S-3 Viking

[ysi_maniac]

Cargo Viking

[jschmus]

Nice, but I like the revamped tail section on Sentinel Chicken's version:


How it's supposed to look all opened up:

[Alvis 3.1]

A Viking Longboat?
 

Alvis 3.1

[GTX_Admin]

Some more by Sentinel Chicken:

[GTX_Admin]

And a quick sketch of mine for a proposed VTOL/ESTOL variant:

[arkon]

how about with the engines on top kinda like the an-72?

[ysi_maniac]

A lot of people was waiting for me to start this Viking thread :-D

[Kerick]

I like the stretch version. Who's going to build it?

[finsrin]

Silver with white underside SAC bomber version ?

[upnorth]

how about with the engines on top kinda like the an-72?

I like how you think!

I don't like how you've now make me put an S-3 on my kit shopping list. 

[Alvis 3.1]

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/articles.php?id=4916

The Ilyushin IL-53V "Vikingski".


 
Alvis 3.1

[Volkodav]

Ever since I discovered the S-3 could carry bombs as well as torpedos I have imagined it being used as a COIN aircraft or even an attack bomber

[arkon]

[I like how you think!

I don't like how you've now make me put an S-3 on my kit shopping list.  /quote]

upnorth, your welcome, i have to get one now also.

[Cliffy B]

Ever since I discovered the S-3 could carry bombs as well as torpedoes I have imagined it being used as a COIN aircraft or even an attack bomber

Can't remember where I found this and Google is failing miserably so this is all I have, a print I made 12 years ago of the only photo I've ever found of S-3s dropping Mk-82s.  It's of VS-31 dropping them as a squadron 

[Kerick]

Cool! I wonder if one of the squadron aircraft was the bomb aimer or some other type.

[Weaver]

The British Desert Storm one could be armed with 4 x Sea Skuas for plinking Iraqi patrol boats as done by Lynxes in real life. Put a double rail on each pylon.

[GTX_Admin]

I like the idea of an MS-3C (the ‘M’ standing for ‘Multi-role’) Super Viking.  This involves upgrading the radar and avionics of standard S-3B so that it could undertake not only maritime surveillance and attack functions but also air-to-air functions including the guidance of AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.  The aft sonobuoy tubes would also be reduced in number in return for more fuel to give a greater endurance.

I first mentioned it in the Whaling War

[GTX_Admin]

Some more of Sentinal Chicken's:

[GTX_Admin]

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^
I do not see your image

[GTX_Admin]

Fixed - left out a "["

[GTX_Admin]

One more:

[GTX_Admin]

again...

[GTX_Admin]

Nice, but I like the revamped tail section on Sentinel Chicken's version:


How it's supposed to look all opened up:

Detailed description to go with the above:

This illustration shows the changes that I've surmised might have been made to the S-3B to transform it into the definitive US-3B transport:

1. Fuselage stretch ahead of and behind the wing.

2. Reprofiled aft fuselage to accommodate the aft loading ramp- I moved the fin and horizontal stabilizer upward to provide overhead clearance when unloadding.

3. Clamshell doors on the aft fuselage hinged at the upper line. These open to reveal the stowed loading ramp with then extends. This way the entire aft fuselage doesn't have to be widened and it can keep the basic lines of the body. Downside, though, it's not exactly conducive to opening in flight for air dropping (though the clamshell doors on the C-141A/B were openable in flight).

4. The increased weight of the aircraft would have necessitated a tougher landing gear. The Viking's landing gear is based on that of the F-8/A-7. For this version, I thought that perhaps twin wheel mains that folded into BAe-146-style fuselage sponsons could handle the weight.

5. Removal of most of the ASW mission specific equipment- the wingtip ESM pods, most of the antennas on the fuselage, the MAD boom, etc.

6. Relocation of the heat exchanger outlet from the aft fuselage to the upper part of the aft fuselage aft of the wing.

7. Crew entry door on the aft left side and extra side window behind the cockpit.

[GTX_Admin]

Couple more COD variants:

[Volkodav]

And now Korea is getting them for real, not to mention that the US is revisiting it as a tanker or COD platform.

Some of the banter around the Korean move has suggested it would be a good option for the RNZAF!

[Rickshaw]

I thought they were being offered to the ROKN, not that the ROKN had adopted them.

[Volkodav]

Either or, this is a wiff site after all.  I had never considered South Korea as a real world operator and just the fact it is being considered is exciting, don't actually know where it is at.

[elmayerle]

I've seen the article, S. Korea is buying them and upgrading them as part of their extension of blue-water operations.  The same article also mentions they are looking small carriers along the lines of what Spain and Italy operate.  New Harrier potential whifs?

[Volkodav]

I've seen the article, S. Korea is buying them and upgrading them as part of their extension of blue-water operations.  The same article also mentions they are looking small carriers along the lines of what Spain and Italy operate.  New Harrier potential whifs?

Or F-35Bs, I wonder if it was the carrier plans that canned the F-15SE and got the F-135A back in the running?

[GTX_Admin]

And now Korea is getting them for real, not to mention that the US is revisiting it as a tanker or COD platform.

Some of the banter around the Korean move has suggested it would be a good option for the RNZAF!

From what I understand, Korea has not purchased them - their decision regarding MPAs isn't scheduled until 2016 I believe.  Supposedly though, Lockheed Martin has/is considering offering the refurbished S-3s (there are about 50 to 100 in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan).  This has been discussed before with other prospective customers.

Re a RNZDF purchase, I love the idea...though I doubt it would occur for real.  Not that that is a reason to not model/profile some...

[elmayerle]

Or some for the RAN?  I wonder how they'd do with engine upgrades to match teh latest CF34 engines in commercial usage?

[GTX_Admin]

How about a post communist Cuba?

[Volkodav]

I just keep imagining an S-3 as a USN, USMC US Army and USAF persistent ISTAR / attack platform in use over Iraq and Afghanistan.  It could also be a dron controller in its own right using the drone and an extension of themselves.

[GTX_Admin]

could also be a dron controller in its own right using the drone and an extension of themselves.

Another damn fine idea!

[GTX_Admin]

Random Inspiring image:

[GTX_Admin]

I wonder if anyone would do a decal set for this one:

[PR19_Kit]

How about the competition? The Grumman S-4B Sentinel....  :)

[taiidantomcat]

Fine work there  :)

[ysi_maniac]

beautiful, indeed!
 

[Daryl J.]

It would be subtle, but I've thought of adding 1/2" to the fuselage both fore and aft the main wing and a set of winglets.

[PR19_Kit]

That sounds a good idea, I've always thought the S-3 looked as if it had run into a brick wall early in life.

[aerospacer]

How about Boeing's joined wing concept http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/File:1998-10-05_-_Boeing_EX_Surveillance_System_Concept.jpg?

Martin

[GTX_Admin]

How about Boeing's joined wing concept http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/File:1998-10-05_-_Boeing_EX_Surveillance_System_Concept.jpg?

Martin

Definitely on the cards - I plan to use a ES-3 as a starting point.

[Rafael]

How about Boeing's joined wing concept http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/File:1998-10-05_-_Boeing_EX_Surveillance_System_Concept.jpg?

Martin

Definitely on the cards - I plan to use a ES-3 as a starting point.

I'd so Looove to see that!

Mine never went past casting the engines from a donor 1/144 C-5. It's still with the other hangar queens. Carved Foam fuselage, cardboard wings.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Jalopnik - US-3 Viking COD Lockheed proposes rebuild of the S-3 and it looks pretty much like I had imagined it should look with the main landing gear moved into sponsons on either side of the fuselage :)

[Volkodav]

Jalopnik - US-3 Viking COD Lockheed proposes rebuild of the S-3 and it looks pretty much like I had imagined it should look with the main landing gear moved into sponsons on either side of the fuselage :)

So cool, hope it happens and that once the Viking is back in service someone clicks that it would still be a great ASW, ASuW, ISR and supplementary strike asset and swings a general return to service on the USNs now less crowded flight decks.  Maybe a restart of production once they run out of stored airframes and marketed globally as a tactical transport, tanker, MPA, ISR etc.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

So cool, hope it happens and that once the Viking is back in service someone clicks that it would still be a great ASW, ASuW, ISR and supplementary strike asset and swings a general return to service on the USNs now less crowded flight decks.  Maybe a restart of production once they run out of stored airframes and marketed globally as a tactical transport, tanker, MPA, ISR etc.

Other possible variants if the US-3X does go into service, how about these two Viking variants?:

MUS-3X Viking SOLL (Special Operations [at] Low Level) equipped with for low-level flight with TFR and FLIR navigation aids for insertion and resupply of special operations forces.  Would be based on the US-3X with additional avionics for the SOLL mission. 

