HO4S3

[Blackmac]

In the early years in the "50''s" the RCN used S55''s on search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare.

The helicopter consisted of one engine (piston) and no floatation gear, the crew wore mae-wests and immersion suits that kept you alive in the north Atlantic for about one hour.

The HUP-3 was also available for search and rescue with a less reliable engine and the same floatation capabilities.

In the early sixties along came the "Sea King". Much better helicopter, turbine, twin engined and with floatation capabilities under a calm sea. The only problem with the Sea King was that it would bring you to the scene of the accident under gross weight.

As we progress in time the Sea King has to be replaced and in that time frame progress has been made in the design and safety of helicopters.

A THREE (3) ENGINED HELICOPTER IS NOW AVAILABLE AND HAS PROVEN IT''S CAPABILITIES UNDER SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS AND SHOULD BE A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE AS THIS IS JUST AS HAZERADOUS AS S&R OR MORE SO, AS THIS OPERATION IS MORE FREQUENT.

This requirement should be taken out of the hands of the politicians in the government and NDHQ.

Everybody reading this post should send a copy to the oppositions parties to demand a referendum on this aquistion, in the long run it is our dollar and we should have a say in how our military is run.

From somebody who has worn the uniform, the mae-west and jumped into the north atlantic from an HO4S3 in an immersion suit.

 

[MagSeal]

3 engines would be nice, but three engines also cost alot more initially, and over the term of their life (taxpayers will love that). I bet the reliabilty of a twin engine aircraft is sufficient enough with proper maintenance to serve the needs of our crews. Whats down the road later a quad engine helicopter?
Yes engine failures happen, but is that the end of the world? With proper training and proceedures followed and it becomes a single engine flight back, or a controlled ditching. And don''t bother comparing the old stats of the Sea Kings, we all know they are at the end of their military life. Give the new aircraft they choose a few years in the military and they''ll be run ragged as well.
The cormorant is supposed to be able to carry all equipment for all possible scenarios on every flight, nice option, but I compare that to taking an 18 wheel tractor trailer every time you need to go grocery shopping. Waste of everything.

 

[downwash]

The delicate (?) balance between legitimate operational requirements and the government''s purse is always a ''toughie.'' I think Blackie has a point, though, particularly inasmuch as government (particularly the present one) has more than adequately demonstrated it''s absolute inability to maintain a semblance of objectivity when measuring problems like this one.

Referenda (UP the Alliance agenda!) MAY indeed be the best method of determining issues of national concern, and I''d like to think, given the Liberals'' track record on this one, that the public MIGHT just take adequate interest to give a meaningful response. Aside from a (God forbid) Royal Commission, the media (love ''em or hate ''em) are probably best equipped to ferret out all of the relevant data that a (presumably) interested public would require. One wonders, though, if there are enough of us to actually STIR the opposition from their attention on the ''photo op'' of the day. (We need an icon for the finger down the throat)

I''ll give my MP an earful, Blackie, unless someone has a better idea.

 

[graunch1]

What is wrong with using SeaHawks?

Seems to me that Sikorsky makes a very good helicopter - particularily after personally working on S76''s and S61s. It has a proven record in a maritime environment. There are lots operating and our neighbour to the south uses lots of them. On the other hand, the EH101 - or whatever you want to call it has manly been purchased by the governemnts of the countries that built it, is heavy, has 1 more engine to fuel and maintain and somewhat of a lame-duck in a helicopter world that is dominated by Europcopter,Bell and Sikorsky.
This is not to say that Canada could not operate the Cormorant et-al with a degree of sucess.
The bottom line should be a balance between $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and operational capability.
I feel that our military always wants a Cadillac system on a Chevy budget. Maybe it is timeto look at viable cheaper alternatives rather than being focussed on a "will do all" machine but on something where they will get a good machine and have money left over for spares, training and more a/c.

Just my opinion

 

[Charles W.]

Just saw a news item that Canadian troops in Afghanastan are not allowed to carry guns, so they have been given German body guards.

How in hell do any of you guys think that trying to reason with the morons who put our military troops in a war zone unarmed would have any idea of safety in helicopters.

Unbelievable...

No wait ...I bet those guys in the military just haven't got the paper work done to register their guns......

Sure that has to be it...

