RAF and RN SAR Sea Kings...

[cokecan]

afternoon folks.

having vegged in front of the magic box watching re-runs of 'Highland Emergency' on Five i wondered if there was any real diference between the RAF Sea King HAR3/3A and the RN's Sea King HAR5?

are they both SAR choppers from the ground up, or are they, for example, ASW Sea Kings with a winch and a searchlight - is one more suited to the role/'better' than the other?

just interested, and, it must be said, have a slight man crush....

[Pol Potty mouth]

The RN Sea Kings (HU5 btw, not HAR5) have shorter range than the 3/3A due to their having a different fuel system which fits around the hole in the floor through which the sonar was dipped. The 5 & 3 share the same AFCS (stab and basic autopilot) while the 3A is comparitively far more swept up, allowing it to 'fly itself' to a much greater degree. The 5 has a different radar to the 3/3A which in itself has similar capabilities, but the 3/3A benefit from the fact that the radar picture is processed and displayed on a 'TV' screen rather than an 'old school' screen. The 3/3A are all fitted with MSS turrets (providing IR and TV search capabilities) whereas AFAIK the 5 is yet to get this capability across the fleet. The 3/3A have far more comprehensive IFR nav kit as compared to the 5 which didn't need this in its original role. The layout of the cabin in the 3/3A is more optimised for SAR, so working with stretchers is easier than in the 5. Finally the 3/3A have far superior external lighting for night jobs.

That said, they all fly in a pretty similar fashion (3A pilots will disagree here), and they are all very effective, if aged, SAR cabs.

[Spanish Waltzer]

ones yellow & the other's not...

....ok.... I'll get my coat & leave crab to go into the detail as I'm sure he'll be delighted to know someone, finally, has a crush on him;)

[oldgrubber]

Cokecan,
I think I'm right in saying that the MK3 and later 3A were designed from scratch as SAR variants of the S61 type. The MK5 was originally an ASW airframe that was "de-modded" by removal of the LAPADS, Sonar winch, spare seats, weapons points, kitchen sink; and had strengthened floor fitted. (Yes I know there is more to it than that, just keeping it simple!)
As to which is best, well as a mechanic I will defer to the aircrew for that answer, but from reading the "Rotorheads" forum I would say both are better than the POS that the S92 appears to be. (Not worked on it but read the threads and see what I mean).

Cheers now

[Tourist]

RAF version certainly better speed and range.
Ugly colour though.

[Trim Stab]

RAF version certainly better speed


Well that's all fairly relative. Bit like saying a slug is faster than a snail, or a turtle is faster than a tortoise.

[Clearedtoroll]

Pretty sure that, under the floor, there is still a large round hole on the Mk3s where the sonar would have been dipped (if it had ever had one). Exciting stuff you never needed to know... :}

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

large round hole on the Mk3s where the sonar would have been dipped


Indeed, but it's full of fuel. Perhaps the main difference between the two is the intent, as someone alluded to earlier: RAF Sea Kings are HAR3 (ie chief role SAR), RN have HU5 (chief role Utility, part of which is SAR).


are they both SAR choppers from the ground up, or are they, for example, ASW Sea Kings with a winch and a searchlight - is one more suited to the role/'better' than the other?


One can't really claim that either is a SAR chopper from the ground up, but in simple terms one could state that the HU5 is an ASW aircraft used for SAR whereas the HAR3/3A is a SAR aircraft developed from an ASW aircraft.

[cokecan]

cheers gents - and particularly PPM - very grateful.

this may be a can-of-worms question, but now the SARH deal is dead, how long can they continue in service and are they likely to be replaced by Merlins of one flavour or another?

[Tallsar]

It is the MoD's intention, as declared in the SDSR of Oct 2010, to withdraw all RAF and RN Sea Kings by mid 2016. It was the most obvious helicopter cost savings measure, with not buying anything new to replace the Junglie SK Mk4s being another significant one, and finally the reduction from 24 new Chinooks to 12 (plus 2 attrition replacements) being the final blow.

While a formal announcement, including detailed requirements, has yet to be given by HMG, they have already indicated as part of the current UK GAP SAR programme, that we can expect something in the Autumn as to a new longer term programme to replace the capability presently provided by MoD Sea Kings. Most commentators watching this would stunned if it were to be an MoD funded purchase, and no one who knows anything about costs verus the money that will probably be available, would expect any SAR Merlin variant (AWL101 SAR) to be affordable - nice as some geuniunely believe that would be.

