A little appreciation thread for the S-3 Viking that was retired way too soon with no replacement, despite submarines and surface ships still being a huge threat.

NASA has or had one. For a while I used to see it semi regularly.

I loved that plane.

General characteristics

Crew: 4 (Pilot, Co-Pilot/COTAC, TACCO, Sensor Operator/TFO)
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 68 ft 8 in (20.93 m)
Width: 29 ft 6 in (8.99 m) folded
Height: 22 ft 9 in (6.93 m)
Height tail folded: 15 ft 3 in (5 m)
Wing area: 598 sq ft (55.6 m2)
Aspect ratio: 7.73
Airfoil: root: NACA 0016.3-1.03 32.7/100 mod; tip: NACA 0012-1.10 40/1.00 mod[42]
Empty weight: 26,581 lb (12,057 kg)
Gross weight: 38,192 lb (17,324 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 52,539 lb (23,831 kg)
Fuel capacity:
Internal fuel capacity: 1,933 US gal (1,610 imp gal; 7,320 L) of JP-5 fuel
External fuel capacity: 2 × 300 US gal (250 imp gal; 1,100 L) drop tanks
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-2 turbofan engines, 9,275 lbf (41.26 kN) thrust each


Performance

Maximum speed: 429 kn (494 mph, 795 km/h) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 0.79
Cruise speed: 350 kn (400 mph, 650 km/h)
Stall speed: 97 kn (112 mph, 180 km/h)
Range: 2,765 nmi (3,182 mi, 5,121 km)
Combat range: 460.5 nmi (529.9 mi, 852.8 km) [43]
Ferry range: 3,368 nmi (3,876 mi, 6,238 km)
Service ceiling: 40,900 ft (12,500 m)
Rate of climb: 5,120 ft/min (26.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 68.5 lb/sq ft (334 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.353


Armament

Up to 4,900 lb (2,220 kg) on 4 internal and 2 external hardpoints, including:
10 × 500 lb (227 kg) Mark 82 bombs
2 × 1000 lb (454 kg) Mark 83 bombs
2 × 2000 lb (908 kg) Mark 84 bombs
6 × CBU-100 cluster bombs
2 × Mark 50 torpedoes
4 × Mark 46 torpedoes
6 × mines or depth charges
2 × B57 nuclear bombs (depthcharges)
2 × AGM-65E/F Maverick missiles
2 × AGM-84D Harpoon missiles
1 × AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER missile
The underwing hardpoints can also be fitted with unguided rocket pods or 300 US gal (1,136 L) fuel tanks.


Avionics

AN/APS-116 sea search radar, maximum range 150 nmi (173 mi, 278 km)
Upgraded on S-3B to AN/APS-137 Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR)
OR-89 forward looking infrared (FLIR) camera with 3× zoom
AN/ARS-2 sonobuoy receiver with 13 blade antennas on the airframe for precise buoy location (Sonobuoy Reference System)
AN/ASQ-81 magnetic anomaly detector (MAD)
AN/ALR-47 Electronic Support Measures (ESM) emitter-location system, with boxy receiver pods fitted to the wingtips, to locate adversary communications and radar transmitters
AN/ASN-92 Inertial navigation system (INS) with doppler radar navigation and TACAN
Up to 60 sonobuoys (59 tactical, 1 Search and Rescue)

War Hoover !!

I don't get why they retired them. I don't know of anything that is replacing them. Do we even have ANY carrier based anti sub air assets anymore? I thought I heard the Orion P-3 where also retired, and though I heard the Brits had retired the Nimrod. That just leaves the P-8 Poseidon but I don't think they have enough for those, to cover for everything they have gotten rid of. And sadly this is happening as china is building more and more subs....

Saw them a bit when I was at NAS North Island for SERE, saw a few of the NASA ones..other than that, never saw one in the wild.

Nope they didn't bother replacing it with anything.  They only have the SH-60B/Fs or MH-60Rs.

Cool plane and I agree they were retired too early.  
I suspect they were retired because the Soviet Union went away and the Admirals figured the sub threat went with it.  
Bet some of them wish they had the Viking available now.

Cool plane. One of the guys I use to work with was a fellow AT that worked on them. I'm not sure if this is true but, he told me they were the only plane at the time that could take off from a carrier without the assistance of the catapult if needed.

Same engines as a A10 if I'm not mistaken.

That seems like it would be perfect for a campaign against an upcoming navy with intentions to use a lot of littoral and submersibles.

Growing up next to NAS Jax I will never forget the horrible sound of the turbos on those engines, god awful noise.

whoop-WHOOP!

I've been on the Outlaw Viking.

They should be made into fire fighting aircraft.

It’s too bad the plan to refurb some for ROKN came to naught.


Attached File



 I think it would have been neat to have used them for armed route clearance and interdiction. LANTIRN under one wing,bag under the other and  JDAMs in the belly.

Attached File

Due to engine simplicity wish I could buy one basically the military version of the CF34 on CRJ and E-jets.

The F35 is de-facto three separate airplanes.

It should have been five. One of which would be a new model S3. If only as a carrier based tanker. Using Superhornets as the only carrier based tanker is silly.

