Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Retired Vikings Work As Security Guards
   Next Article → ELECTRONIC WEAPONS: The Radar Is Ready But The Operator Is Not
February 18, 2009: The recent retirement of the U.S. Navy's S-3 "Viking" anti-submarine aircraft was interrupted when it was realized that four of these S-3s could be used to replace P-3 and C-130 aircraft used to patrol the Pacific missile test range in Hawaii. This instrumented (it's got lots of sensors to monitor what happens when weapons are launched) is in Hawaii, and contains 109,000 square kilometers of airspace that has to be patrolled, before a test, to make sure no ships have wandered into the area. The jet propelled S-3, which normally operates on carriers, is faster than the propeller driven P-3s and C-130s that have long done the patrol work.

Better yet, Three years ago, the navy took advantage of new, lightweight, search radars and targeting pods and began equipping S-3 aircraft with Lantirn targeting pods. This was in an effort to extend the life of the S-3s, as reconnaissance aircraft. 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, enables 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 carried Harpoon anti-ship missiles, in case the ship below is hostile.

For patrolling the missile test range, missiles are not needed. But the Lantrin comes in very handy, as the ships most likely to stray into the area are smaller ones, often pleasure craft. The S-3 radar and sensors can spot these small craft, while moving along at high speed and high altitude.  Four S-3Bs will be assigned to the Pacific missile test range, while the rest will go to the "boneyard" for storage and, eventually, disassembly for parts and scrap.

Next Article → ELECTRONIC WEAPONS: The Radar Is Ready But The Operator Is Not
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
firefly       2/18/2009 6:14:21 PM
  I still feel the NAVY is counting unhatched eggs by doing away with the S-3's. With Putin on a high horse for restoreing Russia's Navy etc. and China building up their's the fleet STILL NEEDS long range, rapid detection elements and helicopters just DON'T fill the bill.  Also with the verious splitter groups who knows what they will purchase or be provided with.  Now instead of one advisary who knows how many we have to face.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Agreed   2/18/2009 7:57:27 PM
Retiring the longest range carrier plane without replacement was rather stupid to be blunt about it.  There are about a dozen missions the S-3 does much better than any remaining aircraft and all at much longer range.  It's nearly inexplicable- especially given the recent USN renewed emphasis on asw.
 
At some point  Congress is going to notice that USN carriers that once operated 2 Fighter sqdn, 2 light attack sqdn, 1 med attack sqdn, 1 patrol sqdn, with detachments of tankers, recon, elint, etc., now operate with 4 sdqn of what used to be called the light attack sdqns when the F/A-18 was just an A-7 replacement.  At that point Congress might ask why the Navy is building large carriers with medium sized air wings that could easily fit on a much smaller carrier.
 
The instituional knowledge lost by retiring all these aircraft types without replacement is a serious loss to the nation and the USN.
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    On the character of larger carriers   2/21/2009 1:02:58 AM

At some point  Congress is going to notice that USN carriers that once operated 2 Fighter sqdn, 2 light attack sqdn, 1 med attack sqdn, 1 patrol sqdn, with detachments of tankers, recon, elint, etc., now operate with 4 sdqn of what used to be called the light attack sdqns when the F/A-18 was just an A-7 replacement.  At that point Congress might ask why the Navy is building large carriers with medium sized air wings that could easily fit on a much smaller carrier.


It's doubful that the contemptible Congresscritters will ever question the construction and deployment of very large (Nimitz and post-Nimitz follow-on) carriers, and it's for reasons more than just inertia and congressional-district pork distributions.  These very large aircraft carriers are designed to be more survivable in combat, as well as more capable of operating large aviation complements.  Those "medium sized air wings" presently deployed on the CVN Nimitz classes can readily be augmented, and this would not be possible if subsequent carrier-building programs were centered upon smaller hulls. 
On the retirement of the S-3 being a Major Bad Idea, I'm entirely with you.  The temptation to reduce the complements of operating Carrier Air Wings to a minimum of airframe type is sensible, in that it reduces the multiplicity of spare parts that must be stocked aboard and sharply mitigates the workload to be shouldered by airedale maintenance personnel, and for long deployments these are assuredly desiderata.
 
I would think that maintaining the entire S-3 fleet as shore-based assets would be most useful, with the personnel of these squadrons maintaining carrier qualification and keeping "ready packages" of their support equipment and stores available in U.S. bases so that a Nimitz requiring S-3 support can quickly take aboard the men and materiel needed to augment its air wing with a detachment of these aircraft.
 
There are things that neither the F/A-18 nor the Navy's helicopters can do, and foreclosing robust, cost-effective, and well-developed operational options such as those provided by the S-3 seems damned foolish to me.
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/21/2009 6:08:08 AM
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/lockheed_martin/p-3/np3dx.jpg" width="300" height="197" alt="" />

the missile range orions are a bit different from normal orions.  not sure the author has got all his facts correct re the vikings doing replacement work...
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/21/2009 6:14:14 AM

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/lockheed_martin/p-3/np3dx.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="197" />




the missile range orions are a bit different from normal orions.  not sure the author has got all his facts correct re the vikings doing replacement work...
Beat me to it.http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

badbob       2/26/2009 9:31:08 PM
I ain't a nitpicker and I like the idea you noticed the US Navy';s continued use of the S-3B, but you have several real Delta Sierras in the article. Allow me to amplify:
 
First off, they aren't a replacement for any billboard P-3's depicted in the photos, but of course that is only a small piece of the gaining squadron's mission. They need the Viking and that is why NAVAIR is operating them. Capable, available and cost effective- a real no-brainer.  Fleet Naval Aviation on the other hand, "Sundowned" the VS community for business reasons and with the assumption of a bunch of additional risk. But we all know that, right?
 
50Km range? From a radar that puts out several hundred KW?  Cmon.fellers....
 
10 hour sortie? .In an S-3B?  LOL. Sure, with inflight refueling. Actually, an honest 5-8, depending on fuel loadout.  That would be about max. But of course, that's a long flight by anyone's standards. Persistent buggers them Vikings.
 
LANTIRN @ 2 mil a pop? That's what it cost the F-14 community in '99 for the entire 75 plus it bought with everything including NRE. Hint- The S-3 boys got the pods for free!
 
Along with HARPOON you mentioned, don't forget the SLAM ER and IR/Laser Maverick! Even better weapons.
 
re-  "....eventually, disassembly for parts and scrap."  Ouch. That hurts. Dontcha think an aircraft with only about 50% of it's structural service life used up would make a fine FMS or other government activity aircraft. Check around. NASA Glenn has several to do Icing research. Wait and see about others. A lot of primo jets sitting in a high state of preservation just itching to get back out there.
 
Gotta go. The Viking lives on! Glad you noticed.
 
 b2
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply