armrdsoul77
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 429
- Points
- 930
I love that title. Keep my eyes open for that book.
CH-124 Sea King Historical Thread
- Thread starter Baz
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 16,595
- Points
- 1,010
Probably contact the Shearwater Aviation Museum to see if they still have copies for sale. I think only 1000 (maybe 500?) were printed for the 2018 Sea King Retirement.
The Shearwater Aviation Museum has other Sea King related books for sale, though.
- Reaction score
- 486
- Points
- 780
If I rmember I'll check the next time I'm in.
John and I were chatting about the research I've been doing as late as last week.
- Reaction score
- 486
- Points
- 780
- Reaction score
- 486
- Points
- 780
The irony of how the tactical fit of the Sea King evolved is that even though a navigator was employed (the RN model), much of the capacity for command and control from that was eaten up by operating the equipment (which does not require an officer), so little capacity remained for command and control (which does).
Additionally, as time went on, the USN model evolved to remove much of the burden of operation by adding a dedicated helicopter link (eventually including a robust Link-16), better autotrackers, and better tools, so that the 60R actually has a decent capacity to operate independantly even though it doesn't have a dedicated tactician (except in Australian et al service, where the second pilot is replaced by a nav). Ironically, meanwhile in the Cyclone the nav (ACSO) is still overcoming limitations in the radar auto-tracker and plot compilation.
This is what I meant by feeds into the current discussion in these forums. Hypothetically, if the Cyclone was to be replaced by the 60R (something I don't support, I think we should put the money that was missing in the first place to solve the problems, even if Sikorsky can't be convinced and we find somebody else, say IMP), who will occupy the left seat, a tactical pilot or a nav?
I lean towards a pilot; it allows the USN training system to be used, and allows robust OJT for the pilot's. Junior pilots fly with seniour ones, and middlings fly together.
This also raises another question. Would it be better to offload the track and link management functions to a second AESOP in the Cyclone (it is a NCM function in the ship), remove sensor operation from the non-flying pilot (except possibly EO/IR as an extension of their Mk-1 eyeball and put in place better tools for that), and have the non-flying (pilot not in control) be the tactician, with an optimized toolset? Ie, no ACSO. This would give the master apprentice model in the back as well, and possibly streamline training?
Which raises another question; was the opportunity missed in the Sea King to explore this as the technology evolved?
Additionally, as time went on, the USN model evolved to remove much of the burden of operation by adding a dedicated helicopter link (eventually including a robust Link-16), better autotrackers, and better tools, so that the 60R actually has a decent capacity to operate independantly even though it doesn't have a dedicated tactician (except in Australian et al service, where the second pilot is replaced by a nav). Ironically, meanwhile in the Cyclone the nav (ACSO) is still overcoming limitations in the radar auto-tracker and plot compilation.
This is what I meant by feeds into the current discussion in these forums. Hypothetically, if the Cyclone was to be replaced by the 60R (something I don't support, I think we should put the money that was missing in the first place to solve the problems, even if Sikorsky can't be convinced and we find somebody else, say IMP), who will occupy the left seat, a tactical pilot or a nav?
I lean towards a pilot; it allows the USN training system to be used, and allows robust OJT for the pilot's. Junior pilots fly with seniour ones, and middlings fly together.
This also raises another question. Would it be better to offload the track and link management functions to a second AESOP in the Cyclone (it is a NCM function in the ship), remove sensor operation from the non-flying pilot (except possibly EO/IR as an extension of their Mk-1 eyeball and put in place better tools for that), and have the non-flying (pilot not in control) be the tactician, with an optimized toolset? Ie, no ACSO. This would give the master apprentice model in the back as well, and possibly streamline training?
Which raises another question; was the opportunity missed in the Sea King to explore this as the technology evolved?
- Reaction score
- 16,595
- Points
- 1,010
To your last question: yes.
Despite my avatar, I am trade agnostic in these affairs. I want the most effectively teaming, at the lowest training bill.
Despite my avatar, I am trade agnostic in these affairs. I want the most effectively teaming, at the lowest training bill.
