DND to refit some Sea Kings as troop carriers

[SeaKingTacco]

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]

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]

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

 

[icatq]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[old medic]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Good2Golf]

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]

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.....