KS-3X Viking [dedicated] Tanker with internal tankage and two hose-drogue units under the wings. 

[Volkodav]

USMC tactical transport, also adopted by the Army.  New STOL wing developed for a completely new C-3 (C-28 or what ever) which sporns its own family of variants including ISR platforms, mini AEW and gunship. 

[Kerick]

Just read an article today about how the navy needs a new COD aircraft. Lengthen the fuselage and there you go. I know, makes too much sense.

[GTX_Admin]

Just read an article today about how the navy needs a new COD aircraft. Lengthen the fuselage and there you go. I know, makes too much sense.

Errr…the above variant posted by Jeff is just that; a modern COD variant proposal.

[Kerick]

I know, but it still makes too much sense.

[Daryl J.]

Overall Swedish Splinter.   Perhaps it could be converted to some sort of low level land bomber and make use of the forest with all its foldy-bits. 

[GTX_Admin]

Overall Swedish Splinter.   Perhaps it could be converted to some sort of low level land bomber and make use of the forest with all its foldy-bits.

Would that be a Viking Viking?

Maybe they could use them instead of the Boeing Vertol 107s:

[FAAMAN]

Love the RAN what iffs and the COD, great inspiration.

[Volkodav]

Been thinking, how about a business jet version with a version of that retaining its carrier gear to become a specialist USN VIP aircraft?

Something I have been wondering about is I have read that the S-3 could not be operated from the Midway class carriers, yet the Essex Class were able to operate EKA-3 Skywarriors, so in theory they should have been able to operate the S-3?  Also, as the S-3 was only a little larger than the S-2, would it have been able to operate from a suitably upgraded (cats and arrester gear) Majestic or Centaur?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Something I have been wondering about is I have read that the S-3 could not be operated from the Midway class carriers, yet the Essex Class were able to operate EKA-3 Skywarriors, so in theory they should have been able to operate the S-3?

That may not have been due to anything more than the method of catapult launching.  The A-3 and other aircraft from that time period such as the F-4, S-2, C-1, A-4, A-5, and, F-8 all used cables attached to several points on the fuselage.  This was pretty much standard until the S-3, F-14, F-18, E-2, and, C-2 were introduced into service at which time the catapult launch system was changed to the tow bar feature that is mounted on the nose landing gear, it is that little "T" shaped bar that drops down to engage the catapult launch shoe.  The mass of cables required to launch aircraft in the past was replaced by this rather simplified and much more effective system.  Retrofitting cable attachment hooks to the fuselage of the S-3 might have been possible but certainly not cost effective.  The same for the tow bar catapult launch system.  Once the change was made on the aircraft carrier, usually during a very long SLEP, the little platform jutting out from the front of the flight deck was removed and that was usually an indication that the launch systems were changed.  That little platform was an integral component of the original cable launch type catapult. 

Also, the cables had to be matched to launch weights so it was not just a matter of slapping any old cable between the aircraft and the catapult. 

[Volkodav]

Ok that makes sense, except that Midway operated F/A-18s.  That said though I imagine an upgrade of the catapult and arrester gear would still have permitted a quite small carrier to operate the very flight deck friendly Viking in place of the S-2.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Ok that makes sense, except that Midway operated F/A-18s.  That said though I imagine an upgrade of the catapult and arrester gear would still have permitted a quite small carrier to operate the very flight deck friendly Viking in place of the S-2.

You are right, USS Midway CV-41 did retain the horns at the bow so that shreds my analysis rather quickly. 

Yes, the Midway did operate F-18 Hornets at the time she was retired from service.  The retention of the horn feature on the bow catapults aboard the USS Midway was related to the USS Midway operating the F-4S Phantom until March of 1986.  Some of the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Nimitz class carriers also retained the horn feature on at least one catapult to support Navy and Marine Corps reserve Phantom squadrons that were still flying the F-4 for a number of years after the Phantom was replaced in active duty squadrons. 

[elmayerle]

Not just Marine Corp reserve squadrons; the active USMC squadrons kept the F-4 until the F/A-18 came along.  Without going into the history, there are valid reasons why they did (and, yes, there's a villain of the piece in that story).

[Jeffry Fontaine]

What about an S-3 Viking with the ECM pod featured on the tail of the Grumman EA-6A Intruder / EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft or the pod from the EF-111A Raven (aka 'Sparkvark'). 

The model I imagine would be based on the 1:48th scale ES-3 Shadow version of the S-3 Viking which has bulged bomb bay doors for the other electronic warfare systems that are carried along with the option to carry the AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pods or other stores on the standard wing pylons.  Further modifications would be to find a pair or two of smaller S-3 Viking stores pylons from a 1:72nd scale kit to provide additional pylons on the outboard folding wing sections for additional items such as air to air missiles or other expendable stores. 

[elmayerle]

Hmm, if doing that upgrade, perhaps also update the TF34's with elements of later, and more powerful and efficient, CF34 engines.

[GTX_Admin]

A different view of a Viking...

[GTX_Admin]

The red text is not mine (I found this online whilst searching for something else), but this image gives a little more detail for anyone wanting to model this proposed version of the S-3:

[Weaver]

A different view of a Viking...

Nice to see that when all the fancy electronic gear fails, they can still look for subs using the Mk.1 Eyeball...

[Weaver]

Random thought: how about an alternative AEW version with a drooped nose holding a flat, 360 deg radome just below the fuselage line, a bit like the Italian EH-101 AEWs, or the BN Defender AEW? If the radome was decent depth, the S-3 might also have to have an extended and/or forwards-retracting nose gear strut for clearance, but on the flip side, that would help with take-off AoA.

Alternative, alternative AEW version: planar-array pods on the wing pylons like the AEW Sea Harrier concepts.

Radically Alternative AEW version: two or four overwing USB engines as suggested by arkon and planar array radars on the sides of the fuselage.

[arkon]

I was at LHS this weekend looking for an S-3. Did not find one😟

[GTX_Admin]

Back in the news:

S. Korea Moving Ahead to Introduce Viking Anti-Submarine Planes Into Service
(Source: Yonhap news service; published Sept 06, 2015)

SEOUL --- South Korea is moving ahead to introduce refurbished S-3 Viking anti-submarine warfare (ASW) planes to counter threats from North Korea, a military source said Sunday.

The defense ministry insider said the proposal to incorporate 12 former U.S. Navy Vikings into service was approved late last month by a military program review group. The latest development comes after the Navy proposed taking over 20 Vikings that have been kept in storage since 2009 to shore up the country's detection and attack capabilities against Pyongyang's submarine fleet.

The twin-turbofan powered planes served as the primary ASW platforms aboard U.S. aircraft carriers.

Such planes can augment South Korea's 16 four-engined P-3 Orion aircraft fleet as well as helicopters like the Lynx and Super Lynx. They can, moreover, bolster the country's short-range airborne ASW capabilities that have been left vacant after the retirement of the S-2 Tracker aircraft.

The source, who declined to be identified, said the Viking plan will be sent to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration for further assessment before it is approved by the national defense system committee that can give the final go-ahead.

There has been criticism that the S-3 is an outdated platform, but the Navy has argued that these planes are being maintained in "mothballs" and are fully capable of being used.

"Using the planes can give the country the ability to deal more effectively with underwater threats," a naval officer claimed. He added that the S-3s are much cheaper than buying completely new planes.

Although North Korea's submarine force is antiquated, its fleet consists of diesel electric boats that are very difficult to detect when they put to sea. Such boats can threaten both South Korean and U.S. naval ships in times of crisis as well as merchant ships, particularly in coastal waters.

Seoul has said a small North Korea sub torpedoed a South Korean corvette in March 2010, killing 46 sailors.

-ends-

[Logan Hartke]

Glad to hear it. I always thought the S-3 was an under-appreciated, under-utilized platform.

Cheers,

Logan

[The Big Gimper]

Take your pick. And help yourself to an A-6 or two.

[upnorth]

Well, if the forest service doesn't want them for conversion to firekillers....

[elmayerle]

Well, if the forest service doesn't want them for conversion to firekillers....

Well, Aero Union did say they would be a better choice for the role than similarly-powered A-10s (side conversation from a job interview over 12 years ago).

[TurboCoupeTurbo]

So no red and white A-10s spewing 30mm firefighting pellets from its nose in front of a huge forest fire? Darn.

[M.A.D]

Ever since I discovered the S-3 could carry bombs as well as torpedoes I have imagined it being used as a COIN aircraft or even an attack bomber

Can't remember where I found this and Google is failing miserably so this is all I have, a print I made 12 years ago of the only photo I've ever found of S-3s dropping Mk-82s.  It's of VS-31 dropping them as a squadron 

That's one cool photo!!

Thanks for posting!!

