S-3 Viking reborn?

[melmothtw]

IHS Jane's reporting out of Korea....


ADEX 2013: Lockheed Martin offers refurbished Viking aircraft to Korean and US navies

Gareth Jennings, Seoul - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
28 October 2013


&lt/body&gt
http://www.janes.com/images/assets/013/29013/0121975-main.jpg

Despite having been retired from service in 2009, the S-3 Viking could be reborn under Lockheed Martin plans to offer the aircraft to the Korean and US navies. Source: Jamie Hunter

Lockheed Martin is to resurrect the retired S-3 Viking aircraft in order to fulfil requirements for both the Republic Of Korea Navy (RoKN) and the US Navy (USN), a company official told IHS Jane's on 29 October.
Speaking at the Seoul International Aerospace and Defence Exhibition (ADEX) in South Korea, Steve Pigott, Director Business Development International Air Mobility Programs, said that the company is looking to refurbish a number of mothballed Vikings, which it will offer to the RoKN as a maritime patrol (MPA) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platform, and to the USN for carrier on-board delivery (COD) and air-to-air refuelling (AAR).
"There are about 50 to 100 S-3s in the boneyard [at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona] that have a lot of life left in them," he said. "As the [original equipment manufacturer], we would do a nose-to-tail overhaul of them [and] fit them with the required systems."
With regard to the South Korean requirement, the RoKN is looking for approximately 20 aircraft to augment the 16 Lockheed Martin P-3C/CK Orions it is currently upgrading.
"We responded to the Korean government's request for information [RFI] a couple of months ago. Based on this RFI, we believe that the S-3 is the way that Korea wants to go," said Pigott.
Pigott said that the aircraft would be given both an ASW and MPA capability, with sonobuoys and acoustic detection systems. Pigott was unable to say at this time if the aircraft will be equipped with torpedos, and/or a magnetic anomaly detector. While Pigott said that the mission system has yet to be decided, he confirmed that it would developed and installed by Lockheed Martin.
The RoKN is looking to make a decision on its MPA requirement in 2016, with the selected aircraft set to enter service in 2017.
Having retired the type from service in 2009, the USN is being offered the S-3 to fulfill its COD and AAR requirements. "[Lockheed Martin is] actively promoting the S-3 to the US Navy, but we've not received a response yet," Pigott said, adding; "We think the navy might be very interested in the Viking for COD to support the current C-2 [Greyhound], and for aerial refuelling [to support or replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the role]."
Pigott noted that, while the refurbishment of the S-3 for the RoKN's ASW and MPA requirements would be relatively straightforward, taking "months rather than years", it would be a more complicated affair converting the airframes into COD platforms.
Piggot added that, while Lockheed Martin is focusing its S-3 efforts on RoKN and the USN, it is ready to offer the platforms to other customers should they be interested. There are currently four S-3 aircraft being flown as test platforms by NASA's Glenn Research Center in Ohio.

[Party Animal]

It seems that the whole world is either updating or upgrading MPA fleets....

With one notable exception! :\

They used to say about the Mercedes E class that 30,000 German taxi drivers couldn't be wrong.

Perhaps we could say the same about the 57 maritime nations with MPA.

[melmothtw]

It would certainly be interesting if the US Navy were to take LM up on the offer of resurrecting the S-3 as an AAR platofrm, considering this was a role it was fulfilling before it was retired.

Have to say, I'm a big fan of the Viking for no other reason that it looks so wrong it almost looks right!

[Buster Hyman]

It looks like a commercial airliner with really cool stuff and not punters in it!

[SpazSinbad]

Allo Allo Allo.... See this entry: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-177.html#post8119454

[melmothtw]

S-3s for Career
Allo Allo Allo.... See this entry: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8119454 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-177.html#post8119454)





According to Chung, the Navy envisions three phases:
- The first is to equip the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

The flight surface of the landing ship is already sprayed with urethane, which can withstand the heat created by the aircraft during operations.

Dokdo, with the addition of a ski ramp, could be deployed before 2019, according to the report, which suggests the Navy procure used VTOL jets from the US, UK and Spain if needed.

- Second, the Navy could build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019.

- Finally, the service aims to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036, the report said. The carrier is to have specifications similar to the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft....

...The Navy also puts a priority on acquiring reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. In particular, the service laid out plans to buy the Lockheed S-3 Vikings retired from front-fleet service aboard aircraft carriers by the US Navy in January 2009.

