Back to Squawk list
  • 17

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

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. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Navy65 2
As for fire bombers, what's wrong with the C130?
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;_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.
We used them and C119's for sometime. The problem is fatigue.
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.
Nice story of the S-3, though.
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.
I see your point but how often do 767s lose engines in today's world... Not very often
Only takes one time.
They should convert them into air tankers for firefighting.
Not sure if this will work or not, but one of my favorite "what-ifs" done by J.P. Santiago:
I like it. There was also talk at one point about possibly converting A-10s to firefighting duty.
Neither one can carry enough retardant to do the job.
It's not how much retardant you can carry, it's where you put it. Accuracy counts.
Dave H 1
Good Idea,!
thought of by many= Lockheed.

in a crucial role: Make money for Lockheed.
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.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..