NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

S-3 Replaced By Helicopters

February 2, 2009: The U.S. Navy is replacing the elderly S-3 anti-submarine aircraft on its carriers, with more helicopters. Until recently, a carrier had one squadron of MH-60 helicopters. Now it will carry two (initially, 19 choppers, instead of 12). Formerly, the MH-60 was used mainly for moving people and supplies around, as well as search and rescue. But now, the MH-60s will be equipped for anti-submarine, attack (against land or naval targets) and special operations (including anti-piracy duties.)

Three years ago, the navy hoped to take advantage of new, lightweight, search radars and targeting pods and began equipping S-3  aircraft with Lantirn targeting pods. The S-3 was originally designed as an anti-submarine aircraft, and served in that capacity from its introduction in the mid 1970s, to the late 1990s. The end of the Cold War ended most of the submarine threat, and since 1999, the S-3 has served as a patrol aircraft, and aerial tanker. But it was hoped that a reequipped S-3, with the long range (ten hours per sortie), day/night video capability of the Lantirn, and lightweight search radar, would make it a much more effective maritime patrol aircraft. The Lantirn pod costs two million dollars, and is hung off a hard point like a bomb or fuel tank.

The search radar, that can spot ships fifty or more kilometers away, enable an S-3 to quickly scan a huge chunk of ocean in a few hours. But the key element here is the targeting pod, which eliminates the need to fly down low to visually confirm what the ship (that is easily spotted by the radar) is. With the targeting pod, you can stay high (20,000 feet) and far away (over twenty kilometers) and still get a close look. The S-3 can also carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles, in case the ship below is hostile.

The S-3's advantage is that it can operate from an aircraft carrier, enabling a carrier to quickly establish a detailed picture of what ships are moving in the vicinity (meaning anything several hundred kilometers from the carrier). While the upgraded S-3s proved effective, the aircraft themselves are too old to keep it up, and there is no money to by new ones, or a replacement. In the next decade, the S-3 will be retired, and replaced (for patrol and taker duties) by F-18F aircraft. The space that the S-3 took on board, will be devoted to more MH-60s.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article COLOMBIA: The Revolution Turns Into A Nightmare


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

LB    Pathetic   2/2/2009 3:30:54 PM
It's ridiculous that the USN keeps replacing long range carrier aircraft with shorter range replacements.  F-14 by F-18/E/F, A-6 by F-18, and now the S-3 with F-18E/F and MH-60 Helos.  Moreover, the ASW mission is essential and one which the USN recently made a priority again.  The nation spends a very considerable amount of money on USN carrier battle groups and yet year after year the range and loiter time of the embarked aircraft is reduced.
 
Once upon a time carrier air wings had medium all weather strike aircraft, long range interceptors, dedicated tanker, asw, and recon aircraft.  All of those are now gone and replaced by shorter range aircraft or not replaced at all.  The F-18 originally was a replacement for the A-7 in the light attack role.  It, and the F-18E/F have now replaced the F-14, A-6, KA-6, S-3, ES-3, and other recon platforms and often bring less capability with far less range and loiter time.
 
Frankly given the lack of air opposition an aircraft with the same or longer range of the S-3 makes a lot more sense than more F-18's.  The ASW, tanker, recon, electronic recon, and other essential missions do not go away just because there is no dedicated aircraft.  It's all rather pathetic.

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Navy delays for UCAS   2/2/2009 4:42:55 PM
and to ride out BHO.
 
He is going to gut defense. 
 
You play fiscal defense like the 1930s and hope a Carl Vinson pops up.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       2/2/2009 6:17:59 PM
Just because the Cold War ended does not mean that submarines are no longer a threat to CBGs.  The Soviets may be gone, but the new emerging enemy is China, and in the near future will have a capable submarine force. Why would you replace the S-3 with the MH-60, when the Viking has a faster time to target, longer loitering time, better avionics systems, and a larger weapons load? If an enemy submarine is located near a CBG by ASW assets, you want an aircraft that can get to the target quickly, before the sub has a chance to break contact and get away, or close to missile or torpedo range. The MH-60 is good for short hops, but does it have the speed to intercept longer range contacts effectively?
 
Also Herald, will the UCAV have any anti-submarine capabilities, or will it mainly be used for strike/patrol/recon missions?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid       2/2/2009 6:40:38 PM
Actually Herald is pretty much spot on when it comes to budget matters right now. It doesn't matter what the USN needs/wants or for that matter any service (barring potentially the USMC which always has a lot of pull congressionally). Obama's administration is shaping up to be another "peace dividend" type where hes going to gut the defense budget. He's already talking about the DOD giving up $55 billion of its budget, don't be surprised if he demands more. Never gonna hear his administration ask for other services in the country take a similar cut to their budgets either I bet.
 
The best the USN can do is hunker down and protect its critical programs. Namely the new carrier builds, its JSF naval program, and its primary sub contstruction (both boomers and SSNs). After that it needs to protect its personel budget or which always eats up an extremely large chunk of the money they have available.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Whatever money the DoN can scrape up....   2/2/2009 7:07:44 PM
Also Herald, will the UCAV have any anti-submarine capabilities, or will it mainly be used for strike/patrol/recon missions?
 
Watch what Boeing/Bell Helicopter does with its diskrotor craft concept and what Australia and the UK do ASW wise with USVs over the next couple of years.
 
Herald.
 
