Sea Kings back to Westlands
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out in the big bad world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea Kings back to Westlands
The mighty Sea King is destined to go on and on (and on).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4417185.stm
The RN have 5 Squadrons and the RAF have a number (apologies for not knowing exact number) of SAR aircraft - does that add up to the quoted 102? Will there be a roll out of mothballed Mk6s to be hollowed out and painted green as a quick fix for the tired Puma?
At any rate, will Westlands re-open the Sea King line to cope with the 60 contracts? So many questions!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4417185.stm
The RN have 5 Squadrons and the RAF have a number (apologies for not knowing exact number) of SAR aircraft - does that add up to the quoted 102? Will there be a roll out of mothballed Mk6s to be hollowed out and painted green as a quick fix for the tired Puma?
At any rate, will Westlands re-open the Sea King line to cope with the 60 contracts? So many questions!
Suspicion breeds confidence
How long can these beasts go on for? I remember taking a ride on a jungly in 1981 (!) when it was brand spanking new. They can't fly for ever - or can they?
With excellent tender loving care...new parts...why not? The HM Forces should look at what Carson is doing with the old girls in the firefighting business.....and what Erickson is doing with the old S-64.....and Columbia does with the 107 and 234's....but that will require thinking....particularly of the kind "outside" the box. That is not the longsuit of the British MOD especially in the folks that buy things.
They can go on for a long, long time. I think that the world fleet leader has around 34,000 hours on it, whereas our highest hours airframe is only about 13,000 or thereabouts.
Just about every bit of a Sea King can be replaced, so it's my guess that you could run them on for another thirty years or more if you kept throwing money at them.
Just about every bit of a Sea King can be replaced, so it's my guess that you could run them on for another thirty years or more if you kept throwing money at them.
102 is about right, what with Mk 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (and the odd Mk1 and a half).
You can gut a Mk 5 or 6 so it can carry, more or less, a Mk4’s load, but it can never be a Mk4. No VOR/ILS, NVG or self protection for a start, and it’s a different airframe altogether.
I imagine the report refers to SKIOS (SK Integrated Operational Support or similar). First mooted in late 1985, so a contract now sounds about right. Wonder if the notional savings take into account job losses at Fleetlands/DARA, 2nd Line, 4th Line, Sea King IPT etc; and the immediate effect on front line if something goes wrong and there’s no contract cover to fix it. The saving grace, as always, is that WHL are extremely flexible and will work at risk, especially if they are prime – a trait that has served MoD well and hauled them out of the mire many many times.
The (60) contracts refer to support contracts with different vendors. In most cases these must remain, but in the form of sub-contracts from the SKIOS contractor. Effectively, the SKIPT support areas (Commercial/Finance/Supply) are being privatised. I wish Westland well, but the time taken from concept to contract award makes me think their contract will have been difficult to negotiate, which usually means the MoD are carrying high risk.
You can gut a Mk 5 or 6 so it can carry, more or less, a Mk4’s load, but it can never be a Mk4. No VOR/ILS, NVG or self protection for a start, and it’s a different airframe altogether.
I imagine the report refers to SKIOS (SK Integrated Operational Support or similar). First mooted in late 1985, so a contract now sounds about right. Wonder if the notional savings take into account job losses at Fleetlands/DARA, 2nd Line, 4th Line, Sea King IPT etc; and the immediate effect on front line if something goes wrong and there’s no contract cover to fix it. The saving grace, as always, is that WHL are extremely flexible and will work at risk, especially if they are prime – a trait that has served MoD well and hauled them out of the mire many many times.
The (60) contracts refer to support contracts with different vendors. In most cases these must remain, but in the form of sub-contracts from the SKIOS contractor. Effectively, the SKIPT support areas (Commercial/Finance/Supply) are being privatised. I wish Westland well, but the time taken from concept to contract award makes me think their contract will have been difficult to negotiate, which usually means the MoD are carrying high risk.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somerset
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, SKIOS. Place one contract with Westlands, who will subcontract the work previously contracted direct by MoD, and add a fat mark up. A step in the PFI direction, more political than practical is the view of many in MoD.