The service will purchase 18 S-3 jets and modify them into a new configuration meeting the Navy’s operational requirements. If adopted, it will be the first fixed-wing jet patrol aircraft operated by the South Korean Navy, which flies 16 P-3CK turboprop patrol aircraft.

“The S-3 introduction will offer a great opportunity for the ROK Navy to operate a carrier-based jet, as the service envisions deploying aircraft carriers in the future,” Kim Dae-young, a research member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum, a private defense think tank here. “From the operational perspective, the S-3 is expected to be used for various purposes, such as patrol, surface warfare and aerial refueling.”..."


It looks to me like this report has got the wrong end of the stick. In Korean use at least the Viking would be land based and not intended for carrier use.

While the RoKN does have a flat top in the Dokdo, this is not a conventional cat-and-trap carrier and so will not be able to operate the Viking. Any conversion work would be prohibitively expensive for one aircrfat type, and just wouldn't make sense.

[Rhino power]

The S-3 hasn't actually retired from the USN yet, VX-30 use it for sea test range duties in limited numbers...

-RP

[Willard Whyte]

USN is going to need some serious ASW kit just to 'counter' the increasing Chinese sub fleet.

Couldn't really understand the S-3's retirement from front line service other than for financial reasons. Had to get the '35 budget from somewhere...

[chopper2004]

...."....and NASA Glenn

S-3B Viking | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/multimedia/imagegallery/if_033_s3bviking.html#.Um_uwjIgGSM)

I also recall during BBC Test Pilot series, when the preview took place at Pax. River, Robin Tydeman and Nick Coulson flew the S-3B. The BBC commentator mentioning wryly "there is no equivalent in the UK" or to that effect :cool:

Also I think a few RN observers have exchanged to fly in the S-3B as well as TACCOs

First and last time I saw an S-3B was at Farnborough 02 :)

Good luck to LM and be good to see this hunter of the seas back in force. Though I can't remember offhand why they retired it early was it because the F/A-18E/F could double up as buddy buddy tanker ?

Cheers

[sandiego89]

I think there is indeed some good life left in the S-3, and was somewhat surprised some did not find a new owner, espeically in South America or Asia- I know Argentina was pitched. I think the V-22 will win the COD bid and they sure seem to be looking hard at the V-22 as a tanker as well, but think a foreign S-3 sale makes sense.

Great sound as well, I lived in San Diego for years- long live the Hoover! (for it's vacuum cleaner sound)

[SpazSinbad]

'melmothtw' I would agree the SK report cited is not well written. My reading is similar (the S-3 will be land based but also a Naval Aircraft - does SK have any others?). Also the follow on new build (conventional) carriers will be 'Cavour-sized' as I read the article, although I admit this is not crystal clear. Not my problem though. Perhaps a clarification of this plan will follow soon enough when SK buys 'em some F-35s soonish like.

HOOVER ME UP SCOTTIE! :}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7IaMc6dHPw&list=PL4A938104D0DF5A42&index=5

[SpazSinbad]

Buy stealth: South Korea set to go with F-35 fighters-sources 29 Oct 2013 By Siva Govindasamy and Joyce Lee
"Oct 29 (Reuters) - A task force formed by South Korea's defence ministry to re-examine its fighter jet requirements is likely to reaffirm the need for a stealthy fifth generation fighter, giving a boost to Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 programme, according to several industry sources familiar with the tender....

...The F-35 scored the highest in a technical evaluation, according to the sources, and is believed to be favoured by senior government and air force officials....

...With the South Korean government unlikely to increase the budget, the task force is expected to recommend that the country prioritise aircraft capability and use the same budget to buy fewer aircraft, one of the sources, with knowledge of the South Korean government's considerations, said.

Seoul originally planned to buy 60 fighters, but that could come down to around 40, with options for more, according to a second industry source.

The task force is also likely recommend that there is no need to assess the capability of the aircraft again, given that the results of DAPA's two-year evaluation are still valid, according to one of the sources.

A final contract could be signed by the third quarter of 2014 after the negotiations over the offset requirements, one source said. South Korea has not asked for an assembly line to be built in the country, and instead wants the winner of the competition to help with the development of its KF-X light fighter programme.

That will allow South Korea to get initial delivery of the F-35 by its original target of 2017 if it is chosen, given that the U.S. government and Lockheed need a three-year lead time from orders to the first deliveries...."
Buy stealth: South Korea set to go with F-35 fighters-sources | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/korea-fighter-idUSL3N0IJ3FY20131029)

[54Phan]

I think the S-3 was retired too early.

[chopper2004]

Has any1 heard anything more on the grapevine to see if they will still pitch back the S-3 to the Dept of the Navy?

Cheers

[Heathrow Harry]

"USN is going to need some serious ASW kit just to 'counter' the increasing Chinese sub fleet."

numbers not quality Willard - they are supposed to be noisy enough to be heard in Hawaii

[nimbev]

The S3A, certainly during my time with USN, was just not regarded as a very good ASW platform. The avionics of the time did not allow a 4 man crew to operate effectively in a multi threat environment. Also it suffered from the fact that the COMCARGRU Admirals were fast jet types as evidenced by the the S3's being off loaded from the first two carrier Groups to go to the Gulf during the 1980/81 Iran crisis to make way for more A7's. The lack of indigenous ASW assets certainly caused some soul searching once the carriers got on task! A 'new' ASW variant of the S3 would certainly need some much updated sensor processing, and even then its lack of legs and small crew limit its capabilities in that role.

[bugged on the right]

Didn't the US retire the S3 because it was too expensive to replace the kapton wiring? Seem to remember something like that.

[ORAC]

Has any1 heard anything more on the grapevine to see if they will still pitch back the S-3 to the Dept of the Navy? See this thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/534003-c-27j-cod.html#post8316605), possibilities for new COD seem to be restricted to rebuilt C-2s or new V-22s.

[GreenKnight121]

That thread was done and over with before Lock-Mart made the following proposal:

Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/04/08/lockheed-pitching-revamped-viking-fill-carrier-cargo-tanking-roles)

Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles

By: Dave Majumdar (http://news.usni.org/author/dmajumdar) Published: April 8, 2014 5:05 PM • Updated: April 8, 2014 5:10 PM

Lockheed Martin is entering the fray to replace the U.S. Navy’s ageing fleet of Northrop Grumman C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft.

The company is proposing to refurbish and modify retired Lockheed S-3 Viking anti-submarine warfare aircraft — currently in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona — to fill the nascent Navy requirement. The rebuilt aircraft would be designated the C-3.

“There is actually 91 [S-3 airframes in storage], but 87 are useable,” Jeffery Cramer, Lockheed’s COD program manager told USNI News on Tuesday. “There’s about 9000 flight hours remaining on each of those airframes on average.”

In fact, that’s just until the first wing inspection, Cramer said. There are actually more flight hours available on those retired S-3s, which were originally built to last for 18,750 hours. Cramer noted, the COD mission is far more benign than the challenging anti-submarine role.

To refurbish the S-3, Lockheed would completely disassemble the Viking airframe, Cramer said. While the company intends to keep the wings, empennage, engines and flight controls, the fuselage would be discarded. In its place, the S-3 would receive a larger fuselage purposely built for the COD mission. The new fuselage is 22 inches wider and six feet longer and the aircraft would stand about three feet taller.

Cramer acknowledged that the C-3 would have to effectively be flight tested as a new aircraft.

“This is really a new design airplane, however you don’t have to get the sticker shock because we can capitalize on that previous investment the Navy has made,” Cramer said.

The advantage for the Navy is the C-3 would be able to carry the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine without breaking it down into modules, Cramer said.

It would also retain the S-3’s ability to act as an aerial refueling tanker—even if individual types like the Boeing F/A-18 would have to have recertified to take-on fuel from the C-3. The Navy’s Hornet fleet burns off about five F/A-18 lives per year on the tanking mission, Cramer said.

The C-3 would be able to carry 10,000 pounds of cargo or 28 passengers and features an advanced cargo handling system and loading ramp lifted directly off the company’s C-130 aircraft albeit with some modifications.

Meanwhile, Northrop continues to offer an upgraded C-2 based on technology from the company’s E-2D. The aircraft would receive new wing components, new engines and the cockpit from its Advanced Hawkeye cousin—and Northrop claims that the aircraft could benefit from the economies of scale as a result of the E-2D multi-year procurement.

Like the C-3, the C-2 carries 10,000lbs or 26 passengers. The company is working on a reconfigurable cabin, said Steve Squires, director of Northrop’s C-2 program. Squires would not say if the C-2 could be configured as a tanker.

Bell-Boeing is also offering a variant of the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor for the COD mission. Last year, the company funded an aerial refueling demonstration using a roll-on/roll-off kit where a F/A-18 moved into contact position behind a V-22 tanker.

