-submarine role Sea King to a troop
> carrying role as 10 million pounds (roughly 21 Million Canadian) per helicopter, I would hope this is a dead
> issue.



In the long run it would be cheaper methinks to go get new off the shelf troopie-transport ones... ???


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Oh No, it is most definitely SCF now.  The "T" (as in Task)  was removed for reasons fathomable only to those of much higher rank than myself...



...like, someone needed that last little boost for a firewalled-right PER to help get promoted?  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Oct 2006)

G2G-
I'm shocked.  It only took you 21 years to become a cynic...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> G2G-
> I'm shocked.  It only took you 21 years to become a cynic...



yes, SKT...good things come to those who wait!  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Oct 2006)

I'll have to come out of the closet here and admit my fondness for the troop carrying Sea King (oh, the shame!)

I have no idea how the Sea King would perform in Afghanistan, but I've flown in the Royal Navy version lots as human cargo in many other types of conditions from the high arctic to temperate (and very intemperate) climates. Also in the Omani mountains. When it's properly kitted out for troop transport and flown by a competent crew, it rocks. In the arctic we regularly put 16 marines with the usual camping gear and weapons, plus 2 x toboggans and skis, in the back and bopped back and forth between sea level and about 6,000ft or so. They were the only ones who could find us and fly us out in definitely marginal (high winds, blowing snow) conditions. Their nav kit was excellent and it was small enough to put into just about any realtively small landing site, from an SF base helipad, small farmer's field or ship's deck, to a sub-alpine tree fringed meadow. It was large enough to lift a platoon/ troop in 2 chalks (or one lifts with two machines).  They could also haul a moderate underslung load, like a 105 lt gun, apparently quite easily. Fast roping from a Sea King onto point targets was realtively easy, fast and safe. Parachuting from them in training was luxury compared with smaller models. Extra bonus points for being able to float if required. Now, the versions I worked with did not have armour, door guns etc. However, I see lots of S61s (civilian Sea King) in logging shows up and down the West Coast and they're stripped to the bones and hauling pretty big loads of logs quite easily at altitude. George Bush flies around in a Sea King. Helijet airways has a Sea King. 

I guess the performance of the beastie just depends on how many $ you want to invest in your airframes. And if you had your choice between an old SK and a new support helicopter about the same size, would you still go for the SK? Not sure...

Once you've had a Sea King, you'll never go back to skiing for three days across two mountain ranges just because it's snowing.

OK, back in the closet with me.....


----------

