MigBuster 2,884 Posted January 16, 2016 After more than 40 years of service the last pair of S-3B Vikings took off for the last time from the runway at Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, California, on Jan. 11. http://theaviationist.com/2016/01/14/u-s-navy-bids-farewell-to-the-s-3-viking/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Nightshade/PR 7,994 Posted January 16, 2016 I know age and technology eventually catches up with every airframe, but I've always had a soft spot for the Viking. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 16, 2016 I know age and technology eventually catches up with every airframe, but I've always had a soft spot for the Viking. Tell that to the B-52! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viggen 644 Posted January 17, 2016 Navy should have held on to the Viking. Humble aircraft could have continued in the tanker role and had a modernized ASW suite. Revive the Shadow too. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsawan 624 Posted January 17, 2016 whats replaci ng it? drones or the f-18? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snailman 517 Posted January 17, 2016 What the... ?? Everything will be done by F-18 F-35??? It will end up towing trailers and passenger capsules... spray tank... and of course a plow, too On an anti-sub plane what can go obsolete? Electronics...? upgrade it and go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsawan 624 Posted January 17, 2016 Well some glim er of hope, wiki says South Korea may be getting some for their service and naval analysts want viking back in service due to Chinese anti-ship missiles. Chances are by 2019, the vikings return. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking Potential interest[edit]In October 2013, South Korea's Republic of Korea Navy expressed an interest in acquiring up to 18 ex-USN S-3s to augment their current fleet of 16 Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft.[14] In August 2015, a military program review group approved a proposal to incorporate 12 mothballed S-3s to perform ASW duties; the Viking plan will be sent to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration for further assessment before final approval by the national defense system committee. Although the planes are old, being in storage kept them serviceable and using them is a cheaper way to fulfill short-range airborne ASW capabilities left after the retirement of the S-2 Tracker than buying newer aircraft.[15] Refurbished S-3s could be returned to use by 2019.[12]In April 2014, Lockheed Martin announced that they would offer refurbished and remanufactured S-3s, dubbed the C-3, as a replacement for the Northrop Grumman C-2A Greyhound for Carrier onboard delivery. The requirement for 35 aircraft would be met from the 91 S-3s currently in storage.[16] In February 2015, the Navy announced that the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey had been selected to replace the C-2 for the COD mission.[17] Naval analysts have suggested returning the stored S-3s to service with the U.S. Navy to fill gaps it left in the carrier air wing when it was retired. This is in response to the realization that the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy is producing new weapons that can threaten carriers beyond the range their aircraft can strike them. Against the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35C Lightning IIs have about half the unrefueled strike range, so bringing the S-3 back to aerial tanking duties would extend their range against it, as well as free up more Super Hornets that were forced to fill the role. Against submarines armed with anti-ship cruise missiles like the Klub and YJ-18, the S-3 would restore area coverage for ASW duties. Bringing the S-3 out of retirement could at least be a stop-gap measure to increase the survivability and capabilities of aircraft carriers until new aircraft can be developed for such purposes.[13] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snailman 517 Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Ahh, so it's not that bad. However I still don't see the meaning why to develop new stuff to replace stuff that is already good for the role - development again will cost billions and the gain would be minimal. Fighter planes are different, but such role-specific planes are not in the need of tech-race. Greyhound is better than V-22 in cheaper and more simple construction (and range) if it's about transport - maybe that would be a choice if they make an anti-sub V-22 unsure however, if it worth the effort. S-3 as tanker, I though they are doing it already... or KA-6s are still around? Or they will do K/A/F-18 buddy-refueling like russian Su-24Ms?? Sorry guys, just a bit frustrated - I, we, were grown up on Final countdown and Flight of the intruder I feel the loss of the childhood warm feeling.. no US carrier can exist without Tomcat or Intruder... no. not without Viking and of course the Seaking. Now they dump everything for "super" Hornet and the small, single engine, brutally expensive, not-even-VTOL F-35C... Gross. Edited January 17, 2016 by Snailman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dsawan 624 Posted January 17, 2016 yep, grw up around the carrier groups of the late 70's/early 80's and wish it would continue that way but....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
