• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Navy soars to new heights, and sinks to new lows, in ASD? (Forced To Use Private Helicopters)

Bruce Monkhouse

Pinball Dude
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,040
Points
1,360
I'm torn on this one, its embarassing for the military but, at least it makes less of a chance that a Sea King drops out of the sky. :-[ :'(

Navy forced to use private helicopters
Civilian choppers do supply runs because Sea Kings too old, costly
 

ABOARD HMCS ATHABASKAN - Canada's navy has hired a private contractor to fly civilian helicopters out to its ships at sea, as a way of reducing the flying pressures on the military's aging Sea Kings.

In a major naval training exercise this month, the navy hired an American civilian helicopter service to make transport flights to the four helicopter-carrying Canadian ships, sailing roughly 100 kilometres off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia.

Civilian helicopters and pilots have been ferrying people, mail and other supplies to and from the fleet -- creating the unusual spectacle of shiny, blue Bell helicopters landing on the decks of naval ships in the midst of military operations.

The head of Canada's East Coast fleet says it's the first case he knows of in which civilian helicopters have been hired to service the navy's ships.

"I'm trying to save money," says Commodore Tyrone Pile, "and I'm trying to save Sea King flying hours, by contracting a helo-delivery service.

"We've had a lot of years of flying and landing off the backs of our ships. I know Coast Guard and other navy helicopters have landed on our ships. This could be a first for private helicopters," he said.

Commodore Pile says he's not afraid to let the Sea Kings fly, but because their old age makes them so expensive to maintain and operate, he wants to limit their time in the air to tactical training and other non-transport duties.

"Every training day is extremely valuable to me," he says. "I only have so many days per year to get out here and do these kinds of exercises. I've only got so many resources to train my ship's crews, and my Sea King crews.

"So instead of ferrying personnel, mail and cargo, the (Sea Kings) are out there doing the pointy end of their business -- tactics, operations related to hunting, finding and destroying submarines, and providing surveillance."

Canada's military has increasingly been contracting out non-combat business to civilian companies in recent years. Commodore Pile says the U.S. navy also uses the same civilian helicopter service for its ships.

However, contracting civilian companies to do the work of the military can create problems. Four years ago, the Canadian destroyer HMCS Athabaskan -- the flagship commanding the navy's exercises this month -- was itself ordered to intercept a civilian freighter, the GTS Katie, after the ship was contracted by the federal government to bring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment back to Canada from Kosovo.

When the freighter refused to deliver the military gear during a contractual dispute among its owners, Canada was forced to intercept and take command of the ship at sea.

In Norfolk this month, the civilian helicopter service also had reliability problems. During a two-day storm in the midst of the naval exercise, the contractor shut down flights to the fleet because the company was unwilling to let its pilots fly during the gale. The navy was forced to put its Sea Kings back into the air, on transport duty, until the weather cleared.


The Conservative government said it would purchase a fleet of 50 EH-101 helicopters to replace the Sea Kings more than a decade ago, but the Chretien government scrapped the program when it came to power in 1993.

The Martin government announced this summer it planned to buy 28 new Sikorsky ship-borne maritime helicopters, but the first of those aircraft -- described by Defence Minister Bill Graham as "the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians" -- will not be delivered until 2008, and it will be several years after that before the new fleet was phased in and Sea Kings were completely decommissioned.

So precarious is the state of some Sea Kings that during a flight this month, as journalists and academics were being flown to sea to observe the training exercises off Virginia, a Sea King crewmember asked passengers to be on the lookout for signs of "leaking fluid" coming from inside the aircraft.

"Let us know," he said, "if you see any pink fluids leaking into the cabin."

 
This is embarassing, but we may not be completely alone.Here in Afgh the US are using hired civ aircraft for some resupply runs, and almost all of the fuel, supplies, spoaer parts, etc that comes in by road from Pakistan or elsewhere is hauled by local civvy contractors, not by US mil vehs. US forces here use literally hundreds of "NTVs" (Non Tactical Vehs): civvy pattern SUVs and pickups to do all sorts of things. Of course, the difference is that the US are not doing it because their primary equipment is falling apart. Cheers.
 
