What next?
Sea King copters to be troop carriers
By JOHN WARD
OTTAWA (CP) - 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 which 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 which 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, which 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."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006 ... 33-cp.html
Sea King copters to be troop carriers
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
At least it's acknowledged that it's just a stop gap, hopefully we'll get something like a Blackhawk or the Cyclone to do it soon.
No, they're not. Provided that they receive the maintenence they need. Marine One is (or was, might have changed recently) a Sea King, and flies the US President around. But using a 40 year old helicopter in harsh conditions, when there's a long history of breakdown might not be the smartest thing.WJflyer wrote:Quick note:
SEA KING HELICOPTERS ARE NOT INHEIRANTLY UNSAFE!
-
r22captain
- Rank 6
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:12 pm
- Location: CYHZ
Well just look at the number of 61's are in operation around the world. But I'm going to argue my own point and note that SeaKings do get put through the paces more often. Doing my fixed wing training at Shearwater I remember watching them do auto's all day long, while the 61's CHC have in YHZ might do that a few times a year as recurency comes around.
Marine One has mostly been a Sea King helicopter since 1961 (Blackhawks have also been used). Incidentally, the Sea Kings currently being used for presidential transport were procured in 1962, one year before their Canadian equivalents. They are now in the process of being replace and will be fully retired by 2008. The replacement helicopter will be... ...a U.S. variant of the EH-101. 
-
CH124 Driver
- Rank 2
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:01 pm
- Location: 12 Wing
From the MHP SOR:rigpiggy wrote:Just cause it's new doesn't make it better. The Cyclone has approx performance to the SK and like the SK if you lose an engine in the Hover, your going swimming.
4.1.2.3.2.
In order to reduce the risk of loss of an aircraft in the maritime environment, it is essential that the MH have power plant and flight dynamic capabilities, which include the following features:
a. capability of operating in icing conditions;
b. be multi-engined and have a one-engine-inoperative (OEI) capability sufficient to allow: a safe immediate emergency landing from a 60 ft hover, or, after transition to forward flight, safe recovery to the nearest practical landing site; and
c. to maximize the chances of safely recovering the MH, all gearboxes must be capable of operating for a minimum of 30 minutes after the total loss of all normal lubricating fluid.
No, it won't hover on one engine, but my understanding of the EH101 is that it won't hover with one failed engine either.
As for "similar" performance to the Sea King, you're a little off the mark there, AUW of the Cyclone is 7500 lbs more, it'll cruise faster, carries more fuel, can actually carry 2 torpedoes with a full bag of gas, carries more troops, has self start capability, is small arms fire resistant, has a sonar with 10 times the range, and the list goes on.
-
monkeyspankmasterflex
- Rank 7
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:12 pm
Sounds pretty ambitious to be up and running before the arrival of the Cyclone (assuming 2008). The military is not exactly known for it's speed so I'm guessing it'll take a while to train aircrew, train the contingecy task force and convert the 5 aircraft (and the article mentions a "mix" of planes). Good on 'em for giving it the ol' college try though.
-
CH124 Driver
- Rank 2
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:01 pm
- Location: 12 Wing
Interesting. Truth be told, the Sea King can hover on one engine if the conditions are right too.gryphon wrote:Actually, we (Cormorant) can hover with one failed engine (we have 3).....unless a high DA, temp, close to max gross etc.No, it won't hover on one engine, but my understanding of the EH101 is that it won't hover with one failed engine either.
The Cormorant can acutally operate under normal conditions with 1 engine turned off for fuel economy. When one engine fails or when loads require it, the third engine can be spooled back up quite easily.CH124 Driver wrote:Interesting. Truth be told, the Sea King can hover on one engine if the conditions are right too.gryphon wrote:Actually, we (Cormorant) can hover with one failed engine (we have 3).....unless a high DA, temp, close to max gross etc.No, it won't hover on one engine, but my understanding of the EH101 is that it won't hover with one failed engine either.
The Cormorant can acutally operate under normal conditions with 1 engine turned off for fuel economy. When one engine fails or when loads require it, the third engine can be spooled back up quite easily.
It can, yes, and the Brits do it per ops normal. We don't...yet. The procedure is available to us, and has been used on a few occasions for long transits over water, but isn't 'officially approved'.
