The Phasing out of the S-3 Viking – A good or bad thing?

Its my understanding that many of USN S-3 still have many flight hours left. Seem like France could use a small number for tankers to support there Rafale Strikers…………………… :rolleyes:

Not a bad idea.. if the CdG can operate them… :rolleyes:
________
Buy Mflb

It is a bad thing for aviation enthusiasts because a unique looking bird will disappear from the skies.
Back in the seventies it was even considered as a replacement for the German Breguet Atlantics:

As far as I know HAF and Hellenic Navy have been interested about the perspective of acquiring a number of S-3 as replacement of the P-3Bs among other solutions…

The S-3s lost the ASW role (and their enlisted aircrew) in 1999. The AAR mission, which is really to top up jets having difficulty landing, will transfer to the Super Hornet. The S-3s in the Gulf are primarily doing surface and overland surveillance using primarily FLIR, a mission which can be accomplished by all other fixed wing assets in an Air Wing.

I understand that NASA also have a couple of ‘Hoovers’ for trial purposes at present (?).

DE

Scooter, what about S3 tankers on the CDG to support Rafales? do you heard recently about this idea? or is it dead…?

The S-3 Viking is a far more complex aircraft than the old S-2 Tracker.

Despite negligable acquistion cost, the operating costs of a S-3 would hardly be less than a regional airliner.

Agree, but how many regional airliners are there that have an MPA variant with a weapons bay and a similar ASW/EW suite AND that could fit into a hardened shelter?

Its my understanding that many of USN S-3 still have many flight hours left. Seem like France could use a small number for tankers to support there Rafale Strikers…………………… :rolleyes:

How usefull would used S-3 Vikings be in a land-based MPA role? There are some non-mission related advantages. Being smaller and having folding wings, they’ld be easier to protect than larger planes like P-3 Orion, which can’t roll into the type of concrete shelter often designed for a fighter/bomber aircraft. Mission-wise, would they be too small and short-legged compared to their bigger counterparts. I recall a lot of smaller nations adopting ex-USN Tracker aircraft for MPA.

The S-3 Viking is a far more complex aircraft than the old S-2 Tracker.

Despite negligable acquistion cost, the operating costs of a S-3 would hardly be less than a regional airliner.

It is a bad thing for aviation enthusiasts because a unique looking bird will disappear from the skies.
Back in the seventies it was even considered as a replacement for the German Breguet Atlantics:

What is replacing the S-3?

Nothing unless you tack on yet another trivial mission on the SH

I think it’s just an error of the slow administration. USSR breaks down, takes a while for them to react and get rid of the planes (although it is indeed more economic to first use them as tankers), not seeing the necessity of new ones as the main threat was gone. Now, Russia started building again, China too… It will take a while to replace them. Horror can’t do it.

There is a plan to use the S-3 as firefighters.

The Horror ….

What is replacing the S-3?

There is a plan to use the S-3 as firefighters.

How usefull would used S-3 Vikings be in a land-based MPA role? There are some non-mission related advantages. Being smaller and having folding wings, they’ld be easier to protect than larger planes like P-3 Orion, which can’t roll into the type of concrete shelter often designed for a fighter/bomber aircraft. Mission-wise, would they be too small and short-legged compared to their bigger counterparts. I recall a lot of smaller nations adopting ex-USN Tracker aircraft for MPA.

ASW isnt going to rely on numbers of aircraft laying down sonobouy lines in the water as much going forward. With the threat environment now being the opponents littoral (not an easy environment for a plodding Viking potentially!) and with new technology like the Advanced Deployable System, SURTASS-LFA and high-endurance surveillance UUV’s there are smarter ways of dealing with discrete SSK’s than with a carrier borne fixed-wing sub hunter.

Ignoring that aspect a lot of the S-3’s value was in surface target recon/force protection identifying radar targets to reduce threats from potential terrorist vessels and for forward deployed peacetime maritime patrol ops. Even these missions now could be done by a UAV platform like Scan Eagle or Global Hawk much more cheaply and with greatly reduced risk.

Provided they phase in these new network-enabled UUV and UAV systems in keeping with the drawdown of the Vikings it probably (and regrettably) makes sense!.

The Phasing out of the S-3 Viking – A good or bad thing?

At a time when the US Navy is phasing out its capable and effective carrier-based Lockheed S-3 Viking ASW aircraft. I find it very odd when one considers that since there are more navy’s today equipped with state of the art diesel-electric (SSK) submarines, and the on going development of nuclear-attack submarines (SSN) by more ambitious navy’s this seem very odd.
These state-of–the-art SSK & SSN’s also come with the latest advanced long-range submarine-launched anti-shipping missiles & torpedoes, which add another disadvantage to the helicopter-based ASW asset
For not even the latest SH-60B/F have the range, loitering time or reaction time to the stand-off threat, as that of the S-3 Viking.
Added to this is the US Navy’s phasing out of the ASROC ASW rocket from its surface ship inventory, without a replacement.
Has the US Navy already forgotten its hard earned lessons of WWII?

What do you think?

Regards
Pioneer

S-3 hasn’t done ASW for a number of years now. They are used as tankers and utility aircraft.

Daniel