Back to Squawk list
  • 17

The Navy Should Bring The 40-Year-Old S-3 Viking Back From The Dead

Soumis
 
The Navy's choice to retire the S-3 Viking in 2009 was thought of by many as extremely nearsighted and brutally lacking in creativity. Now, a half decade later, Lockheed, the aircraft's original manufacturer, wants to resurrect the Vikings from their collective grave in Arizona, and fly them from America's flattops once again in a crucial role. (foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Navy65
Navy65 2
As for fire bombers, what's wrong with the C130?
chalet
chalet 2
A C-130 already with civilian registration snapped both wings when pulling up after dropping fire retardant. It was determined that the wings had fatigue related cracks, check this link out https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AtMDST2RMGMvhhYC6AcSToybvZx4?p=c-130+firefighter+snapped+both+wings+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901

Understand that high time Herky birds are no longer allowed to operate as civilian firefighters a duty now undertaken by low time USAF aircraft.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
We used them and C119's for sometime. The problem is fatigue.
retf14rio
John Rogers 2
Also bring them back as a KS-3A tanker. Each Carrier Air Wing needs four or five dedicated organic tanker aircraft rather than using a F/A-18 with a buddy store.
pthomas745
Pa Thomas 2
Nice story of the S-3, though.
Navy65
Navy65 2
Also shortsighted by today's people in control of the Navy is replacing the competent P-3 with the less than competent P-8.
While I'm at it, replacing the KC135 and KC 10 with the 767 is ultimately going to kill some personnel in fuel starved aircraft in the middle of an ocean. Why? Because when a 767 loses an engine, it is going to go abandon the mission and go somewhere to land; too bad for the guys that need fuel.
cdierking44
Chris Dierking 0
I see your point but how often do 767s lose engines in today's world... Not very often
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Only takes one time.
DMenscha
Bill Schmiett 3
They should convert them into air tankers for firefighting.
zcolescott
Not sure if this will work or not, but one of my favorite "what-ifs" done by J.P. Santiago:

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/t1.0-9/26545_362885264403_3485760_n.jpg
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 3
I like it. There was also talk at one point about possibly converting A-10s to firefighting duty.
jdriskell
James Driskell 1
Neither one can carry enough retardant to do the job.
yr2012
matt jensen 0
It's not how much retardant you can carry, it's where you put it. Accuracy counts.
gumby6
Dave H 1
Good Idea,!
pthomas745
Pa Thomas 1
thought of by many= Lockheed.

in a crucial role: Make money for Lockheed.
chalet
chalet 2
Nah, Lockheed is selling their not-to-nimble and not performance-guarantees cgompliant F-35s at twice the original contract price, 110 million vs. 65 million. Nice oing, guys, enjoy the ride on taxpayers money.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter