USN Another call to "bring back S-3's" (Vikings are Zombies)

[wink]

Any article about the Viking that doesn’t acknowledge the existence and capabilities of the MH-60R is instantly suspect.

I don't support reactivation. But really, what would a discussion of MH-60R capabilities highlight that disuade a Hoover reactivation based on capabilities? A Romeo can't free up Rhinos from tanking so they can go downtown. A Romeo can't shoot a SLAM or lay down a mine field. It doesn't have the ESM or radar horizon, 300+ kt dash, range or endurance.

 

[Jim123]

A Romeo... doesn't have the ESM or radar horizon...

HSL/HSM dogpile on @wink in 3... 2...

 

[UInavy]

Pretty much, though there are occasionally some interesting comments... and sniping by yours truly. Not to disparage the TACRON command route (sorry Rob), but Jerry's operational VP experience ended with his DH tour. Take that FWIW. I think a lot of the attention that he gets is because he spouts some fairly provocative claims... which don't always withstand serious and informed scrutiny.

His analysis is consistently poor from an analysis viewpoint. As Brett says, he makes provocative and sometime bombastic claims that would be better suited for a jalopnik blog. He gets published because he submits.... often. You can also see his viewpoints change over time toward whichever way the political winds at the DoD seem to be tending. He was against the utility of the CVN before he was for more of them. It's very frustrating to see folks take him seriously because he has 'CAPT, ret.' after his name.

Also, he posts at sailorbob at times as well if you want to cross-link your sniping.

 

[phrogdriver]

Every time a boneyard concept comes up (e.g. this, the battleships, OV-10s, the Oriskany, etc.) the costs are dramatically understated. It's fantasy time.

More Rhinos and eventually UAS for tanking. V-22s for long-range ASW, if that's a priority It's not a hard solution set.

 

[Recovering LSO]

HSL/HSM dogpile on @wink in 3... 2...

Let the dog pile commence, but @wink 's right; right that the Hoov was a superior platform in many respects, and correct that it probably ain't coming back.


WRT Hendrix... he (and two more come to mind....) is an opportunist who has been trying to write himself into an UnderSec job for years.

You can also see his viewpoints change over time toward whichever way the political winds at the DoD seem to be tending. He was against the utility of the CVN before he was for more of them.

- spot on.

 

[robav8r]

Pretty much, though there are occasionally some interesting comments... and sniping by yours truly. Not to disparage the TACRON command route (sorry Rob), but Jerry's operational VP experience ended with his DH tour. Take that FWIW. I think a lot of the attention that he gets is because he spouts some fairly provocative claims... which don't always withstand serious and informed scrutiny.

Huh, didn't know that. Yeah, except for a very few, most folks start their transition away from the Navy after their Command tour.

 

[Jim123]

Every time a boneyard concept comes up (e.g. this, the battleships, OV-10s, the Oriskany, etc.) the costs are dramatically understated. It's fantasy time.

Yep. It's sorta "getting a contract 101," you can always ask for more money later once the project is underway and a lot of people are committed to it.

@LSO- there's no denying the War Hoover could do a lot of things that a helicopter simply can't... ever; just busting Wink's chops about some toys that the community has had since about 1985 (even longer if you include the Hookie Took ).

 

[Uncle Fester]

The War Hoover’s merits are undeniable, and I say that as someone with no dog in that fight. But none of the Zombie Hoov articles ever address how they’d solve the problems associated with bringing them out of the Boneyard, besides a hand-wave “the problems are solveable, and it’d be so great to have the S-3 back!”

 

[Griz882]

It was a lot, upfront costs and projected support. Can't get into specifics, but you don't see any international buyers jumping on these aircraft for a (many) reason(s).

I’d like one for takin the fam to the left coast for a long weekend. What kind of a deal can you make me?

 

[SynixMan]

I don't support reactivation. But really, what would a discussion of MH-60R capabilities highlight that disuade a Hoover reactivation based on capabilities? A Romeo can't free up Rhinos from tanking so they can go downtown. A Romeo can't shoot a SLAM or lay down a mine field. It doesn't have the ESM or radar horizon, 300+ kt dash, range or endurance.

I agree it can’t tank or lay a minefield. More production of Supers from an already running production line and follow on UAS is a better option for those.

Romeo’s absolutely take missions off the VFA plate so they can go “downtown”. Nevermind blue water anti surface warfare capes isn’t exactly an area we’ve invested in beyond the 80s era Harpoon. I’m going to tread lightly here WRT capes, but the Romeo is capable in its mission sets and very in demand. Long endurance, no reliance on an aircraft carrier’s fixed wing cycle, ability to use single spot ships for refuel/rearm when mom’s busy, more assets dispersed around the CSG, and 21st century avionics integrated with the fleet. I’d argue the Navy filled in the gaps between Cold War era P3/S3/60B/60F pretty well with P8/60R, and improved in many areas.

 

[Recovering LSO]

It was a lot, upfront costs and projected support. Can't get into specifics, but you don't see any international buyers jumping on these aircraft for a (many) reason(s).

This is a real question, NOT an accusation, but was the idea ever given a chance, or was the assignment to go find out why this won't work?

 

[jmcquate]

AA refueling around the boat, is that a problem? ASW with regard to a CTG..........like has been stated before, the 60s do a pretty good job, and there are other non-aviation assets that do a great job. Bringing an old jet out of the boneyard to be a stopgap that isn't really needed is a waste. Seems like a guy who misses 90s CVWs

 

[DanMa1156]

AA refueling around the boat, is that a problem? ASW with regard to a CTG..........like has been stated before, the 60s do a pretty good job, and there are other non-aviation assets that do a great job. Bringing an old jet out of the boneyard to be a stopgap that isn't really needed is a waste. Seems like a guy who misses 90s CVWs

Helo CVW guy here, so take my word for what it's worth, but the problem with Super Hornets tanking are stated somewhat well in that article:

1. You're wearing the hell out of the Rhino airframe and putting a lot of extra hours on it than was originally thought of when the F/A-18 E/F program was first being procured. Think of all the extra landings it's doing now and the stress on the wings from carrying all those fuel pods too.
2. When you have one tanking, it's not being used in its fighter / attack role, which reduces the number of aircraft available to perform the fighter / attack roles from the Carrier.
3. These problems are only amplified by the fact that the F/A-18 fleet isn't particularly healthy today.

 

[SynixMan]

This is a real question, NOT an accusation, but was the idea ever given a chance, or was the assignment to go find out why this won't work?

We have 8 pages discussing the cost prohibitive nature of adding an ILS box to Hornets, and you’re wonder how much it’ll cost to recreate a modern ASW/SSC suite from scratch? And that’s on top of just airworthiness concerns.

 

[Jim123]

Counterpoint- with the limited flight hour budget "fiscal environment," VFA guys are getting a few more flight hours per month by flying tanking missions. Therefore, tasking the Super Hornets with tanking actually helps training and readiness!

Q.E.D.

Can I get a NAM?