Watch out for civilian focussed solutions similar to those proprosed for the SAR- H (RIP!) solution.

[FODPlod]

A topical news item:Flying without wings (http://www.ayradvertiser.com/news/troon/articles/2011/08/31/416745-flying-without-wings/#)


A PILOT with Gannet has just become one of the Royal Navy's most experienced flyers. Lieutenant Commander Roger Stringer, 47, who lives in Mauchline with his wife, has just completed his 7000th flying hour at the controls of a Sea King Mark 5. The former commander of HMS Gannet at Prestwick reached the milestone while returning from an emergency call in the skies above Clyde Coastguard's offices in Greenock.

[Faithless]

Yellow one is crewed by toffs that will tell you how good they are and the other is crewed by damn right good eggs that you can have a down to earth chat with :E

[Tallsar]

:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:::ooh:

[teeteringhead]

Yellow one is crewed by toffs ... well I suppose one must admit that 2nd in line to the throne might just be a toff, but you can also have a down to earth chat with him too ..... but not as much as his little bro......:E

[Roger Committed]

Faithless
You might be able to have a down to earth chat but not in the same crewroom as those below stairs types they call rearcrew - who's the toff now?

[dervish]

but the 3/3A benefit from the fact that the radar picture is processed and displayed on a 'TV' screen rather than an 'old school' screen.


What was the rationale behind retaining the small scanner in the 3A? IIRC the RN had upgraded many years before and had better forward "visibility". Would it not have been better and cheaper to have all the same?

[Trim Stab]

I don't want to start a willy-waiving constest, but why are Sea Kings flown by two pilots? They are after all painfully slow VFR machines. Plenty of far more demanding aircraft are flow single-pilot, so why two pilots in the Sea King?

[Avionker]

From my personal experience during my 4 year stint as groundcrew on 202 Sqn in the RAF, I'm glad that they have 2 pilots, at least in the SAR role.

To give an example of why, one job I was along on as supernumerary crew had us hovering with the main rotor tips 2 metres away from a cliff face, 500 ft above a valley floor, with 300 ft of winch cable out. Not an ideal single pilot operation, I wouldn't of thought.

After 10 or 15 mins hovering like that I'm sure the guy in the right hand seat was more than grateful to relax and let someone else pole it for a while. Especially as he had only been declared ops ready a week or so beforehand.

[airborne_artist]

I don't want to start a willy-waiving constest, but why are Sea Kings flown by two pilots? They are after all painfully slow VFR machines. Plenty of far more demanding aircraft are flow single-pilot, so why two pilots in the Sea King? 1st Sep 2011 06:44

Let's put the Q another way round. How many SAR operations with similar capabilities (night, sea etc.) are you aware of that operate with a single pilot?

[sycamore]

T-S, go and shoot your other foot,ffs....You claim to be in the TA/was,but you seem to have zero nouse about SAR-OPS,whether they are civilian or military.Not only that they can be used in combat ops if necessary.
I`ll leave it to Tallsar/Crab/Navy to elaborate the finer points of all-weather SAR..In a nutshell,it`s crew co-operation at it`s best,and needs to be ,given all the possible scenarios that crews can be called upon,and that applies whether you are light blue,dark blue or coastguard...

[JTIDS]

Or it could be it needs two pilots because if the computer controlling the throttles breaks you need another "person" up front to operate the manual throttles which are located above the pilots head rather than on the collective like on most helicopters...

[Mike Rosewhich]

True, but the aircraft can be flown with one pilot and a manual throttle trained crewman (or women)

The 2 pilot requirement is very much SAR specific as is the level of training and currency required in order to mitigate the very substantial risks they face.

[Role1a]

They are after all painfully slow VFR machines

TS: The SAR Sea Kings are very capable IFR machines and as such require two pilots.

R1a

Cheers AA and Sorry :(

[airborne_artist]

SK4 in the FAA Jungly role is flown as Mike Rosewhich describes.

If you've ever watched any of the reality TV programmes on board the FAA/RAF SKs or the Coastguard S61s it's pretty easy to see that the workload is much better split between a handling pilot and another who can manage the wider plot.

R1a - I was quoting Trim Stab :ok:

[Tourist]

No, it was twin pilot for pinging too, and for exactly the same reason.