This is a fairly small issue when put beside the bigger problems in our military. I wouldnt be concerned if I was you...its not uncommon for the Navy to use civilian helicopters. And the Americans use them quite a bit. For OPFOR they used civilian aircraft on several ex's. Who cares?
 
I'm in favour of this particular use of civilian contractors on exercises. Valuable Sea King hours are freed up for use on the military objectives of the exercise, and the ferrying role is being completed at a supposedly lower cost. IIRC, the army already uses civilian aircraft for some parachute training purposes, and the Navy has used civilian contracted aircraft on MP for a few years. I think this is an excellent precedent where business can provide excellent support to the Navy. What would not be appropriate,however, is to see corporate helicopters embarked on warships such as frigates and destroyers.
Personally, I would like to see more of this sort of thing. In particular, I would like to see the larger AOR functions of the Navy outsourced to a MPRS* type of vessel owned and operated by a contractor located just outside of the area of operations. The propsed Naval version of a close fleet tanker** is one which is capable of keeping speed with the rest of the fleet.  

The MPRS vessel can ferry supplies via contractor helicopter to any ship in the fleet, or a warship could dispatch it's own chopper to the MPRS. The hybrid tanker could periodically refuel/resupply from the MPRS and return to station closer to the fleet.  

*MPRS: Multi Product Replenishment Ship, see:   http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

**Modified Halifax Class Tanker, see: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-navalsc2.htm

Theses links and images are posted under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, and are undertaken without motive of gain.
 
I am not in favour of any sort of our version of the RFA, it would be like the army getting rid of the service battalions in the brigades and hiring civillians to do the job. Hiring civillians in this will only justify cutbacks in military personnel. Do we really want this?

With regard to using a civillian helo firm to resupply I also have mixed feelings but its not like they are going to be conducting ASW any time soon...

As for the Halifax AOR its a single hulled vessel and all new build AORs by law must be double hulled.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
As for the Halifax AOR its a single hulled vessel and all new build AORs by law must be double hulled.

WHOA Ex- can you explain that to me? Did you explain it in another thread? A link if you have would be great.....
 
Just a point that I noticed.....these are civilian pattern Helios and therefore would not be equipped to use the "Bear Trap" and therefore would only be able to carry out these tasks in ideal conditions.  If we run into a week or so of inclement weather this winter, who would carry out any of these types of tasks safely.

GW
 
This is not an embarassing issue, IMO.  Each aircraft community has an allotment of flying hours that it can fly (YFR).  Once those hours have been flown - no more flying.

What this Admiral is doing is great - he's letting the Sea King driver's spend more time training for war and less time acting as a delivery service.  Does the army ever flat-bed its vehicles to Wainwright/Suffield and use civilian truckers?  I know from experience that this is the case, so why not in the Navy / Air Force too?

Cheers
 
George Wallace said:
Just a point that I noticed.....these are civilian pattern Helios and therefore would not be equipped to use the "Bear Trap" and therefore would only be able to carry out these tasks in ideal conditions.   If we run into a week or so of inclement weather this winter, who would carry out any of these types of tasks safely.

GW

They're being used to ferry cargo and mail- not tactical stuff so I dont think they are required in "dirty" weather...my mail can wait a day....

At least thats what I got from the article.
 
Zoomie said:
This is not an embarassing issue, IMO. Each aircraft community has an allotment of flying hours that it can fly (YFR). Once those hours have been flown - no more flying.

What this Admiral is doing is great - he's letting the Sea King driver's spend more time training for war and less time acting as a delivery service.

Fair enough.

I guess that in the case of a medical emergncy or requirement for a critical part, it will be back to the Sea King Drivers.

GW
 
Aaron I believe in the JSS thread this was discussed, will post the link when found.
 
I presume these are all functions that would be unnecessary in a shooting war, then (ie. the navy could deploy tomorrow without the support of non-military helicopters)?
 
Funny thing about YFR, we're using some of ours on SAR standby right now because the Cormorant fleet is grounded. Tell me again why we should have gotten Cormorants instead of H92's?

