By: Adrian_44 - 23rd April 2006 at 07:02
RE: French S-3 Tankers?
Well, the French Navy already operate the E-2 Hawkeye. Which, is a very heavy aircraft. Does anyone have the loaded weight of a S-3 while operating as a Tanker vs a Fully loaded E-2 Hawkeye?
The French Navy does not want another American aircraft. The amount of life left on the airframe is not great, would most likely need a service life extention program. The S-3 having engines and other spare parts not used by the French Navy, so there would be a logistics problem also.
All weighs are lose approximations;
CH-46 MTOW -24,300 lbs
CH-53 MTOW -69,750 lbs
E-2C MTOW -57,000 lbs
F-35 MTOW -50,000 lbs
S-3 MTOW -52,500 lbs
OV-22 MTOW -60,500 lbs
Any carrier which can handle an E-2, will most likely be able to handle an OV-22 “AEW” variant also! This would give the small carriers airborne early warning. While the C.DeGaulle carrier could handle these aircraft I am not sure about the Prince DeAuturas or Garribaldi. The USN’s LHD’s can handle all of these aircraft except the S-3.
Adrian
By: Sancho Pancho - 11th April 2006 at 22:00
Cost alone (maintenance, crew) makes it unfeasible. If the $$ was available to the Aeronavale, they would probably spend it on a 4th and 5th E-2C, rather than on some old S-3’s for tanking. RAFALE can tank, a la F-18E, and in most future ops CdG’s air group will probably rely on land-based KC’s, much like the USN does today.
BTW, the deck could easily handle S-3 ops, specially after the CDG waist had to be extended to make E-2 ops safe.
By: Ventose - 11th April 2006 at 02:42
Why the US navy put away the S-3
to old ? to many hours ?
By: mpa - 21st March 2006 at 11:35
Considering the age of the Alizes, the low hours of some of the S-3s available, & (apparently) the low price, it seems a good time to revive that thought.
Yes, but french naval aviation priority is to buy expensive Rafales and NH-90 and to try to replace the old Nord 262E and Alouette III. Sadly, I don’t think the FNA has any funds to buy the low price S-3 and keep them airworthy … 🙁
By: swerve - 20th March 2006 at 09:45
The french navy thought about buying S-3 in the tanker role but also in the maritime survey role to replace Alizes 4 years ago.
As usual, the main problem was: MONEY
Considering the age of the Alizes, the low hours of some of the S-3s available, & (apparently) the low price, it seems a good time to revive that thought.
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th March 2006 at 00:39
A C-2 would be a better option although I don’t know if it could fulfill an air2air refuel role ?
The Viking could operate in both roles. It would also be in the interest of the US to supply them. Even if the price was free! Of course service and parts would be another story………………….
By: Super Nimrod - 19th March 2006 at 16:37
A C-2 would be a better option although I don’t know if it could fulfill an air2air refuel role ?
By: Nicolas10 - 19th March 2006 at 14:52
It would be great to be able to buy a few of them though. Their capacities would be very welcome, even in other roles than the tanker role.
Nic
By: mpa - 19th March 2006 at 11:50
The french navy thought about buying S-3 in the tanker role but also in the maritime survey role to replace Alizes 4 years ago.
As usual, the main problem was: MONEY
By: Nicolas10 - 18th March 2006 at 22:07
Rafales being able to work as tankers is a great capacity for missions where you can’t freely benefit of real tankers (dangerous area or something). Then tankers can fly along the strikers with the same flight profile until the refueling… and maybe a secondary bvr capacity just in case.
Nic
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th March 2006 at 01:17
You have a good memory mate, I did indeed join the Hoover shooters club, got a ride in a VS-35 truck the same time I was on board USS Constellation when I jumped the deck in a Turkey as well. Flew in of a dog (greyhound), did a flight in the Turkey (F-14), then flew home in the Hover (Viking).
Be careful Ja I think you are showing your age? 😮 Small world I had a cousin that served on the “Connie”. 😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th March 2006 at 00:59
Scooter, Not sure, they were long gone by the time i got there. I did talk to my father who was on the Coral Sea 6 years (71-74 and 80-83) and did say the had no problem getting a warrior into the hanger after the tail was folded. Im not sure about the midway. There were several differences between the two. cs had 3 cats we had 2 , we had a bigger angel deck and some other stuff.
Well, the Skywarrior is a big aircraft. So, more than likely it would only go below decks for maintenance…… :rolleyes:
By: glitter - 14th March 2006 at 07:58
Using Rafales as Tankers is criminal…….. 😮
Three times more fuel than the Super Etendart 😉
http://www.ecpad.fr/ecpa/Pagestat/galeries/galactu/galactu24_03/page36.htm
By: Ja Worsley - 14th March 2006 at 07:06
Ja- Didn’t you get a ride on a USN S-3 back in your Navy Days?
You have a good memory mate, I did indeed join the Hoover shooters club, got a ride in a VS-35 truck the same time I was on board USS Constellation when I jumped the deck in a Turkey as well. Flew in of a dog (greyhound), did a flight in the Turkey (F-14), then flew home in the Hover (Viking).
By: DRCV41 - 14th March 2006 at 01:44
Scooter, Not sure, they were long gone by the time i got there. I did talk to my father who was on the Coral Sea 6 years (71-74 and 80-83) and did say the had no problem getting a warrior into the hanger after the tail was folded. Im not sure about the midway. There were several differences between the two. cs had 3 cats we had 2 , we had a bigger angel deck and some other stuff.
By: Arabella-Cox - 14th March 2006 at 00:59
v-1 div, aviaton boatswainmate, plane handler. your right they flew aboard and then turned around but on occasion (and that was a rare one) they spent the night. If they spent the night we would park the behind the island.
I remember seeing pictures of US Carriers with Skywarrior Tankers always parked on the deck near the island. I wonder if they were to big to park below deck???
By: hawkdriver05 - 14th March 2006 at 00:54
Just seems that the CdG’s deck is very small and the S-3s would have a very large “footprint” if operated by her. As for the COD role……Wouldn’t a C-2 be a better option….if the US Navy was willing to part with one. Or maybe new production………if the Brits get a carrier with cats an arrestor gear they could split the buy…..
By: DRCV41 - 13th March 2006 at 23:37
v-1 div, aviaton boatswainmate, plane handler. your right they flew aboard and then turned around but on occasion (and that was a rare one) they spent the night. If they spent the night we would park the behind the island.
By: Puffadder - 13th March 2006 at 05:45
While the S-3 may not be ideal? Using Rafales as Tankers is criminal…….. 😮
Hi Scooter
that’s what I meant- the S3 is a good solution and the Rafale is not a good solution.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th March 2006 at 01:26
DRCV41: So you were on that carrier were you? Doing what mate? As for the Miss Piggies, being COD’s why would you need to store them in the hanger? a typical COD mission is fly out, drop off cargo and supplies, fly back with returns, usual turn around time for a COD mission is between 3 hours to 8 hours depending on where the carrier is and how busy the pattern is (Ships aircraft always get presidence over incoming “Visitors”.
Its my understanding most COD Missions return to base. Even so they could be left on deck for short periods.
Ja- Didn’t you get a ride on a USN S-3 back in your Navy Days? :rolleyes:
Sign In
March 11, 2006 at 2:54 am