Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects

[zebedee]

Blackstar... you mean the X55...?


I was just about to say the design reminds me a little of how the X55 was designed and constructed...


http://tinyurl.com/nwerl7o


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9089.0.html


Zeb

 

[blackstar]

Thank you for sharing the information and the image, blackstar.

I didn't provide the image. I provided the AWST article.

 

[blackstar]

Blackstar... you mean the X55...?


I was just about to say the design reminds me a little of how the X55 was designed and constructed...


http://tinyurl.com/nwerl7o


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9089.0.html

Thanks for that. Actually, I'm going from vague memory. I took a group to the Skunk Works in (I think) May 2011 and they talked to us about various projects they were working on. What they may have mentioned was something that was associated with the X55. I only remember that they were working with an existing aircraft, they were replacing a major part of it, and they were not going to fly it. It was a design and testing project only. So it might have been an offshoot of this work.

But you are right, the X55 seems much more relevant to this.

 

[tab28682]

If that is still a requirement, it's an anachronism - F110 powered the F-14D which is long gone. Engines in use by the air wing are F414, F404, J52 (vanishing), T700 and T56 (am I missing any?). I think the driver is probably the number of passengers.

C-2 allows six rows of 2+2 seating plus one row of 2, current S-3 width would give you rows of 1+1 with a slightly wider aisle and seats.

Don't forget that a useful future COD aircraft will need to be able to haul the fairly sizable P&W F135 engine for the F-35C.........

 

[blackstar]

Lockheed Martin C-3

 

[blackstar]

Lockheed Martin's proposed C-3.

I was at the Sea-Air-Space exhibition today and picked up this flyer. They also had a nice video that showed off the aircraft, carrier ops, ground handling, etc.

One neat aspect of the video was that it showed the standard S-3 Viking, and then showed it morphing into the C-3 with the larger fuselage. It was a neat bit of animation.

Part of the animation showed the aircraft operating in a tanker role, although I doubt the Navy would want to use it this way. The concept of a COD is that the plane stays on land and makes temporary visits to a carrier. It is not based there. And the Navy is trying to reduce the number of aircraft on deck. Still, this is an interesting proposal. Northrop Grumman had posters of their updated Greyhound, but I did not find any flyers detailing their proposals for it.

 

[F-14D]

If that is still a requirement, it's an anachronism - F110 powered the F-14D which is long gone. Engines in use by the air wing are F414, F404, J52 (vanishing), T700 and T56 (am I missing any?). I think the driver is probably the number of passengers.

C-2 allows six rows of 2+2 seating plus one row of 2, current S-3 width would give you rows of 1+1 with a slightly wider aisle and seats.

Don't forget that a useful future COD aircraft will need to be able to haul the fairly sizable P&W F135 engine for the F-35C.........

Minor note: None of the proposed new COD aicraft can carry the F135, which is a cause for concern by the USN. A new container is being designed to address that.

 

[blackstar]

Minor note: None of the proposed new COD aicraft can carry the F135, which is a cause for concern by the USN. A new container is being designed to address that.

See the flyer I posted. Lockheed Martin claims that the C-3 can carry it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

C-2 allows six rows of 2+2 seating plus one row of 2, current S-3 width would give you rows of 1+1 with a slightly wider aisle and seats.

This is a great opportunity to mention that when I flew on a C-2 to and from USS Kitty Hawk the back of the seat in front of me had a massive dint in it the shape of a human head.

 

[GTX]

If that is still a requirement, it's an anachronism - F110 powered the F-14D which is long gone. Engines in use by the air wing are F414, F404, J52 (vanishing), T700 and T56 (am I missing any?). I think the driver is probably the number of passengers.

C-2 allows six rows of 2+2 seating plus one row of 2, current S-3 width would give you rows of 1+1 with a slightly wider aisle and seats.

Don't forget that a useful future COD aircraft will need to be able to haul the fairly sizable P&W F135 engine for the F-35C.........

Minor note: None of the proposed new COD aicraft can carry the F135, which is a cause for concern by the USN. A new container is being designed to address that.

The engine can be broken into modules though I believe.

 

[Richard N]

From the C-3 flyer in post #29: "Carries F135 Full Engine or Power Module"

 

[Triton]

Artist's impressions of Lockheed Martin C-3 COD concept.

