armrdsoul77
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 438
- 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
- 17,060
- 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
- 492
- 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
- 492
- Points
- 780
- Reaction score
- 492
- 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
- 17,060
- 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.
- Reaction score
- 492
- Points
- 780
So, a hypothetic...
It's 1993,the old ASN-501 is still in the aircraft, the CH-124B HELTAS is just coming online, we actually understood that the Persian Gulf wasn't a one off and that doing less ASW is a reality for the next 25 years, and we also understand there is less money for the next 10 or so.
Instead of just saying "I'll take my pen, and write zero 'elicopters" Cretien says "I've directed that the EH-101 be cancelled, as it is not the right helicopter for Canada at this time. Furthermore, DND is to investigate the proper fit for the future. To that end, we will fund appropriate investments in the Sea King to keep it flying for 10-15 years and update it to understand what the true requirement is."
Project office rapidly (as if) gets to work, and determines that the ASN-150 is the best choice because:
In order to implement that, they put in place Canadian software support and the following:
So, now you could follow either model. The overlaid model would let you keep the nav, do better command and control, and use the front end for SA and task offload. The data link would allow you to do the USN model of a co-tac, and depend on the ship/fleet for higher level C2.
You're crewing options are therefore:
Which model do you choose ("controlled by the ship" enabled by the link, or independant), and which crewing?
I know my choice, but I'm interested in the discussion (if anybody cares)...
It's 1993,the old ASN-501 is still in the aircraft, the CH-124B HELTAS is just coming online, we actually understood that the Persian Gulf wasn't a one off and that doing less ASW is a reality for the next 25 years, and we also understand there is less money for the next 10 or so.
Instead of just saying "I'll take my pen, and write zero 'elicopters" Cretien says "I've directed that the EH-101 be cancelled, as it is not the right helicopter for Canada at this time. Furthermore, DND is to investigate the proper fit for the future. To that end, we will fund appropriate investments in the Sea King to keep it flying for 10-15 years and update it to understand what the true requirement is."
Project office rapidly (as if) gets to work, and determines that the ASN-150 is the best choice because:
- already fielded in the 60B
- can have more than one workstation (60B had one in the back for a second aircrewman and one in the front for a "co-tac," the non-flying pilot)
- future proof by having a 1553 bus
- can display video and a tacplot
- has the 123 tacplot link, but not Hawk Link
In order to implement that, they put in place Canadian software support and the following:
- radar scan converter to put the radar picture and the tacplot together (thereby enabling the British model of having the Observer [ie Nav] handle radar and plot)
- keep the sonar wet end but use the HELTAS UYS-503 processor the display it (giving both dipping and sono processing, but not many buoys)
- put the FLIR on the display
- three workstations; two in the back, and one for the left seat pilot
- a method of receiving and transmitting on the Link is installed in the ships, which includes forwarding from / to Link-11.
So, now you could follow either model. The overlaid model would let you keep the nav, do better command and control, and use the front end for SA and task offload. The data link would allow you to do the USN model of a co-tac, and depend on the ship/fleet for higher level C2.
You're crewing options are therefore:
- two pilots, two navs (the EH-101 model), with the sensors being run by a nav due to the influence of the CP-140 on MH crewing choices
- two pilots, one nav, one AESOP (the Sea King, Cyclone, and RN model)
- two pilots, two AESOPs (the 60B model, with less C2 capability)
- one pilot, one nav, two AESOPs (a plused up RAN model)
Which model do you choose ("controlled by the ship" enabled by the link, or independant), and which crewing?
I know my choice, but I'm interested in the discussion (if anybody cares)...
- Reaction score
- 22,042
- Points
- 1,360
In 1993, without as much digital battle space capability as there is in today’s MIoT, I’d stick with 2 PLT, 1 NAV, 1 AESOP to get the ‘BSM’ function, but to fight the system, would even consider a 1 PLT, 2 NAV, 1 AESOP option depending on the use of then automation and open mindedness on the part of the operator/pilot mafia.
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 1,010
It is difficult to cast my mind back to 1993 and “unknow” what I now know, but:
Probably the 2 pilot, 1 Nav, 1 AESOp model made the easiest sell.
Although, eliminating the AESOp and going with 2 Navs in the back would have made the most sense from both a battle management and mentorship model.
Probably the 2 pilot, 1 Nav, 1 AESOp model made the easiest sell.
Although, eliminating the AESOp and going with 2 Navs in the back would have made the most sense from both a battle management and mentorship model.
- Reaction score
- 492
- Points
- 780
My position "was" that it should be two AESOPs and two Pilot's. The fit I described was enough that the two AESOPs could have a mentor model and become sesnor experts, while the pilot's could concentrate on flying and tactical positioning with a metorhip model. The ship would be able to quite easily take over the command and control elements, wih some extra training for the ASWD and SAC in helo employment.
However, the nature of your comments made me think that although the fit would allow that for the employment in 1993 (dipping and limited sonobuoy, due to buoy load, ASW, and surface surveillance and recconaissance), it wouldn't allow the helo to grow into a ore compentent C2 node in the future. In effect, the decision would be taken to leave those as it's roles.
Agree 2 pilot, 1 Nav, 1 AESOP is the easiest sell.
Then I remembered a crewing model a thought about during ASP. On a det of two, have 3 pilot's, 3 nav's, and 3 AESOPs, and optimize for what you are doing. You could fly with:
That might lead to having a removable jump seat between the rear crew on the opposite wall in a future aircraft.
However, the nature of your comments made me think that although the fit would allow that for the employment in 1993 (dipping and limited sonobuoy, due to buoy load, ASW, and surface surveillance and recconaissance), it wouldn't allow the helo to grow into a ore compentent C2 node in the future. In effect, the decision would be taken to leave those as it's roles.
Agree 2 pilot, 1 Nav, 1 AESOP is the easiest sell.
Then I remembered a crewing model a thought about during ASP. On a det of two, have 3 pilot's, 3 nav's, and 3 AESOPs, and optimize for what you are doing. You could fly with:
- 3 crews of three if not doing ASW (I wonder how you could organize the maintainers to do 18 hour deck cycles?)
- 2 pilots, 2 navs, 1 AESOP (extra nav buoy loader and mentor)
- 2 pilots,1 nav, 2 AESOPs (extra AESOP buoy loader and mentor)
- 1 pilot, 1 nav, 2 AESOPs
- etc, etc
That might lead to having a removable jump seat between the rear crew on the opposite wall in a future aircraft.