Personally, I'd rather stick to surface and subsurface surveillance and of course, hunting and prosecuting subsurface threats than haul cargo around. The new helo will do both roles that the Sea King and civilian contractors are doing now, especially in theater since I highly doubt any civvie would fly into a war zone without a self-defense suite and proper radar warning equipment, none of which tends to be standard equip on civilian aircraft. Also, I highly doubt that there's many civvies trained in hauldown operations so they won't fly in anywhere near the sea state that we will, in which case it's back to us to sling the palettes of beer out to the ship.

As for the oil, the old girl leaks, a lot. After a little while flying them you get to know how much leakage is normal, I don't know that yet so the techs are going to be answering a lot of my questions regarding the oil down the side of the aircraft. As one of the older Sea King drivers told me, "if it's leaking, you know there's oil in it, if it's bone dry, where the hell is the oil?"

Cheers
 
As one of the older Sea King drivers told me, "if it's leaking, you know there's oil in it, if it's bone dry, where the heck is the oil?"     OUCH! :-[
 
I'm not kidding man, the thing is covered in it, as long as it's not tranny fluid, we're golden.  You know the CF, safety first! ;D
 
I know my camp in Bosnia was resupplied with food directly from a civilian contractor (ie, the Dutch guy and his semi who arrived every week or so). Not to mention the fact the army has already contracted fitness instruction (massive mistake in my opinion), welfare and morale stuff, and much of the communications and supply functions - ie, Atco ran the satellite links, phone system, maintained quarters, power and water supplies, etc.
All of this raised the questioned - what exactly did NSE, NCE, the battle group Service Batt guys, the integral Battalion CSS guys do? PSP and ATCO ran the show.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
As for the Halifax AOR its a single hulled vessel and all new build AORs by law must be double hulled.

CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

"territorial sea" means the territorial sea of Canada as determined under the Oceans Act; (mer territoriale

"transfer operation" means
(a) the loading of oil or an oily mixture onto a ship from a loading facility or from another ship, or
(b) the unloading of oil or an oily mixture from a ship onto an unloading facility or onto another ship; (opération de transbordement)

"waters under Canadian jurisdiction" means
(a) Canadian waters, and
(b) the exclusive economic zone of Canada described in section 13 of the Oceans Act. (eaux de compétence canadienne) SOR/95-352, s. 1; SOR/2002-425, s. 1.

GENERAL APPLICATION
3. (1) These Regulations do not apply in respect of any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship that is owned or operated by a state and used in government non-commercial service.
(2) Except where otherwise indicated, these Regulations apply in respect of
(a) any ship operating in waters under Canadian jurisdiction, including ships operating in a shipping safety control zone; and
(b) any Canadian ship operating outside of waters under Canadian jurisdiction. SOR/95-352, s. 2; SOR/2002-425, s. 2.

Double Hull Construction
14.2 Any oil tanker that is engaged in voyages that take place in waters under Canadian jurisdiction shall comply with Standards for the Double Hull Construction of Oil Tankers, TP 11710, published by the Canadian Coast Guard on July 6, 1993, as amended from time to time, other than sections 3 and 5 and subparagraphs 24(a)(i), (b)(i) and (c)(i) of those Standards. SOR/95-352, s. 7.


Title: Standards for the Double Hull Construction of Oil Tankers
Number: TP 11710 E
Date: 2003
Details: Marine Safety Directorate, Transport Canada
Ottawa

GENERAL

Application
3. (1) These Standards apply to
              a.     all Canadian-registered oil tankers; and
              b.     all oil tankers registered in a country other than Canada, when operating in Canadian waters and the fishing zones of Canada             prescribed pursuant to the Oceans Act.
     (2) These Standards do not apply in respect of any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship that is owned or operated by a state and used in government non-commercial service.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If the Navy is adopting the civilian environmental standard of construction of vessels, which IMO they should, that's great. But it is definitely not a legal requirement, and if the costs of such a hull are too great, then use a different technolgy, like self sealing bladders.   ;)


 
Ya know ... some people might suggest that when an armed service is incapable of rudimentary chores ... there just might be a problem ...
(and, no - I'm not saying the Navy is the only one ... the Air Force is contracting out maintenance, and the Army ... where do I start ... ?)

It's kinda like a "sovereign" nation relying on somebody else for defence
(oh, wait ... who does that sound like ... ?)
 
Back
Top