Talk:SH-3 Sea King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject Rotorcraft task force

Contents 1 Canadian Sea Kings 2 Is this really an S-61 Page! 3 Westland Sea King Merge 4 Title question

[edit] Canadian Sea Kings

This seems a little biased :)

Perhapse it would be better if a history of the political intrigue behind the Sea King's replacement was given instead. - stewacide

Woah, is it realy necessary to have a song lyrics on this page? The page should be about the Sea King and its uses around the world. The government of canada's reluctance to replace their's is realy of no conciquence.

The replacement of the Sea Kings has been an ongoing political and military issue in Canada for more than ten years, to the point that the words 'Sea King' have become a standard joke for television comedians. It's simply not possible to cover Canada's present-day use of the Sea King meaningfully without discussing the replacement issues. David Arthur 19:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The info on the "Canadian experience" is excessive. It should have a page of it's own. This page should just provide general info about the H-3 worldwide. The same goes for the EH101 article.--Aardvark114 28 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really an S-61 Page!

This is one of many pages in Wikipedia that describes aircraft under the DoD designation. We then have stupid statements like 'H-3 Variants' when they should be S-61 variants. And chicken and egg statements like S-61 Company designation for the H-3 Sea King which should be the other way round. This main page should use the design designation 'Sikorsky S-61. Any Comment? MilborneOne 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. :)

Agree, should change spage to Sikorsky S-61! Tolivero 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to create an article on the civil S-61 variants, then that would be fine. Sikorsky S-61 would be the best page for it. But the H-3 is a legitimate military version; it should stay here. Take a look at the Sikorsky S-70 and the UH-60 Black Hawk pages for comparison and ideas. --BillCJ 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to make the point that a H-3 is just a military designation for the S-61, but dont think we should split this article. The introduction does make this clear. MilborneOne 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I disagree: These articles primarily focus on the military versions. There is virtually no mention of application of the S-61 as a civilian aircraft. So, it is actually about the H-3 and its military siblings. But what about 'life after retirement'. I have spent the last 8 years working with retired H-3s. Converting them to Search & Rescue vehicles, Fire Fighters, Loggers, Transports for oil platforms,and for heavy lift opertations - installing airconditioning and communications gear on top of skyscrapers.

I have also worked with the Canadians in getting parts for their aging fleet. The major part of their maintenance expense is that they require new factory certified parts. They will not use any American Military equipment, and Sikorsky will only do production runs on large quantities of each part. So they make them pay for it. The Sikorsky H-3 parts production line has been virtually non-existant for about 15 years. Surprise - better than 60% of the S-61 parts don't work on an H-3. Westland went one better, only about 15% of the parts are interchangeable between the Sea King and the Commando, which is largely metric.

[edit] Westland Sea King Merge

Personally I don't see much reason, and if anything the Westland page should be merged into this article, not the other way around. PPGMD 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the merge template, there's no need to merge one or the other article. --Denniss 01:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title question

Shouldn't this be H-3, not just SH-3? If there was only one variant, sure, but SH-3 is just one of many variants here. Can someone explain why we named the article for a variant rather than the base aircraft designation? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was last named H-3 Sea King, and has jumped back and forth a few times. After I split off the S-61R and S-61L/N pages afew months ago, I refocused the Lead to primarily cover ASW, which is the Sea King's "reason for existance", and thus the primary model, not just a variant. This is because the major models covered here are now the ASW variants, with the minor ones primarily being the naval HH, UH, and VH modles, and their Japanese and Italian license-built equivelants. THat's my reasoning anyway. the two UH-60 and SH-60 pages are named that for similar reasons, even thos both pages cover several wide variants. In time, the SH-60 page may even become the MH-60, as those are now becoming the primary models. - BillCJ 18:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation...sounds as reasonable as you can get for such a complicated mess! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the SH-3(H during my service) was certainly a capable ASW platform, ask anyone in a Helo squadron what the first bird in the air is and the last one to land is--it's a Helo. The first aircraft off the deck at the begining of flight ops was the SH-3 for the purpose of flying "plane guard" or for SAR (Search & Rescue). Those fixed winged planes can be replaced but the pilot and training takes a bit longer. I know I spent 4 years in HS-7 and put in time on 3 different carriers. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkt37211 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for you observations, but I'm not sure of your point, or it's relevance to the post topic. The original Sea King was designed for ASW operations, other roles performed notwithstanding. That was my point. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)