Perhaps some of these new drones will fill the gaps in capability. But I doubt it.

I never understood why The Navy didn't have a mag anomaly detector integrated into the Poseidon, particularly with the popularity of diesel boats.

@Nav223 AT/AQ checking in!
They S-3's were easy to work around, I'm an A-6 guy.  The S3 guys got really pissed whenever we found a sub before them.  Sunshine and dog's behinds and all that.

S-2 Viking Hoover
Making submarine life suck
What? Orion who?

I heard that sound all the time attending a meeting at the Coronado in San Diego.

Asked what plane was making that weird sound and found out it was the Viking lining up the runway for a landing.

Friend was a COTAC on one of those.  Former enlisted, started out on S-2.  Navy sent him to Purdue and the Pensacola.

Even those are gone now.  Replaced by SH-60R and SH-60S.  More of a mixed platform aircraft rather than purely dedicated ASW/ASST roles.

My small contribution to this thread.

Attached File


Attached File


Attached File

I much prefer the precursor to the Viking, the S2F Tracker.

This. ADM Nathman, when he was N88, killed it and its successor, the CSA. Replacement goal in mid to late 90s was for an airwing composed of Hornets, CSAs and Seahawks. CSA (common airframe and engines) was to replace the A6/S3 for WASEX/ASUW/ASW/ASR/LRS/IFR, ES-3 for SIGINT/ESM/ECM, EA6B for SEAD/ECM, E2 for AEW and C2 for COD/SPECWARSUP. The more tactical airframes were supposed to cruise .84 with the strike package and be able to play tanker and perform all strike support and standoff attack missions (SLAM ER) while the fatter airframes would be able to carry a dome and cargo. Way too ambitious and expensive. Clinton era so NAVAIR went all in Super Hornet for CVWs. Thus Growler and tanking. Hoov was an emergency cobbled together airframe. Navy A10 designed around its engines and the Harpoon to kill Echo class SSGNs that had to surface to fire at the time. Off the shelf: A10 engines, A4 ejection seats, F8/A7 landing gear, P3 computers thus the 3.5G limit while the airframe was fully acrobatic 6G capable. Lockheed put it together very quickly. Cold War jet, type didn't have a place in Clinton's peace dividend, end of history mentality, no peer Navy world. Oh how they got that wrong.

I've worked on P3s for 11 years. Not once was the MAD used. Hell the sensor 3 guys wouldn't even pre OP it before flight.
Edit: we didn't even have the IMRL gear to properly calibrate it in the system anymore. Not mention the pilots have to do a MAD flight to cert it before use. That also had to be done in the AOR you were going to work in.


There are better systems out there. SASP and bouy electronics made MAD null.

Probably why they choose not to put it on the P8. It's cold out dated tech and there's way better stuff out there. Not to mention the P3s of the last 15 years and done very very little ASW.

@Dessert_AIP can articulate this better than I I'm sure

My old boss was a sensor operator on S-3's. I've heard that people who knew him then, thought he was the biggest asshole in the squadron. Seems about right since he's been an asshole as long as I've known him.

seems like the long range carrier based ASW mission is pretty well suited to a drone.  Kinda the same as tankers.   How much would life suck for a sub if the ASW asset had loiter time measured in days?  You could drop so many bouys that a man could walk from greenland to iceland to norway and not get his feet wet.

Drones are the future for tanking and passive surveillance. They can stay up forever. We have already seen a big leap drone tech since the war on terror. I can only imagine what the next 20 or 30 years is going to unveil.


Edit, that being said. I don't think the Navy was thinking that far ahead when they canceled the S3.

I mean come on...f18 tankers gtfo lol

I'd rather have a manned platform 200 miles out from the carrier group working contacts than a drone.  Maybe a drone "wingman" that carriers more sonobuoys/torpedoes

Not to mention that MAD needs ferris metals (Russians like Titanium submarines) plus there is De-Gaussing which minimizes detectible magnetic fields ...

May have been fine for finding a snorkeling steel made diesel boat close to the surface in the 1950's, but not so much for a deep diving nuke make from titanium...

The one time we (I) did an exercise with the S-3's while on an old boomer, I was not impressed.  1988 ish time frame.

Night Exercise.

They couldn't find us with the periscope up.

They couldn't find us with the sail broached (sail out of the water)

We finally stuck up the radar mast and rotated and radiated.  They found us. But couldn't maintain track very long once we submerged.

Helos were march harder to break track with.  Two you could, three were next to impossible.

I can still hear it in my mind.  NAS North Island.

Ejets run AE3007s

CF34 is a great engine though, they just run and run.  Add oil, that's their only fault, or they stop running

I'd imagine the cost of operating that plane was pretty low compared to what they are running now.  Slow and simple.

Attached File

Attached File

Attached File

Attached File


VS-22's show bird on Eielson AFB, June 2007.

Nice looking aircraft. The upcoming conflict with China hopefully won't show a weakness in the ASW department in the Navy.

@Rumrunner358
Then you better warn Republic Airlines

Attached File

It got sacrificed when the P-8 had to be put on a diet. However the Inidian ones retained them.

Thought you meant the little guys 135-145s

-8Es are a bit different, and more finicky.  I was part of the teething process.