Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lockheed S-3 Viking  
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Derden - Spot This!



Suppose for a moment that the US Navy determined there was a need for a new, dedicated, fixed-wing ASW aircraft. If Lockheed-Martin were to simply upgrade the S-3 with modern weapons and avionics, could the resulting aircraft be at all improved upon, or would it be 100% perfection?

I wonder, because everything I read about the aircraft suggests that it was the perfect tool for the job. Disregarding cost and politics, did it in fact have any shortcomings, or was it truly that good?

2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3962 times:

It is not a comfy aircraft to fly in, especially if you are tall?

Some of the airframes are just old... The S-3 is from the same point in time as the F-14. I do think the US Navy needs a fixed-wing, carrier-based ASW component. Perhaps not a dedicated platform, but a multirole solution similar to the US Navy's LAMPS platform of the 70's and 80's.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

I think it is really dumb move to retire the S-3s and move all Navy ASW to the SH-60s, fixed wing aircraft can cover a much larger area and faster. Why not develop a new fixed wing ASW aircraft based on existing E-2 or C-2 platforms, it would provide savings in pilot training (one less type) as well as maintenance costs.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3926 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
If Lockheed-Martin were to simply upgrade the S-3 with modern weapons and avionics, could the resulting aircraft be at all improved upon, or would it be 100% perfection?

Modern, economical engines could do wonders, but the Vikings simply had too much punishment already for a reengining effort to pay off. If new-builds with new engines could be had, those modern weapons and avionics (including the latest sensor suites) would make for a killer, carrier-launched ASW platform. However, the Navy seems to have totally given the ASW function to future land-based Poseidons, complemented by helos and UAVs, linking with the BAMS network.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3917 times:



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 3):
However, the Navy seems to have totally given the ASW function to future land-based Poseidons, complemented by helos and UAVs, linking with the BAMS network.

So the helos are just for fleet protection from opposition submarines? And the land based birds will cover the rest of the world's oceans? O.K. in theory that might work, but as has been mentioned before, there's the issue of range. Wouldn't you want your defensive circle around the fleet to be as far beyond the fleet as practical? Or has the Navy come to the conclusion that submarines are only a minor threat?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3869 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 4):
Or has the Navy come to the conclusion that submarines are only a minor threat?

The Chinese already tried to give the Navy a lesson in that

Sad that every 50-100 years we have to re-learn every lesson of modern war. Everything from Submarines to fighters with built-in internal guns.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3858 times:



Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 5):
The Chinese already tried to give the Navy a lesson in that

And I'm sure numerous heads rolled for that little "lesson."



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3853 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting N74JW (Reply 1):
Some of the airframes are just old...

I wasn't suggesting that the old airframes be refurbished....I was suggesting that new airframes be built.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 3):
If new-builds with new engines could be had, those modern weapons and avionics (including the latest sensor suites) would make for a killer, carrier-launched ASW platform.

Exactly. But even with the current engines, could anything else...new or existing...do the job more effectively?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Why not develop a new fixed wing ASW aircraft based on existing E-2 or C-2 platforms, it would provide savings in pilot training (one less type) as well as maintenance costs.

Interesting. Would this be a feasible option, or would a new-build S-3 offer capabilities that would make a C-2/E-2 based ASW aircraft a less-effective option?

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3816 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Why not develop a new fixed wing ASW aircraft based on existing E-2 or C-2 platforms,

Right off the top of my head: Speed, Range, Endurance, and Crew Fatigue come to mind. Hummers are significantly lacking in all but the last (ask the "moles" how the "hummer" got that name).  sigh 

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 4):
Wouldn't you want your defensive circle around the fleet to be as far beyond the fleet as practical?

Yes, but how far. The larger the circle, the more difficult the detection/prosecution. Ask a sub-driver and he'll tell you... when trying to "get" a surface ship, you would be surprised how often I stick something "up." The sub _wants_ to get close... _needs_ to get close. Longer ranges require someone/something else to help with the targeting, and that someone/something else will become a "target." It is a trade-off and the current point USN has decided to make the trade is the helo's max range.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 7):
could anything else...new or existing...do the job more effectively?

Of course a new platform "should" be more effective (new avionics, new airframe, new engines, etc.). OTOH, the Hoovers were the best of their era. Exceptional airframe with a good system (IF the ship provided the required support).



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3764 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
I think it is really dumb move to retire the S-3s and move all Navy ASW to the SH-60s, fixed wing aircraft can cover a much larger area and faster.

I'm pretty sure if the Navy had the money to either reopen the S-3 line and develop a new version or start from scratch they would have.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Why not develop a new fixed wing ASW aircraft based on existing E-2 or C-2 platforms, it would provide savings in pilot training (one less type) as well as maintenance costs.

Given the size of the E-2/C-2 you would not be able to have as many frames as you would with the S-3. Then there's the development costs for such a system. I see what you are saying but it would be more economical to update the S-3.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3708 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
Suppose for a moment that the US Navy determined there was a need for a new, dedicated, fixed-wing ASW aircraft.

Know the current US Navy, I suspect they would call on the Chuck Norris of Naval Aircraft the F-18F and build a subhunter on that airframe.

Quoting 2H4 (Thread starter):
I wonder, because everything I read about the aircraft suggests that it was the perfect tool for the job.

Agree with that.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3607 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 8):
Hummers are significantly lacking in all but the last (ask the "moles" how the "hummer" got that name).

I'm guessing low frequency noise combined with a bit of vibration makes for a worn out NFO.  Wink


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3576 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
Know the current US Navy, I suspect they would call on the Chuck Norris of Naval Aircraft the F-18F and build a subhunter on that airframe.

The Hornet does posess a killer roundhouse kick.....

There's only one more unit sitting at NAS Jax, they're about to go out on the boat for the final time, then after that, no more runway-vacuuming services provided.

I have to admit, it is funny seeing a Hornet tow a buddy store...who'da thought. 15 yrs ago the A-7's, A-6, KA-6D' and S-3 all had the ability to move the gas.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3566 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 11):
I'm guessing low frequency noise combined with a bit of vibration makes for a worn out NFO.

And pilots. At least we could sit "level." Poor NFO's were always rubbing their left cheek. blush 

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
15 yrs ago the A-7's, A-6, KA-6D' and S-3 all had the ability to move the gas.

True, but who were they giving it to?  drool 



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3455 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13):
True, but who were they giving it to?

Each other right?  Wink. Or the guzzling Phantoms.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3411 times:



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 14):
Or the guzzling Phantoms.

Phantoms were all but gone in 1980's with only Midway & Coral Sea having them early in the decade. Big-E's CO "forced" our airwing into continuous Flex-Deck ops (eventually we named it "Battle-Flex-Deck") for only one purpose.... how to get more gas to the not-yet-in-our-airwing.... Hornets.  hissyfit 



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3385 times:



Quoting N74JW (Reply 1):
Some of the airframes are just old... The S-3 is from the same point in time as the F-14. I do think the US Navy needs a fixed-wing, carrier-based ASW component. Perhaps not a dedicated platform, but a multirole solution similar to the US Navy's LAMPS platform of the 70's and 80's.

I thought the new F-18G's were suppose to replace the A-6's and the S-3's?


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3355 times:



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 16):
I thought the new F-18G's were suppose to replace the A-6's and the S-3's?

The F-18G is meant to replace the EA-6B. Personally I would have liked to have seen the EA-6 line reopened. Composite wings, F404 engines, FBW flight controls etc, oh well.


User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3326 times:



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 16):
I thought the new F-18G's were suppose to replace the A-6's and the S-3's?

It is looking that way, but a multi-role platform that can perform multiple missions, while based on a single airframe is valuable on a carrier's flight deck.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3311 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 17):
The F-18G is meant to replace the EA-6B. Personally I would have liked to have seen the EA-6 line reopened. Composite wings, F404 engines, FBW flight controls etc, oh well.

Adding improved avionics and the F404s would have made a huge difference. For the life of me I can't see a two place airplane doing the job the EA-6B does. Yes, the EF-111A is supposed to have done it, but the system in that airplane was largely automatic and now the EF-111A is gone. I suppose there's something to be said for the four man crew on the EA-6B; that added human element adds something to the airplane's capabilities in a combat situation.

Air Force regretted retiring its F-4G Phantom II Wild Weasels after Desert Storm; apparently the F-16 Weasel is good but not as good as the F-4G was.

As for the EF-18G being a sub hunter, I think that's asking too much of even the remarkable Super Hornet.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineCactusHP From United States of America, joined May 2004, 348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3267 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 19):
As for the EF-18G being a sub hunter, I think that's asking too much of even the remarkable Super Hornet.

Possibly. But with the EA-18 with jamming pods etc., a new F-18G (or whatever the name would be) ASW would replace the S-3 nicely with MAD pods etc. and carry torpedoes on the wings.



Sorry, I was on the landline
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3253 times:

If I had to bet on a ASW replacement it would have to be some type of UAV. Pre-programed flight paths , buoy dropping and MAD signals could all be done remotely I would assume. The UAV could stay linked to strike elements or have strike capability itself.