Whew, for a while there I actually thought our leaders didn't know what they were doing.

Chas W... Retired Merc.

 

[wilbur]

The sad reality is that Cretin is cut from the same cloth as his old buddy Trudeauski. He has a strong contempt for all things military and gives as little to the DND as NATO and our G7 allies will tolerate. Mark my words, this helicopter deal will be the final f--k he throws to the Navy before he leaves office. He will stick them with a very average airframe and third class combat systems. Result, a next to useless opertional capability.

Other examples of his attitude, DND had a funded plan last year to aquire 5 C17 transports over a few years. It would have given us the strategic airlift capacity to take our own troops and equipment to where they need to go. Cretin personally ordered them not to proceed, and to charter civilian operators or beg transport from other allies. Hopefully, that was his final shot at the Airforce.

And don''t forget that a few years ago our army guys rotating into Bosnia had to get their helmuts and used boots from the troops they were replacing. Cretin wouldn''t fund purchasing boots for everyone. Our guys went to Afghanistan the first time wearing green combat clothing because he wouldn''t buy desert cammo, and now he won''t even let them have guns. This is probably his last insult to the Army as those poor buggers don''t have anything left for that slimeball to take.

There is no doubt in my mind that he would disolve the CF entirely if he thought he could get away with it.

 

[PedalJam]

This whole sordid tale is a grand embarassment to all Canadians. Cretien is a total buffoon and is killing us all softly with his slow retirement.

Will anything be diffrent with his replacement Mr. Martin only time will tell.Just because he has no accent and talks out of the front of his mouth he''s a staunch Quebec leutenant thru and thru.

That should ensure Cretien''s nephew and Eurocopter sleeps well

 

[Elvis]

Wilbur,with the current state of our forces one C17 would be enough.

 

[Elvis]

Mag Your being far too logical for a government contract.

 

Sea Hawks are way too small. Once you put any mission gear in the back there is barely room for two passengers. If you have ever seen the interior of the Sea Hawk, not the Black Hawk, you will understand how the cabin is all used up and you cannot stand up. Try flying a four hour mission working in the back door with the hoist, the machine gun, the Sea Hawk is only good for circus midgets. Believe me when I say that a lot of our work at sea is utility. We need a good balance of mission equipment and space. Saying that, the EH101 as beautiful as it is, is in my opinion way too big.

As for remaining airborne on one turning, the S92 is currently able to do fly out on single engine from a 40 foot hover while dipping. We need a stand up cabin, room for passengers and mission equipment.

I just returned from the Gulf, we flew just shy of 600 hours on our airframe, CH12426, an A model with a sonar. We flew with our sonar installed 80% of the time and could still carry up to seven passengers with four crew. We were the only coalition helo capable of lifting more than four passengers and the only helo capable of having a total of eleven persons on board. This was often a crucial asset to our commander. Running passengers around the fleet may not be anywhere as glamourous as combat but you can't be chasing subs around all the time or surface contacts for that matter.

Having that extra space made our 40 year old Sea King one of the most valuable helos out there.

Now when it came to operating at night, well then we were as useless as **** on a bull, but that is why we need the new helos.

My personal choice, Igor was a genius, replace S61 with S92.

 

[MagSeal]

Another question...why does the whole fleet need to be one model? I understand it''s likely easier to order them in ''bulk'', but why not mix the fleet, some large helo''s, some smaller? I''m sure they could make it work.

 

[Fully Articulated]

----------------
On 5/12/2003 757 PM MagSeal wrote:

Another question...why does the whole fleet need to be one model? I understand it''s likely easier to order them in ''bulk'', but why not mix the fleet, some large helo''s, some smaller? I''m sure they could make it work.

----------------​

It''s called "Economies of Scale

 

[graunch1]

I agree Corax, the 92 would be a more logical choice than the Sea Hawk.

Another thought however is how our military has turned into a uniformed civil service at the top end. I feel that many of our Generals - and let''s face it I think we have more now than during WWII are too self-serving ensuring that they land fat civvy jobs after retirement with the various defense companies or the Gov''t. As a result none of them seem to be prepared to stand up and tell the Cretins of the world that "Enough is Enough!" Too afraid of pensions and these potential later jobs. Bring back Landymore and McKenzie.

Teh poor bloody working folk just have to make do with little or get out.