M.A.D

[Volkodav]

Not just Marine Corp reserve squadrons; the active USMC squadrons kept the F-4 until the F/A-18 came along.  Without going into the history, there are valid reasons why they did (and, yes, there's a villain of the piece in that story).

Just noticed this one, please tell!  Love your war stories because I know from personal/professional experience, in shipbuilding and naval sustainment, that the ridiculous things you tell us about actually do happen.  Your background on the F401 for instance is gold, "lets cripple the USNs premier combat platform for over a decade so as to save several million upfront."

[Volkodav]

If I recall correctly the S3 was actually used in its conventional bombing role during Desert Storm.  Look as I may I can only find reference of the 2003 Maverick strikes on Basra but I'm sure there was a Mk-82 (or maybe Mk-84) attack at in 1991 as well. 

I could be mistaken.

[finsrin]

If I recall correctly the S3 was actually used in its conventional bombing role during Desert Storm.  Look as I may I can only find reference of the 2003 Maverick strikes on Basra but I'm sure there was a Mk-82 (or maybe Mk-84) attack at in 1991 as well. 

I could be mistaken.

Interesting, hmmm,,,  like to hear straight scoop on that.
Also seen picture of WW2 Avengers doing conventional level bombing.

[upnorth]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that S-3 Vikings of VS-21, flying from USS Enterprise, dropped some Rockeye cluster bombs on Iranian shipping during Operation Praying Mantis in 1988.

[GTX_Admin]

Mmmmm....fuel:

[Kerick]

Glad to hear it. I always thought the S-3 was an under-appreciated, under-utilized platform.

Cheers,

Logan

I'm with you on that. I sure hope some other capability has taken its place.

[Volkodav]

Following recent reports that the USN is downgrading their UCLAS requirement in favour of an unmanned tanker, made urgent by the ware and tear on the SH fleet through being used as tankers, its even more clear the retirement of the Viking was premature.  Who would have thought, using expensive modern strike aircraft as tankers uses up their hours much quicker as well as making them unavailable for strike missions.

[Kerick]

I read an article quite some time ago suggesting the Navy deploy its own land based tankers in areas like the Med and the Persian gulf. It would be much more efficient and leave deck space for more combat AC or allow AC like the S-3 and A-6 to do their primary job instead of hauling fuel. I'm sure interservice bickering hit the roof. IIRC the article suggested using surplus Convair 880s.

[taiidantomcat]

I read an article quite some time ago suggesting the Navy deploy its own land based tankers in areas like the Med and the Persian gulf. It would be much more efficient and leave deck space for more combat AC or allow AC like the S-3 and A-6 to do their primary job instead of hauling fuel. I'm sure interservice bickering hit the roof. IIRC the article suggested using surplus Convair 880s.

The navy primarily uses its fighter class tankers to fill up around the ship. Usually a few thousand pounds. Its organic tanking for additional landing attempts or to keep people aloft in case of a fowled deck, As opposed to the USAFs big wing tankers which are used to extend long range endurance. I doubt there was much turf war because the USAF and other nations share their big wing tankers anyway, and I don't see the USN wanting to spend billions on giant KC aircraft. The navy is a ship force with airplanes, not the other way around. The marines assign land based KC-130s to support their MEUs and since harriers land once everytime, and can land around a fouled deck, L class ships don't worry about organic tanking around the ship, and the herks are used for range extension.

There is always going to be interservice friction, but I think a lot of people would be surprised, especially in an era of shrinking budgets how many capabilities other services are willing to defer, especially if they still get the benefits. The A-10 saga is an example of this and why the army had no interest in getting the A-10. They get all the benefits and the air force pays the bill. Big wing tankers are the same. The USAF is paying the big bucks, but everyone benefits. Fuel is fuel regardless of who owns the aircraft.

Having said all that what seems to make the Rhino different from the S-3 and A-6 is that both of those aircraft were due to be retired and doing the tankING later in their service life. Rhinos have been doing organic tanking from the start, and the fatigue is more of a issue because they have worn out and it's basically a case of "premature aging" and we cant just junk these because that creates a firepower gap

[GTX_Admin]

And a quick sketch of mine for a proposed VTOL/ESTOL variant:

Years ago I drew the above as pure fictional.  Today, I discovered this real world proposal:

[apophenia]

And a quick sketch of mine for a proposed VTOL/ESTOL variant:

Years ago I drew the above as pure fictional.  Today, I discovered this real world proposal:

    It is amazing how often that happens!!