Quote    Reply

firefly       2/2/2009 7:36:00 PM
  This sounds like we're setting ourselves up for another "Pear Harbor" type incident.  Seems we have MORE to fear then we used too and with that sub of China's surfacing inside the destoryer screen last year I think we need a NEW sub hunter/pirate seeker aircraft AND an even better helicopter then the MH-60. We seem to be going BACKWARDS.  As has been said, planes are faster, fly higher, carry more armament, can fly in weather the helicopter will have to remain on deck durring and much more. Yes, it may take less time to get a copper airbore BUT!!!  Being on deck in bad weather is no fun and when would an enemy probably attack?  After our sister charter boat (possibly) snagged a sub on its deep sea fishing lines, back in 69, while the U.S. Navy searched for it (a sub) I STILL feel we (the Navy) needs both. That was outside Pearl but the carrier group needs PROTECTION at a distance.
 
Quote    Reply

Ezekiel       2/3/2009 2:36:03 AM

It's ridiculous that the USN keeps replacing long range carrier aircraft with shorter range replacements.  F-14 by F-18/E/F, A-6 by F-18, and now the S-3 with F-18E/F and MH-60 Helos.  Moreover, the ASW mission is essential and one which the USN recently made a priority again.  The nation spends a very considerable amount of money on USN carrier battle groups and yet year after year the range and loiter time of the embarked aircraft is reduced.

 

Once upon a time carrier air wings had medium all weather strike aircraft, long range interceptors, dedicated tanker, asw, and recon aircraft.  All of those are now gone and replaced by shorter range aircraft or not replaced at all.  The F-18 originally was a replacement for the A-7 in the light attack role.  It, and the F-18E/F have now replaced the F-14, A-6, KA-6, S-3, ES-3, and other recon platforms and often bring less capability with far less range and loiter time.


 

Frankly given the lack of air opposition an aircraft with the same or longer range of the S-3 makes a lot more sense than more F-18's.  The ASW, tanker, recon, electronic recon, and other essential missions do not go away just because there is no dedicated aircraft.  It's all rather pathetic.





Its a bit scary...and then when one considers the pictures last year on yahoo of chinese submarines tracking a US carrier group, it puts this problem into perspective.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/27/2009 8:20:32 PM
Well, let's start with some facts.
#1 The open source ranges for the F-14 and the F-18E/F aren't all that different. Hi-lo-lo-hi strike missions: F-14 380nm, F-18E/F 390nm.

#2 The S-3, while a great plane for its time, isn't all that. Can it hover and use a dipping sonar? Which platform is best suited for the threats of today? The MH-60 series, hands down. Look, we're not transiting the Atlantic looking for relatively noisy SSGNs. We're going to have to enter the littorals and kill SSKs laying in wait. The platform I want to do that, if my life is at stake (and it is) is the MH-60. The S-3 is simply built for a different time and a different threat.

#3 The article about Viking Work As Security Guards, talks about the advantages of the LANTIRN pod, one of which is to keep the S-3 at altitude. If you're going to keep the aircraft at altitude, where the S-3's advantages aren't as apparent, you might as well go with a pointy nose aircraft that can swoop in and kill what it finds quickly and with less potential for loss.

#4 The S-3 as a tanker was a bit over-rated. Mainly because of its "give" at altitudes and speeds useful to the strikers and fighters. 

Now, if we start talking about a SV-22, you might get my interest... 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    F-14D range vs F-18E/F   2/28/2009 1:42:02 AM
This was originally from Flight Journal Magazine Feb 2002 by Bob Kress and RADM Gilchrist USN (Ret):
 
F-14D with 4 2,000 LGB, 2 Phoenix, 2 Sidewinder, 675 rounds 20mm, and 2 280 gallon tanks had an un refueled radius of at least 500 statue miles vs F-18E/F of 350 statue miles carrying half the bomb load. 
 
It's also worth noting the F-18 is rather slow and the F model carries even less fuel than the E and a smaller centerline tank and it's range have never been officially released as far as I am aware.
 
In other words I contest your "facts"- what is the citation?
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       3/1/2009 9:48:16 AM
Try any of the open-source websites, Global Security, FAS.org, the US Navy fact file, etc. 

I'm sure the F-14 could carry that load, I do question the range (also remember when you talk ranges you have to talk altitudes). I also question the utility of such a load. The F-14 couldn't bring back 6 Phoenix missiles to the carrier's deck and they weighed ~1000lbs each. I can't imagine that it could bring back almost twice that weight, given the load you describe.

I won't even get into how poor the AWG-9 radar was over land. Hell, they used to have to have Hornets fly with them overland for protection.

The Turkey was good at what it was designed to do. Kill Russian bombers over the Atlantic and Pacific. The SuperBug's radar is superior for A2G work. And the new AESA radar the SuperBug mounts is better than the APG-71 the D models carried. The SuperBug is just better for the threats of today. 
 
Quote    Reply

ens. jack    maintenance   3/1/2009 10:57:56 AM
One thing none of you has mentioned at all is maintenance. The original reason for retiring the tomcats was their maintenance, usually 15 man hours pr hour of flight time versus a hornet with 5 man hours to the flight hour. Eliminating some of the older more specialized classes and replacing them with newer, more versatile classes also cuts down maintenance.
 
As for helos versus vikings, I say stop using both. replace the sh-60 with a larger helicopter, more like a british merlin, higher payload, higher range, but still a vtol type aircraft. or develop specialized hunter groups of sh-60s. One seeker working with one or more gun toting birds. with the most recent lamps upgades, you could easily relay targeting info from one helo to another.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy