S-3 Viking reborn?
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?
Too expensive, or not a good fit for mission requirements?
However, the dreamers made an artistic impression:
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.
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.
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......
Better than nothing though, I guess.
Whereas the UK's plans for extending the range of the F-35B are......
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BEagle ...
Something like this perhaps 
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.
Wheras the UK's plans for extending the range of the F-35B are ...
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.
