Talk:Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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.

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)

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 those 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)

File:BuNo147141.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:BuNo147141.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 6 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Past and Current

We should break up the operators list to current and past users. Anyone know who is currently use the SH-3? Jetijonez (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be helpful. That has been done in other aircraft articles. --Dreddmoto (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the current consensus is not to seperate the current and former users as it is a list of all operators. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't have to mean separating them into different parts of the article. It could be done like the Operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Operators section of the Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion article. --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected CH-53 as this article is the more usual format not the other way around. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

MilborneOne do you mean that is the way it is done in most wiki aircraft articles? Why? --Dreddmoto (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the users involved and part of the WP:AIRCRAFT project decided that was best, as an encyclopedia current and former is not that relevant compared with a full list of those that had operated it. If you want raise it again then you are welcome to raise it on the project talk page for discussion. Note that not all articles are the same as it takes time with volunteers to get around to aligning them all to the same standard. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MilborneOne thanks for the explanation and link. That's new to me, as well as helpful. --Dreddmoto (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

H-3

As User:BilCat lives in partly retirement, he seems to prefer to discuss the issue here: he reversed my edit from SH-3 to H-3 with argueing: "it's the primary version historically, and the purpose for which it was designed". Well, with the H-2 Seasprite article, the argument was used just the other way round: the SH-2 was the main version. However, the Seasprite was designed as a utility helicopter and later converted to an anti-submarine helicopter, whereas with the Sea King it was the other way round. I think, to avoid confusion at to stick to the logic of the U.S. tri-service designation system, the main overall designation is H-3, H-2, H-43 or H-53. Any prefix is a sub-version. Cobatfor (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost all, if not all, of the WP articles on post-1962-designated helicopters use the primary role designation of the helicopters in the article title, infobox and Lead, even when there are other role designations in use. This is the case for all the types you mentioned. In the SH-2's case, it was still the primary version, as almost all of the still-existing HH-2s and UH-2s were converted to SH-2s. In most of the print aviation works I've looked at, both SH-2 and SH-3 are usually used in the entries' titles, if only one role is used. If you want to propose changing all the US military helicopter articles to use only type designation, that's probably best discusses at WT:AIR. You mightmay well get a consensus to do that. thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I second User:BilCat's position - FOX 52 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understand your argument, of course. However, the US designation system is difficult in it's own. Take the CH-3 versions: essentially a different aircraft (like the F9F/F-9 Panther/Cougar), but still an H-3. Although, HH-3A and HH-3E/F are different types of aircraft. And there are F"B"-111s which should be BF-111s and F/A-18s which should only exist as F, AF or FA-18s. I still think that the only and logic correct designation is "H-3", no matter if the main versions were "S", "C", "U" or other subtypes. Take the H-60: The main naval version was the SH-60B/F but it is now supplanted by the MH-60S/R. I would differ the articles by "Sikorsky H-60 Seahawk" and "Sikorsky H-60 Blackhawk". Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Westland Sea King photographs

Currently in the Operators section of this article, there is a photograph of a Royal Air Force Westland Sea King. Considering that there is a separate article for those variants built in the UK, I suggest moving that photograph there and deleting it from this article.

The same could be done with the image of a Royal Navy Westland Sea King AEW.2A, currently with the section 4.4 Westland. --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

As the variant is discussed here then we can have an image related to the variants section but it doesnt need both, suggest remove the one from the operators sections as that doesnt cover Westland. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks for the reply. --Dreddmoto (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the photograph of a Royal Air Force Westland Sea King and replacing it with an image showing a Sea King of one of the listed operators in this article. For example, a Spanish helicopter. --Dreddmoto (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have had a shuffle around of images. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

MilborneOne, that section looks much better now. Thanks. --Dreddmoto (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Operators

The Operators section doesn't mention many variants. A few are written in photograph captions there. How about writing all variants used next to each operator, current and former? Dreddmoto (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Something that has been done on other aircraft pages it just needs a reliable reference, an example would be "Foo Air Force - 3 x SH-3Z" or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Apart from references, not all the operators are accompanied by mentions of which variants they used. That's currently the case with Canada, India and Venezuela. Apart from that, the Operators section looks good. Thanks. --Dreddmoto (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

First amphibious helicopter

I have removed the part about it being the first amphibious helicopter. First, it's not true, as you can see by reading Amphibious helicopter and Vought-Sikorsky VS-300. Second, per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article, and there is nothing in the article about this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

So my guess is this may have been the first helicopter with an amphibious hull, previous amphibious helicopters having been fitted with floats. We could add that in if we can find a source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)