NASA flies a lot of unique aircraft no one else does anymore, no surprise they will keep flying the S-3 for a long time.
-
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
USN Time to Bring Back the S-3 Viking?
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
NASA flies a lot of unique aircraft no one else does anymore, no surprise they will keep flying the S-3 for a long time.
So I guess the answer to my question in no. I know that airframes from AMARK are put back into service for existing communities, specialized mission platforms for existing communities, and specialized one offs for a very specific mission (or targets). But not as yet to perform the mission (or close to it) that it was performing in the fleet prior to retirement.
707guy
"You can't make this shit up..."
Glad I get to still an ol' War Hoover winging through the skies every now and then.
Maybe not back to fleet service.... but the T-39 made a come back after the Airforce took their T-1A's with them, having separated from Navy NFO flight school.
They never left when the T-1's were there. More accurately the Navy brought back some extra T-39's after the hangar fire burned all but one T-47.
waterbomber / Airtanker
In mid-2004 Lockheed Martin and Chico, California-based Aero Union started discussions about using the S-3B Vikings as waterbombers as they retire from active service.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/s-3.htm
In mid-2004 Lockheed Martin and Chico, California-based Aero Union started discussions about using the S-3B Vikings as waterbombers as they retire from active service.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/s-3.htm
I had been told that when the Airforce and the Navy merged for a short time, that they were in the process of replacing all the T-39's with T-1's. (This being after they brought back some T-39's from the hangar fire incident). I can't find any credible documentation though, so I will punt it to "live by the gouge, die by the gouge."
Thanks for the correction.
Lots of folks (including me) flew T-1s in intermediate and T-39s in advanced. To my knowledges, the T-39s were never replaced by the T-1.I had been told that when the Airforce and the Navy merged for a short time, that they were in the process of replacing all the T-39's with T-1's. (This being after they brought back some T-39's from the hangar fire incident). I can't find any credible documentation though, so I will punt it to "live by the gouge, die by the gouge."
Well this can't too bad of an idea. The ROK Navy (South Korea) just announced their intention to purchase 12 x S-3B's from DoD under FMS Program. DAPA is finalizing the program and a Lockheed-Martic team is identifying the BuNo's airframes, spares, and spare engines. These aircraft will join the 16 x P-3's the ROK Navy already operates.
There will be ample opportunities for former VS guys - should be fun. You will have ample opportunities to monetize your experience and service.
There will be ample opportunities for former VS guys - should be fun. You will have ample opportunities to monetize your experience and service.
Last edited:
I don't have the link because I'm doing this on an iPhone and I am lazy, but the AF global strike command just (on the last year ish) brought a buff back from the grave at AMARC to active service. Guessing it was on the pickled for future use side of Davis rather than the true boneyard side, but either way, an example of a boneyard jet being brought back to full operational status.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
I think I read that article, they talked to the pilots after they made the flight, if I recall for some reason they had to make the flight at a lower speed with the gear down?
Again - bringing planes back from the boneyard isn't all that unusual. Reviving a fully retired plane is a different kettle of horses of different colors. There's no parts, training, or support infrastructure for the Hoovs any more.
There are militaries still flying Stoofs, Scooters, Phantoms, etc, and it's a nightmare keeping them up because that infrastructure and OEM support isn't there any more.
Of course, with enough money, anything is possible...but the will to find and spend the money just isn't there, or this would've happened a long time since.
There are militaries still flying Stoofs, Scooters, Phantoms, etc, and it's a nightmare keeping them up because that infrastructure and OEM support isn't there any more.
Of course, with enough money, anything is possible...but the will to find and spend the money just isn't there, or this would've happened a long time since.
Training? For monkey skill aircraft operating type of stuff, from maintenance to flying, how much could have changed? The training plan exists. There are even subject matter experts still around happy to share/be employed. Back of the plane mission stuff will likely be updated for the ROK. Manufactures and contractors produce that training. Hardware, parts and support? Lockheed is on board. Sure it costs money. But the point is it is less expensive than starting from scratch or even modifying COTS. All you need is a reason. Korea has a reason and government support to proceed. The reason the US won't do it isn't that it costs a lot of money or there is no reason as much as it costs more than the pin heads that should know better think it is worth.