As for DARA - Buffy has announced that Depth maintenance (non-deployable, ie most 2nd + 3rd/4th line in old speak) will be done at DARA - so WHL has to subcontract back to MoD! Irrespective of whether DARA has the capacity or capability. So, with SKIOS "transferring risk to industry", who really takes the risk?
As for DARA - Buffy has announced that Depth maintenance (non-deployable, ie most 2nd + 3rd/4th line in old speak) will be done at DARA - so WHL has to subcontract back to MoD! Irrespective of whether DARA has the capacity or capability. So, with SKIOS "transferring risk to industry", who really takes the risk?
1981 (!) when it was brand spanking new
tucumseh,
Sheer curiosity, what is the difference that you mention with the airframes?
The media is in a feeding frenzy Down Here about the age of the RAN Sea Kings, following the fatal crash earlier this week. All sorts of ill informed speculation revolving around the "30 year old" aircraft, and comparisons with driving 30 year old Volvo's
Composite Main Rotor Blades for the 61
One of the improvments made to the S-61 by Carson Helicopters
A 2,000 lb. increase in lift
15 Knots faster at reduced power settings
Twice the service life (10,000 hours to 20,000 hours) with reduced maintenance and operating costs
A 15% increase in range, from 400 to 460 Nautical Miles
Certified by the F.A.A.
Manufactured by DuCommun AeroStructures, Inc, a company that produces blades for the U.S. Army Apache Helicopter and Bell Helicopters.
http://www.carsonhelicopters.com/composite_blades.htm
A 2,000 lb. increase in lift
15 Knots faster at reduced power settings
Twice the service life (10,000 hours to 20,000 hours) with reduced maintenance and operating costs
A 15% increase in range, from 400 to 460 Nautical Miles
Certified by the F.A.A.
Manufactured by DuCommun AeroStructures, Inc, a company that produces blades for the U.S. Army Apache Helicopter and Bell Helicopters.
http://www.carsonhelicopters.com/composite_blades.htm
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two or (more?) ex ASW platforms from Culdrose now currently residing at Yeovilton painted green....
They have their landing gear 'fixed' like the HC-4 but have kept the sponsons of their previous guise.
More to follow i think...........
They have their landing gear 'fixed' like the HC-4 but have kept the sponsons of their previous guise.
More to follow i think...........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You can gut a Mk 5 or 6 so it can carry, more or less, a Mk4’s load, but it can never be a Mk4. No VOR/ILS, NVG or self protection for a start, and it’s a different airframe altogether. "
I have to point out that losing VOR/DME ILS is hardly a great loss to the RN's OC considering that the 4's are the only SK's with it, and thats only because they were never intended for the RN.
( the Jungly's ability to use IF kit is another thing entirely! I believe that their SOP upon entering cloud is to call a PAN?)
It is also perfectly possible to NVG them up as has been done to the 5's at Gannet and 771.
I have to point out that losing VOR/DME ILS is hardly a great loss to the RN's OC considering that the 4's are the only SK's with it, and thats only because they were never intended for the RN.
( the Jungly's ability to use IF kit is another thing entirely! I believe that their SOP upon entering cloud is to call a PAN?)
It is also perfectly possible to NVG them up as has been done to the 5's at Gannet and 771.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The media is in a feeding frenzy Down Here about the age of the RAN Sea Kings, following the fatal crash earlier this week. All sorts of ill informed speculation revolving around the "30 year old" aircraft, and comparisons with driving 30 year old Volvo's
John (hope you are well..)