In February, Vice Adm. David Buss, commander Naval Air Forces, said the Navy was about a year away from making a decision on the COD replacement and was then in the midst of an analysis of alternatives for the follow on to the COD.Here are the artist's conceptions of the new-fuselage C-3:


An artist’s concept of Lockheed Martin’s C-3 concept to replace the Navy’s Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) aircraft. Lockheed Martin Photo


http://i0.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Refuel_1_LG.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=625%2C417


An artist’s concept of Lockheed Martin’s C-3 concept to replace the Navy’s Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) aircraft loading a F-135 engine. Lockheed Martin Photo

http://i1.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/F135_DeckLoad-1.png?zoom=1.5&resize=625%2C447

[Davef68]

Does my time-addled brain correctly remember a proposal to test the S-3 with podded Pegasus for a STOL version?

[Martin the Martian]

Seeing how well the S2F Tracker has had a second career following its retirement from the US Navy, it does surprise me that as yet there has been no serious interest in the Viking from similar quarters. I'd happily see some in RAF colours, if only as a stopgap, and it would make an ideal aircraft for the Falklands, providing maritime surveillance and a refuelling capability for the Tiffies (I know, never in a month of Sundays).

[KenV]

USN is going to need some serious ASW kit just to 'counter' the increasing Chinese sub fleet.

Really? Why? Russia's sub fleet is far superior to China's both in terms of quantity and quality. Whatever's good enough to take on the Russian sub threat should be plenty good enough to take on China's.

[Bannock]

Trust me, the mission kit going on the ROK S-3 is second to none.:ok:

[Willard Whyte]

Really? Why? Russia's sub fleet is far superior to China's both in terms of quantity and quality. Whatever's good enough to take on the Russian sub threat should be plenty good enough to take on China's.

Because the Chinese fleet is expanding, training and learning.

Add that to the Russians...

Anyhoo, why so arsey about an off hand comment? Chill out ffs.

Also, I wrote it before Putin really started getting pi55y in Ukraine.

[sandiego89]

Quote:
KenV: Really? Why? Russia's sub fleet is far superior to China's both in terms of quantity and quality. Whatever's good enough to take on the Russian sub threat should be plenty good enough to take on China's.

That is a pretty broad claim KenV, and perhaps a dated, dangerous assumption- especially if you look into the near future. The Russian SSN fast attack fleet is a shell of it's former self and the Chinese are moving ahead rapidly.

As far as SSN's go the Russian Alfa's are gone, and you could likely count the remaining Victor's, Sierra's, and Akulas with barely taking your socks off- and I would question the material condition of several of those hulls. Been quite awhile since a new launch, and the entire fleet has been very negelcted.

New Russian projects, like the Yasen SSN, the Lada diesel boat and the new boomer, have been lingering for decades. Will be interesting to see how many enter full service, if they do.

China is moving ahead with Shangs and Type 095's, and improved boomers and diesel boats. Perhaps their first generation of everything were behind by western standards, but they have been quick to learn/steal/buy and improve on everything. And they have the money to do so- unlike Russia.

[Bannock]

SD89

"New Russian projects, like the Yasen SSN, the Lada diesel boat and the new boomer, have been lingering for decades. Will be interesting to see how many enter full service, if they do."

Russian Navy commissions third Borei-class submarine - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsrussian-navy-commissions-third-borei-class-submarine-4477172)

[reynoldsno1]

The S3A, certainly during my time with USN, was just not regarded as a very good ASW platform
ISTR that it was once described as a machine perfectly designed to work 4 men to total exhaustion in 4 hours ...

[Buster Hyman]

They'd look nice on HMAS Canberra....:p

[Lonewolf_50]

I recall the S-3A having early problems with the mission computers dumping the load after the cat shot. Not sure if they got that wholly fixed.
I did some ASW work in the mid 80's with S-3's. They were pretty good to have around. Crew dependent, as with any ASW platform.

[Not_a_boffin]

One wonders whether the Merlin HM2 mission system (obviously without the dipping sonar) might port across? If you wanted to be really clever, adding Crowsnest (or one option anyway) would get you a decent MMA. The S3B had an ISAR pod at one stage in the 90s that worked very well in the overland role too.

[Tourist]

I know some pinger observers who did the S3 exchange and they were quite complimentary about the beast. All black magic to me though, obviously.

The idea that 4 crew is not enough to do ASW I find quite humorous......

In the RN we have never considered tuning the radios to be a job worthy of 1 man's undivided attention.

[Bannock]

The GPDC mission computer formerly fitted in the S3 can now only be viewed at the Smithsonian. It was the size and weight of Cyril Smith.
Things have moved on a tad.

Think shoe box 5" x 8" x 13 "weighing in about 16 KG.

