Royal Canadian Marines?- The Sea King Spin-off- Hold on Tight

[Agamemnon]

Ha! marines!   :boring:

We cant get to the battlefield without the US or the brits...our own choppers damage our ships...our submarines kill their crew...and you ask for marines?

And just to clear something up...besides for their amphibious trainning..(witch we could all do) our infantry...are wayy more effective they the US marines.(Don't know abt the brits...)

ever go training with them??? horrible.

One of the advantages of having our "mini army" is that our standarts are very high.In the US if your poor ( and most people are) your gonna go in the armed forces.

 

[Inch]

...our own choppers damage our ships...our submarines kill their crew...

I says pardon? You're generalizing due to one tragic fatality on one Sub? What damage do our helos do to our ships? I'm quite interested in this little fact since I will be flying helos off our ships in the near future, do you know something we don't?

 

[Agamemnon]

So your saying our 40 + year old seakings are combat capable? Your right i did exagerate...but it was a wake up call.....the seaking demand too much maintenance for what they put out...i read it in a report a few motnhs ago whats the maintenance/fly time percentage?

And the sub? the cre of the chicoutimi said they wouldint want to go back in those subs.

 

[Inch]

So your saying our 40 + year old seakings are combat capable? Your right i did exagerate...but it was a wake up call.....the seaking demand too much maintenance for what they put out...i read it in a report a few motnhs ago whats the maintenance/fly time percentage?

And the sub? the cre of the chicoutimi said they wouldint want to go back in those subs.

Yes they are combat capable, why wouldn't they be? There's 3 of them deployed on the East coast right now. Here's a news flash for you, ALL helicopters are maintenance intensive, that's just the nature of the machines. That report you read is the media's way of making them seem impossible to maintain. Any numbers you have read include standard things like A and B checks by the technicians before and after the aircraft goes flying, preflight inspections by the aircrew (there's 3 of us doing it for 20min = 1 hour of maintenance right there), plus all the standard maintenance actions like oil changes and of course repairs. Even the 20 minutes it takes to get fuel counts as maintenance. Now here's the big thing, those "hours of maintenance per hour of flight" numbers you saw are total BS. Sure it may take 30 hours of maintenance, but it's man hours, ie 5 techs and doing their thing only takes 6 hours for a total of 30 man hours.

Of course you have a reference for the statements you claim the Submariners made, right?

 

[aesop081]

Inch,

haven't we all been over the whole sea king thing before ?  Why is it new posters on here insist on disputing the guy whu actualy flies the thing ?

For Agamemnon.......I am posted to a sea king squadron at the end of this  month.....I am looking forward to flying on it because its a capable machine that has alot of fighting left in it !

 

[Inch]

Inch,

haven't we all been over the whole sea king thing before ?   Why is it new posters on here insist on disputing the guy whu actualy flies the thing ?

We sure have and I wish I could tell you. I'm just a driver though, WTF do I know?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...obviously not enough,...they still get you everytime :-[,............remember there is nothing more rightful than " well I heard that......."

 

[Inch]

You've got a point Bruce, but I can't let lies propagate and bring down the integrity of the board now can I?

 

[Agamemnon]

You want refrences? buy "the devoir" newspaper...every so often they have an article on these kinds of subjects...

you might want to cool down there...The seakings are old...dangerous .how many people gonna get killed before you say "oh well maybe its time we scrap em" ?!?

you want a source here ya go :


They are known as the "ancient" Sea Kings, the "geriatric" Sea Kings, the "venerable" Sea Kings. They have been called "flying coffins." Purchased with considerable fanfare by the federal government in 1963, when they turned heads with their impressive exploits, the Sea Kings are now a sick, aging fleet, with pieces literally falling out of the skies.[...] Twenty-eight of them remain in service, and those still flying are often hit by flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures and gearbox problems. Pilots have died flying them, falling into oceans, crashing into muskeg â “ more so the older they get.[...].

-CBC News Online | Updated July 23, 2004

oh heres for the maintenance :

The Sea Kings were supposed to have been retired by 2000, but the air force prolonged their life by spending $80 million to keep them flying until 2005. The Sea Kings require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and they are unavailable for operations 40 per cent of the time.

-CBC News Online | Updated July 23, 2004


and the new ones were getting arent so conforting...

The Sikorsky is "the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians," said Graham during his announcement at the Shearwater Naval Air Station near Halifax.

-Last Updated Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:49:43 EDT
CBC News

AND FINALY here just to give another source...oh wait you need more dead people? here ya go! ]

The Sea King saga: it's not over yet
by Dawn Calleja
Canada is getting new helicopters. The old ones should have been sold for scrap ages ago.
2004-12-06
Canada's Sea Kings should have been sold off for scrap long ago. But they're still flying--though just barely. Over the years, 10 people have been killed and 111 injured in crashes of the ancient navy choppers. But at last, the government has inked a long-awaited replacement contract. It only took 30 years.

1963: Canada's navy buys 41 Sikorsky Sea King helicopters to help monitor Russian sub activity.

1972-1977: The navy upgrades the Sea Kings to increase reliability. By the 1980s, they would be outdated and ill-suited to modern warfare.