I was also thinking maybe the V-22 could operate the role ? Would not need a gun for that !



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3227 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 21):
If I had to bet on a ASW replacement it would have to be some type of UAV. Pre-programed flight paths , buoy dropping and MAD signals could all be done remotely I would assume. The UAV could stay linked to strike elements or have strike capability itself.

I was also thinking maybe the V-22 could operate the role ? Would not need a gun for that !

I think that would be the perfect solution, a UAV that has the capability to dump a ton of buoy's, supports a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), armed with Mk48/50 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. It would have to loiter for a long time over a search area and send back signals to either a Destroyer or Carrier.

The V-22 sounds like a good idea, but where can you put the weapons unless you build an internal bay.

Something needs to be done, the Navy is ignoring the real threat posed by the proliferation of quiet diesel submarines.

Finally Congress stepped up with increased funding so Virginia Class sub production can go to two per year in 2010, two years earlier than planned. The rapid retirement of Los Angeles class subs is bringing the attack sub fleet way too low, it should be no less than 50 attack subs. Ideally the total fleet of attack subs including the three Seawolf Class Subs would be between 55-60. Absolutely no fewer than 50!

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...14.artnov14,0,4085102.story?page=1

Then there's the closure of NAS Brunswick Maine and the disbanded of all Reserve P-3 Squadrons, which is brining the size of the P-3 fleet too low. The new P-8s will be an improvement, but again the fleet size will be an issue. There should be atleast 150 P-8s, including atleast 4-7 Reserve Squadrons.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3215 times:



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 16):
I thought the new F-18G's were suppose to replace the A-6's

The A-6's have been gone for a while, the F/A-18D replaced those.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 22):
The V-22 sounds like a good idea, but where can you put the weapons unless you build an internal bay.

Actually it sounds like a great idea.

You would just need to add a couple of hardpoints to the cabin sides.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCactusHP From United States of America, joined May 2004, 348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3198 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
You would just need to add a couple of hardpoints to the cabin sides.

I don't know. The flaps on the wings might be a problem with carrying longer weapons (like harpoon etc). Also since the wings fold, the weapons might not be able to be loaded until ready for takeoff (which might be a problem). If these problems could be worked around, having the V-22 has a ASW/ASUW platform does sound like a great idea, at least to me anyways. I still think that a modified EA-18 for ASW would be best for the job.



Sorry, I was on the landline
25 Post contains links AGM100 : Looks like they may be working on a SV-22 variant of the Osprey. I guess it just makes sense to explore it. If the US Navy is buying the V-22 what els
26 CactusHP : Possibly. A Navalizied V-22, if done correctly and without too much problems (cough Marine Corps V-22) would be an excellent ASW/multi role platform
27 STT757 : If done right an SV-22 could replace both the S-3 and the SH-60, it would offer benefits the benefits of each platform (S-3, SH-60) combined into one
28 747400sp : That's not a bad ideal, see that E-2/C-2 both use T-56 the same engine that P-3 and older C-130 use. Part would not be hard to get. But on the other
29 Deskflier : What are we protecting here? The carrier? Or the entire Task Force? What the authors of previous entries seems to have overlooked, is that a helicopt
30 CactusHP : The speed advantage. A jet (or osprey whatever) can cover much larger distances faster, and with greater efficiency. Nothing a regular helicopter lik
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Lockheed S-3 Viking
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lockheed EC-121D Warning Star posted Mon Jul 9 2007 01:10:17 by DEVILFISH
Lockheed Martin To Build Mach 6 Aircarft posted Mon Jun 11 2007 22:51:51 by 474218
Rivals Muscle In On Lockheed's Cargo Plane posted Thu May 3 2007 22:42:04 by Srbmod
Lockheed Tanker posted Tue Jan 2 2007 18:37:50 by SEPilot
Lockheed Martin Delivers 2300th C-130 posted Mon Dec 18 2006 06:27:08 by DEVILFISH
Lockheed Martin Studies Lunar Lander Design posted Wed Oct 11 2006 15:30:47 by AerospaceFan
Lockheed Gets Contract For Orion posted Thu Aug 31 2006 22:25:54 by JBirdAV8r
Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless posted Wed Aug 16 2006 14:44:55 by RAPCON
Details Emerge On Lockheed Polecat UAV posted Wed Jul 19 2006 14:56:33 by RichardPrice
Lockheed Skunk Works posted Wed Mar 29 2006 10:20:14 by AislepathLight
Details Emerge On Lockheed Polecat UAV posted Wed Jul 19 2006 14:56:33 by RichardPrice

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format