Yes, it can easily be flown single pilot plus a manual throttle person in VFR, but at between 200ft and 40ft IMC it is very nice to have a second pair of eyes looking at the radalt, especially when the magic box of transition magic is not the most reliable of simplex clockwork ever invented.

"They are after all painfully slow VFR machines"

I do start to wonder if Trim Stab is actually a grown up.

Seaking used to hold the helicopter speed record, and with Carson fit is not too shabby now.
It is also specifically designed as an all weather, not VFR, helicopter, and does it extremely well.

Incidentally, I would be interested to know what he considers a "more demanding" helicopter that is flown single pilot?

[pasptoo]

They are after all painfully slow VFR machines

T-S :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

If you consider 151kts and ILS/VOR/DME/Tacan/ADF fitted as painfully slow and VFR, then I must be a monkey's uncle. Ask New York Centre if the are happy to accept Slow VFR traffic !

Ok, not RAF or RN but still a Sea King.

You could try a bit of research before abusing the Queen of the Skies.

Pas.

ps: Double Manual, Stab Out, Aux Out, Stby AI - give it a try (probably best in the Sim though!) :E

[Fareastdriver]

Must be very similar to the Sycamore. (Just joking).

[airborne_artist]

Sycamore on here flew the yellow ones for a while. He also taught me on FW EFT. No prizes for guessing which posting gave him the fewer palpitations :ok:

[Biggus]

Trim,

You start off by saying.."I don't want to start a willy-waiving constest", but that is almost exactly what you have a track record of doing!

You seem to make a habit of dropping into these military forums, making a less than complimentary comment about military aircrew, and then disappearing when your points are countered by other posters.......

I suggest you spend some time flying with a SAR flight, rather than just watching a TV programme about it, before you can consider yourself qualified to decide how "demanding" their job is!




Exactly which of the Air France crew was ex-military again - you never did answer that one?

By the way, you can't spell contest! :ok:

[[email protected]]

The other obvious point about having 2 pilots is that sometimes you have to hover left side on to the obstacles/deck etc to get the job done and the LHS pilot sometimes has the best references.

One other difference between Mk 5 and 3/3A is the RN LHS pilots don't have access to the nav kit (CDNU) - this is in the back with the observer whereas the Mk 3/3A have the CDNU (RNAV on 3A) in the cockpit. On the 3A, the RNAV can drive the aircraft around search patterns and nav routes as the SN500 FPC has autopilot modes and a dual channel ASE. Radar waypoints can be sent forward from the Radop to the RNAV saving a lot of time when search planning and allowing a cross-check between co-pilot and Radop when plotting grids and lat/longs.

The SN500 FPC is vastly superior to the Mk 31 FCS and doesn't have any nasty failure modes that try to fly you into the sea; instead, the performance monitors and the duplex ASE do a pretty sterling job along with the extra facilities (rad alt on manouevre below 1000 ft being one of the best).

The RN allegedly pulled out of a plan to put SN500 in all Sea Kings because they knew they were getting the Merlin.

[Tallsar]

Crab. The plan was to fit 500s to all RAF SKs.... And I and certain moustachioed officer from the MoD SK desk maneouvred it to be so. We tried to persuade the RN to do likewise... Certainly with the long term SK fleet, and although the SKIPT was initially septical, it became a safety and cost of ownership thing. So it was going to happen. You know as well as I how often the Mk 31 unservceabilities can ground the beast.
It died when the money ran out, and when the investment appraisal post SAR-H concept phase, said it wasn't worth it.

As for that Trim Stab chap..... Must look up in AP3456 where it says there is a direct relationship between speed, and the complexity and demands of operating an aircraft type... Oh but then I remember... There isn't one!!:ugh::E

T-S... Disengenious you maybe, but having had a go flying 53 types (although some for not very long) in my flying career, I can assure you that operating/flying a SK in bad weather, either low level IMC over water or on NVG in a gale in the Highlands (maybe in an unforeseen snow storm), is as good as it gets for producing the adrenalin and demanding the highest professionalism from the crew. Airspeed has norhing to do with it. Having guys like Crab around doesn't help either.. They are so good at failing the stab and pulling speed selects back... Thrills and potential spills a minute when so close
to the almost invisible briney....:eek:

[tucumseh]

dervish

What was the rationale behind retaining the small scanner in the 3A?

The larger RN radome and scanner, which would have halved the blind arc, was in the original spec approved by MoD(PE). The large scanners for the new Mk3As were sitting in store, brand new, awaiting call forward whenever Westland needed them. Also, the cost of building the 3As with the large radome was slightly less, because it represented the latest build standard.

Mk3 retrofit was also planned, and again the scanners were in place. The cost of changing the radome was about £25k per cab (which would have led to the commonality and efficiency you mentioned).

But the RAF insisted on the more expensive, less capable design.

This extended to the entire radar, because the Mk3A has a hybrid Lightweight Radar / Super Searcher. That is, a mixture of mid-60s and late-80s technology. The RAF spent so much maintaining LWR that the investment appraisal showed a complete Super Searcher fit was more economical. I believe the support costs were in the order of eight times higher. Again, they decided to stick with the expensive, less capable option.

Rationale? Irrational more like.

[Tallsar]

So where was the SK IPTL in all this then, Tucum? :ooh::uhoh::confused:

[sargs]

Tuc

The larger RN radome and scanner, which would have halved the blind arc

With respect, this doesn't make sense. The only way to halve the blind arc would be to halve, in size, the object blocking the beam (i.e. the Main Rotor GearBox). On the other hand, doubling the size of the antenna (whilst keeping the RF the same) would halve the beam WIDTH, thus improving the azimuth resolution.

I'm off out for a bit to get a life......:8

[tucumseh]

Tallsar

IPT would have been formed in about 1999. This was early 90s. Mk3A production phase kicked off in early 94 (memory fades) but the proposed spec had been going round the bazaars for a couple of years. At the time, the avionic offices were quite separate from the aircraft office, so the aircraft project manager circulated it to those project offices who would be providing his kit. At the time, he was a very experienced RN officer with an impeccable radar background and knew what the RAF actually needed.

The obvious question, given the RAF's reliance on a support system that had been rundown when the RN got rid of the same radar (fitted to HAS Mk2) was - Why not upgrade? For example, had the Mk3/3A received Sea Searcher, the entire support infrastructure was there, and very little kit would have had to be procured as the RN had a surplus. Similarly, you could go one step further and fit Super Searcher, a development of Sea Searcher, for little extra cost (taking into account the huge savings through not having to support LWR). Bear in mind that the RAF had inherited all the RN's LWR, but despite a pool of 180 radars couldn't keep 19 Mk3s fitted. On one day in 1990, not a single Mk3 had a serviceable radar, with about 110 complete systems sitting at Fleetlands awaiting final test - each one being "No Fault Found". That ratio is ludicrous - 36 should have been enough. The cost was astronomical, making the investment appraisal a no brainer.

The main difference between Mk3 and 3A was the new ACDU (display) and RSPU (processor). Other LRUs, like TxRx and AEC were retained. The scanner looks similar, but I believe the motor/gearbox was upgraded to something like 60rpm. The point I made was it remained small.

Sargs - The RN scanner is much wider and "peeks" round the superstructure in front of it. Someone who knows the detail will correct me, but I think the arcs are about 28 and 14 degrees. Helps with things like Track While Scan, which the RN had specified for HAS, but removed - which caused much head scratching as the radar still had a "TWS" switch, but no wiring behind it. >> scores of 760s "TWS doesn't work". (Again, cheaper to have a better capability!).


Hope I got this right. Old and in the way now.

[Trim Stab]

Thanks - some enlightening replies duly elicited!

So why is RN Lynx single-pilot then?

[jamesdevice]

were the Sea King LWR sets new builds or were they recovered ones from the Wessex HAS3?

[tucumseh]

jamesdevice

The RAF made a separate buy of LWR for Mk3 (around 35 sets).

The LWR Requirement Spec (RRE 5712) did not really address SAR. The requirement was to detect a Wessex, fitted with an enhancement transponder, at 20nm. As the Mk3 was delivered in 77, fitting LWR was perfectly reasonable, but many found it odd the RAF didn't upgrade between 82 and 85 (Mk2 > Mk5 conversion) with the RN, especially as they relied on the RN for all support. Over the years, expectations rose and you'd often get complaints that it couldn't detect something much smaller, on the sea, at 40nm (more akin to the RN spec for Mk5). It was an education for users to discover what the contracted limitations were. MoD(PE) spent a lot of time rejecting MF760s because there was no fault, but a natural limitation of the design. This was one reason PE suggested the upgrade for Mk3A and Mk3 retrofit.