1977: The military starts looking to replace the Sea King fleet.

1986: DND finally issues a request for proposals for new choppers, expected to be flying by 1995.

Aug. 5, 1987: Defence Minister Perrin Beatty announces the Sea Kings will be replaced by the EH-101.

1992: EH Industries (now AgustaWestland) and Paramax sign a joint contract for 43 choppers worth $4.7 billion. During election campaign, Chrétien's Liberals vow to kill the deal for this "Cadillac-type" machine.

November 1993: Newly elected Liberals cancel the contract, a move that costs taxpayers $500 million in payouts to contractors.

1994: Liberals release a white paper promising to replace Sea Kings by end of the decade: "The Sea Kings are rapidly approaching the end of their operational life."

July 23, 2004: The government taps Connecticut-based Sikorsky to replace the Sea Kings with 28 H-92 Superhawk maritime helicopters.

Sept. 1, 2004: Losing bidder AgustaWestland files legal action to force Ottawa to give it the contract or start the bid process over because it was "biased, unfair," and Sikorsky's H-92s face "major redesign hurdles..."

Nov. 23, 2004: Despite the legal action, the government formally inks a $5-billion deal with Sikorsky, which will deliver the first Superhawk in 2008. By then, the Sea Kings will be 45 years old.




I got all this with 10 min of google...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and how many of these articles are from the flippin pilots?......are you not catching the fact HE FLIES THEM?

 

[Agamemnon]

i'm going to go to my campus library to get the devoir article about the sub crew.

and why would i need anything about pilots?!? they dont decided much...and besides as staff arent you suposed to be impartial...?

I just proved that they are dangerous? you want pilots? go to the cemetary

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Much as I am tempted to make a smart-ass reply, I won't, except to say you have drawn my ire in both official languages now and this is a warning to slow down with the remarks or you will be on the ramp wondering who packed your chute.
....any pilots care to rebuttal?

 

[Agamemnon]

Ok so when you dont agree you threaten?

i braught refrences why dont you bring some oh mighty bias admin?!?

 

[Sea-dog]

Ha! marines!   :boring:

And just to clear something up...besides for their amphibious training.(witch we could all do) our infantry...are wayy more effective they the US marines.(Don't know abt the brits...)

Agamemnon Hi,
                   It is good to see ,you believe in your armed forces,but be carefull to generalize.It is not sooo easy to be in the Marines. Above all to do amphibious training,the Canadian Armed Forces will have to integrate with the Navy,and therefore you will require new training with a variety of different equipment.
Having good soldiers in its self is not enough,you need the right equipment to support these forces.

The Israeli defence force has proven that it can only win any given battle if there is a absolute balance between the quality of the men and the quality of the equipment used in any given battle.
If any one factor is missing it results in failure.
The sum total of body bags will one day convince your Government that it is cheaper to spend the money now,intergrate,cross train and modernize the forces,before you have a big disaster.

Never over estimate your own forces ,never under estimate the enemy.Know your enemy,but also know your yourself !
Bubbles Up !  

 

[Agamemnon]

Oh your right!

i wasint over estimating the canadian troops but merely pointing out the quality that we have...that huge armies dont really have...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Ha! marines!  :boring:

We cant get to the battlefield without the US or the brits.

We never could!  How do you think the CEF got to France?  Or the CASF to England?  They used English troop transports. 

Korea?  US transports.

This is nothing new, and not indicative of weakness - seems to me we did our share in those three conflicts.  I suspect we were on British boats going to South Africa in 1900 as well.

 

[George Wallace]

Agamemnon

Have you read any of the previous posts from the people who fly the Sea Kings?  Let's see;  CBC reporters say that the car you drive is unsafe.  You drive it every day.  You have had it into your garage on a regular basis and know that it is mechanically sound.  Your mechanic passed it.  Yet CBC says it is unsafe.  Who do you believe; CBC or you and your mechanic?

GW

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Agamemnon obviously is either very young, or very naive.  Anyone who has ever had contact with the media - be it a story on the roses in your garden, or a homicide investigation - will tell you that they almost never, never, ever get things right.  Not because they have agendas, per se (though they certainly do in some cases), but because that is the nature of the medium.  When he/she grows up a little bit, he/she will understand.  Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.

 

[winchable]

And I don't think anyone here is actually saying that they should keep the sea kings around, they're more or less saying the press tends to focus on certain aspects of stories whereas reality is somewhat different from the picture painted by people who's job it is, to get a story.

And what's this about staff being impartial? We enjoy the forum for the same reasons everyone else does, intelligent debate.
We aren't godlike creatures without opinions and fingers for typing them....we're just right all of the time that's all.

 

[Torlyn]

Ok so when you dont agree you threaten?

i braught refrences why dont you bring some oh mighty bias admin?!?

First things first, SPELLCHECK.  Second, you brought a pile of references from the CBC...  Gee.  Nice of you to get unbiased references yourself...  :  I mean, if you truly believe what the CBC reports about anything without looking for corroborating evidence, I pity you. 

T

P.S. Che - lol...