Obvious things like sponsons/undercarriage have been mentioned. Different Fuel tank layout. Nose bay layout to facilitate role changes. Kitchen (Mk4 practically uses it as an avionics bay). General routing of wiring. It’s a different generation of SK and very few mods can be read across to/from any other Mk, which doubles the cost of introduction and design incorporation into a mixed fleet carrying out the same role. Only the Mk4 has its own drawing set – the rest are shared due to commonality. i.e. changes to say, a Mk 5/6/7, are by annotation to the original Mk1 drawings. There may be many structural similarities, but the real cost lies elsewhere. Of course, the major components are common.
Tourist
Don’t disagree you can issue and use NVG but to do it properly (safely) involves infinitely more cost to upgrade instruments and lighting, and addressing the likes of chromaticity balance. Otherwise, the MoD carry the risk. RN SKs use lots of visual cues, as opposed to audio, and only the Mk 4 won’t bloom NVG when indicating incoming comms traffic, for example. I’m sure a pilot could explain it better. A real issue is that, now WHL are responsible for all support, what do you think the status of Naval Service Mods will be? I imagine the Mk5s you mention have NVG by NSM, whereas the Mk4 is DA Mod’d. WHL won’t touch NSMs unless it’s something like IFF; where they don’t demand removal for trials, but will only grant switch-on clearance. Quite right too.
I don’t wish to be negative, only to raise issues which have in the past been almost insurmountable and which must have been difficult to negotiate contractually. This dilutes the original aims; when you do that political dogma seems to take over to ensure e.g. SKIOS, will happen, come what may. Someone mentioned PFI. Not quite, but it’s the same dogma.
Obvious things like sponsons/undercarriage have been mentioned. Different Fuel tank layout. Nose bay layout to facilitate role changes. Kitchen (Mk4 practically uses it as an avionics bay). General routing of wiring. It’s a different generation of SK and very few mods can be read across to/from any other Mk, which doubles the cost of introduction and design incorporation into a mixed fleet carrying out the same role. Only the Mk4 has its own drawing set – the rest are shared due to commonality. i.e. changes to say, a Mk 5/6/7, are by annotation to the original Mk1 drawings. There may be many structural similarities, but the real cost lies elsewhere. Of course, the major components are common.
Tourist
Don’t disagree you can issue and use NVG but to do it properly (safely) involves infinitely more cost to upgrade instruments and lighting, and addressing the likes of chromaticity balance. Otherwise, the MoD carry the risk. RN SKs use lots of visual cues, as opposed to audio, and only the Mk 4 won’t bloom NVG when indicating incoming comms traffic, for example. I’m sure a pilot could explain it better. A real issue is that, now WHL are responsible for all support, what do you think the status of Naval Service Mods will be? I imagine the Mk5s you mention have NVG by NSM, whereas the Mk4 is DA Mod’d. WHL won’t touch NSMs unless it’s something like IFF; where they don’t demand removal for trials, but will only grant switch-on clearance. Quite right too.
I don’t wish to be negative, only to raise issues which have in the past been almost insurmountable and which must have been difficult to negotiate contractually. This dilutes the original aims; when you do that political dogma seems to take over to ensure e.g. SKIOS, will happen, come what may. Someone mentioned PFI. Not quite, but it’s the same dogma.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Out in the big bad world
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
The Jungly Mk6 conversions are fully spammed up NVG aircraft, and, with a few extra switches added, by all acounts, just as good as the Mk4 on for NVG use.
Tourist
I think a few of the Master Greens on the Jungly circuit may disagree with your IF statement, but I'm with you - I try to avoid the bloody stuff!!
The Jungly Mk6 conversions are fully spammed up NVG aircraft, and, with a few extra switches added, by all acounts, just as good as the Mk4 on for NVG use.
Tourist
I think a few of the Master Greens on the Jungly circuit may disagree with your IF statement, but I'm with you - I try to avoid the bloody stuff!!
Just a numbered other
Master Greens???
I held a 'blue' instrument rating card.
Hold it up to the sky. If sky same colour, fly.
If not, uckers
How is frame 290 these days?
I held a 'blue' instrument rating card.
Hold it up to the sky. If sky same colour, fly.
If not, uckers
How is frame 290 these days?
