The name was settle right here by the AW requirements office. A/S-3 Viking Warrior.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Little known / experimental aircraft
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
How about the Viking II Valhalla Edition, with rich Corinthian leather?
It’s that time of year again! The return of:
Can’t resist…the urge is too strong…must submit…
U.S. Navy: Time to Bring Back the S-3 Viking?
The retired aircraft could help fill a significant capability gap for carrier strike groups.thediplomat.com
With the Navy working on drones for inflight refueling, doubt if this will go anywhere. That said, how much tanker fuel could the S-3 carry?
10k on a yo-yo
3k single cycle
1.5k double cycle
S-3 was a shitty tanker.. It was a stop gap measure..
Only 10K? That is what the anticipated V-22 tanker variant is supposed to carry. The Corps is planning to dis-establish several squadrons of Ospreys - which are obviously quite similar to the Navy’s new COD….
A carrier based tanker is a compromise by its nature, I think. Unless they figure out how to fold up a KC-10 then whatever the platform is going to have limited give, maybe not fast enough to keep up with the strike package, they have a special logistics tail, or-
The five-wet configured KF-18 doesn't have any of those problems but it uses up valuable traps and cycles, which is just a different kind of expensive.
KA-6 and KA-3 were similar concepts (make a support platform by adapting a strike platform to carry a lot more gas) and when they were out of airframe life then they went away.
Don't forget that Douglas invented the buddy store because the A-4 had such a small fuel capacity, and it used up so much of that getting off the deck and up into cruise. It was a really clever solution but it is also another form of compromise.
The five-wet configured KF-18 doesn't have any of those problems but it uses up valuable traps and cycles, which is just a different kind of expensive.
KA-6 and KA-3 were similar concepts (make a support platform by adapting a strike platform to carry a lot more gas) and when they were out of airframe life then they went away.
Don't forget that Douglas invented the buddy store because the A-4 had such a small fuel capacity, and it used up so much of that getting off the deck and up into cruise. It was a really clever solution but it is also another form of compromise.
With some reference to the conversation above I am reminded of the B-58 Hustler. Designed to serve as a “medium” bomber, it relied on a robust aerial refueling capacity to reach targets in the Soviet Union. The picture below shows the massive fuel tank that was dropped with the onboard H-bomb! I saw one at an air show as a kid and it seemed totally sleek and cool, but only lasted 10 years in service.
Yup…. Those were rough planning numbers.. However my last trap was 21 years ago and some change so I could be wrong but I’m sure enough about those numbers that I would be all in if this were a poker game.
We were talking about the B-58 today and the movie Fail Safe. Too fast for the fighters of the period to catch. I believe it had 4 J-79’s ?
Some pictures of the B-58 from the trailer for Fail Safe.
My neighbor growing up designed the nose gear for the B-58. It has a very complicated retraction and extension because of that massive drop tank.
I like how the pilot’s mission packet reads MOSCOW and the co-pilot looks at him like…”As in Idaho…that Moscow?”