[pasptoo]

why is the RN Lynx single pilot?

Because it only has two seats and the navigator/observer needs to sit some where? :E

Totally different role to that of the SKASW. Like the SKAEW and SKCDO are single pilot because they are flow in a different role environment.

pas.

[alfred_the_great]

jamesdevice - but Grey Lynx can't fly with just one in the front. Whoever's in the LHS (Obs or Instructor Pilot) has to operate equipment during take off/landing.

[Trim Stab]

Totally different role to that of the SKASW. Like the SKAEW and SKCDO are single pilot because they are flow in a different role environment.


The roles of RN Lynx & Merlin are not that different from SKASW surely? All of the arguments above justifying two pilots for SKASW could arguably apply to RN Lynx & Merlin too.

And I'm fairly certain every SKCDO I've ever been in had two up front - so if only one pilot who was the other chap?

[Big Toe]

The Lhs in Lynx and Merlin may be occupied on t/o but there's nothing they HAVE to operate then. I saw plenty of Lynx solos when I was flying it.

[Tourist]

Sometimes I despair.

No, the lynx does not operate like an asw sk. Very different profiles for various reasons including kit and single pilot operation. Very limited night/imc in comparison to sk6, and even then may be the highest workload single pilot helicopter.

[cobaltfrog]

Trim Stab

Just accept that the SK4 CDO is designated as a single pilot aircraft. The reason you probably saw it with two aircrew could be many reasons from currency to training to keeping a crewman upto speed with manual throttles!!

PS - It was great to fly single pilot - especially with a Light Gun underneath!!

[Trim Stab]

No, the lynx does not operate like an asw sk. Very different profiles for various reasons including kit and single pilot operation. Very limited night/imc in comparison to sk6, and even then may be the highest workload single pilot helicopter.


Tourist - so why is Merlin SP? Is that less night/IMC capable than SK?

I'd have thought Merlin would be harder to fly SP than SK - more performance, heavier, faster? Presumably engine-management on Merlin is easier though? Avionics also presumably more user-friendly? Do these advantages offset workload enough to allow it to be operated SP?

No need to get desperate - genuine questions.

[Spanish Waltzer]

Trim,

There's a mighty difference between being designated a single pilot aircraft and actually flown as one on mil ops. The SK4 is/was rarely flown single pilot on ops in recent years in order to share workload & handling when necessary.

Similarly the Merlin is generally flown twin pilot. There'll always be exceptions and no doubt there will now be a plethora of posts telling me so :ugh:

SW

[diginagain]

Thanks to the gash way the Lynx was designed, it's helpful to have either a third hand, or a spare bod in the other seat to match the torques. It's also helpful if he's an idea which way to twist the knob on the end of the SSL. It's undoubtably fun to fly it solo, but wtf were they thinking of?

[Spanish Waltzer]

one.....;)

[Tourist]

Trim Stab

"I'd have thought Merlin would be harder to fly SP than SK - more performance, heavier, faster"

That really is not the way helicopters work.

More performance = generally easier not harder
Heavier = more stable
Faster = well its all relative, but helicopters are all slow. 110kts or 160kts whats the difference?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

it's helpful to have either a third hand


Don't know about hands, but some of the locals around Valley have a second head...

[airborne_artist]

If faster = more difficult, how did tyro pilots manage the Gazelle?

The answer is quite well in most cases. We'll draw a veil over my rather poor early attempts at EOLs :}

[jamesdevice]

conversation approx 1976, in Westland Sports Club following a rugby game. Much drink on board.
Me to member of flight test team:
"How come the Lynx only needs one pilot?"
Answer
"Cos the ****ing autopilot actually works on that. Mind you if it fails you'll crash..."

[high spirits]

Tourist
Agree with most, but not your statement that more performance=easier.

In my experience, more performance = army load more kit on until you have none left.

Also, greater weight range such as wokka, full fuel at 15.5 tonnes, MAUM 22.7 to 24.5 tonnes, catches you out sometimes in terms of lulling you into a false sense of security....

Just an opinion.

[Tourist]

High Spirits

No argument there, I was trying to simplify things for the hard of thinking.

[[email protected]]

"Cos the ****ing autopilot actually works on that. Mind you if it fails you'll crash..."however, the Blue Eagles display manoeuvres are flown with only the yaw channel engaged to maximise the responsiveness of the rotor system in pitch and roll.