As for the Acoustics, same size less weight. :ok:

General Dynamics? Acoustic Processor Selected for Republic of Korea P-3 Aircraft Upgrade Program (http://www.gdcanada.com/news/currentnews/august-20-2013.html)

http://www.gdcanada.com/products/underwaterisrproducts/uys505.html


And no, I don't work for them !

[Yellow Sun]

The GPDC mission computer formerly fitted in the S3 can now only be viewed at the Smithsonian. It was the size and weight of Cyril Smith.
Things have moved on a tad.

One hopes so, I recall having a discussion with a P3 Tacco who previously flown on the S3. He described the Sonobouy Reference System (SRS) on the S3 as a piece of equipment that was "capable of turning a certsub into a rumour".

I gathered that he wasn't impressed.:(

YS

[BEagle]

In the RN we have never considered tuning the radios to be a job worthy of 1 man's undivided attention.

Which, no doubt, was why it was often impossible to speak to that infamous naval communicator Roger Waitout.....:\

[TBM-Legend]

Didn't the Canadian CP-140 combine the P-3 airframe with the S-3 gizmos? I wonder how it fared then??:hmm:

[Lonewolf_50]

IIRC, the S-3B had better mission equipment ...

[West Coast]

Navy Selects Bell-Boeing Osprey as Next Carrier Delivery Aircraft - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2015/01/13/navy-selects-bell-boeing-osprey-next-carrier-delivery-aircraft)

[Lonewolf_50]

Well crap. I may be nostalgic, but I'd rather see the S-3 revived ...
I don't doubt. that part of the decision was that a small fleet of S-3's would have a higher overhead percentage than adding another role/mod to the V-22.

[Mil-26Man]

The story moves on, with Lockheed said to talking to South Korea, Vietnam, one other Asian nation, and one South American nation FIDAE 2016: South Korea to pave way for further S-3 Viking sales | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/59161/fidae-2016-south-korea-to-pave-way-for-further-s-3-viking-sales)

[Lonewolf_50]

The story moves on, with Lockheed said to talking to South Korea, Vietnam, one other Asian nation, and one South American nation FIDAE 2016: South Korea to pave way for further S-3 Viking sales | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/59161/fidae-2016-south-korea-to-pave-way-for-further-s-3-viking-sales) Revive the Viking! The real fun will be with the mission equipment upgrades and getting the systems integration piece sorted out.

[Marcantilan]

Vikings were offered in the recent past to Chile and Argentina. Both declined the offer.

[Lonewolf_50]

Vikings were offered in the recent past to Chile and Argentina. Both declined the offer.
Too expensive, or not a good fit for mission requirements?

[mopardave]

Quote:


Originally Posted by Marcantilan View Post

Vikings were offered in the recent past to Chile and Argentina. Both declined the offer.

Too expensive, or not a good fit for mission requirements?

ahhh......our special relationship in action!

[Marcantilan]

Too expensive, or not a good fit for mission requirements?

Talking about Argentineland, it was considered a good replacement for the upgraded S-2T Turbo Trackers, but: 1) it was an expensive bird to operate, 2) the planes were offered without key electronic systems and, finally 3) the logistic line was dubious, without any other operator.

However, the dreamers made an artistic impression:

http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/S3Viking_Argentina92.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Talking about Argentineland, it was considered a good replacement for the upgraded S-2T Turbo Trackers, but: 1) it was an expensive bird to operate, 2) the planes were offered without key electronic systems and, finally 3) the logistic line was dubious, without any other operator.
Maybe if the South Korean deal goes through it might be more attractive? (Like the paint job).

[stilton]

Appropos of nothing I think this is just one of the coolest
Aircraft ever built :ok:

[Dan Winterland]

The USN are finding the damage done to the F18Es in the tanker role at 60,000lb plus TOW to be shortening their life, plus even with 4 tanks, it only has a limited capacity. The K3 option is very sensible.

[BEagle]

To be honest, the S-3B wouldn't be a particularly useful tanker as the max fuel + fuel in lieu of payload of the aircraft isn't particularly impressive at around 13000 kg.

Better than nothing though, I guess.

Whereas the UK's plans for extending the range of the F-35B are......:(

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle ...

Wheras the UK's plans for extending the range of the F-35B are ...

Something like this perhaps :p

http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e88833014e60e70dfb970c-pi

The only way to get a somewhat practical range, was to use an extremely large 'fuel tank'. Buses were better suited for this than automobiles - they had a full-length gas storage bag on a roof rack. It could be enclosed in a streamlined fairing but most often it was not.