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2014/04/08/lockheed-pitching-revamped-viking-fill-carrier-cargo-tanking-roles

 

[Triton]

From the C-3 flyer in post #29: "Carries F135 Full Engine or Power Module"

The advantage for the Navy is the C-3 would be able to carry the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine without breaking it down into modules, Cramer said.

It would also retain the S-3’s ability to act as an aerial refueling tanker—even if individual types like the Boeing F/A-18 would have to have recertified to take-on fuel from the C-3. The Navy’s Hornet fleet burns off about five F/A-18 lives per year on the tanking mission, Cramer said.

The C-3 would be able to carry 10,000 pounds of cargo or 28 passengers and features an advanced cargo handling system and loading ramp lifted directly off the company’s C-130 aircraft albeit with some modifications.

Source:

Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles - USNI News

Lockheed Martin is entering the fray to replace the U.S. Navy’s ageing fleet of Northrop Grumman C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft. The company is proposing to refurbish and modify retired Lockheed S-3 Viking anti-submarine warfare aircraft — currently in storage at...

news.usni.org

 

[blackstar]

The illustration shows only one F-35 refueling at a time, so presumably the C-3 cannot handle two simultaneously.

The Navy is looking for a COD aircraft. It is not looking for a tanker. I view the tanker option as a nice to have. But it would really force the Navy to make a decision to buy more C-3's and to consider basing them on carriers. Right now the plan is to base the CODs ashore and they would only visit the carrier whereas a tanker would have to deploy with the ship. And of course that would require the Navy to consider what planes to give up on deck, and to buy more planes and train more pilots.

Although I like the idea, I suspect that in this time of belt-tightening the Navy just would not go for the tanker.

 

[SpudmanWP]

If it can only do 1 at a time (which makes sense given the size), then wouldn't a better solution be a pallatized hose & fuel bladder (like they tested on the V-22) coupled with external fuel tanks be a better solution?

 

[sferrin]

And of course that would require the Navy to consider what planes to give up on deck, and to buy more planes and train more pilots.

Why would they have to give up anything on deck? "Back in the day" the usual was ~90 aircraft including 2 squadrons of Tomcats and 10 S-3 Vikings.

 

[starviking]

And of course that would require the Navy to consider what planes to give up on deck, and to buy more planes and train more pilots.

Why would they have to give up anything on deck? "Back in the day" the usual was ~90 aircraft including 2 squadrons of Tomcats and 10 S-3 Vikings.

They might have to change the aircraft operations (movements on deck, hangar, etc.) to accomodate the tankers, which could have an effect on operations. Nothing insurmountable, but would have an efficiency impact in the near term.
It's also another plane that would have to be maintained onboard too.

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm sure that introducing (or re-introducing?) an additional aircraft type on board has its downsides, but I always thought the F-18 has to be just about the worst tanker platform you can imagine. Really, the only reason you would shove the mission down its throat is because that's all you have and the other platforms are obsolescent.
I don't know where the breakeven point is, but I suspect a single S-3 could do the work of several F-18s.

 

[Yellow Palace]

And of course that would require the Navy to consider what planes to give up on deck, and to buy more planes and train more pilots.

Why would they have to give up anything on deck? "Back in the day" the usual was ~90 aircraft including 2 squadrons of Tomcats and 10 S-3 Vikings.

Now that the prospect of taking huge losses attacking the Soviet Union is off the table, that's considered too high to be worked efficiently. Optimum is apparently ~80 aircraft, once you go above that the extra airframes start getting in the way more than they contribute. Still plenty of room to grow the air wing a bit, though.

 

[allysonca]

Here is an assortment of VSX proposals from Convair, Douglas and Lockheed. There is a COD to the right that is a master wood pattern model I received from The old owner of Pac Min back in the good old days. I know that there were 7 examples made in fiberglass. I also had (traded off) the pattern of the long and skinny utility version.

 

[hesham]

Great find Allysonca.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Lockheed Wants To Bring The 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...

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

 

[hesham]

Hi,


and a Lockheed S-3 CTOL and STOVL Projects.

AIAA Aerospace Research Central

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is Lockheed S-3 STOL aircraft with some modifications.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a084226.pdf

 

[Triton]

Model of Lockheed Martin KC-3

Source:

This is Amazingly Not Stupid

40yrs.blogspot.com

 

[hesham]

proposed S-3A-based CCW/USB STOL aircraft.

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

ntrs.nasa.gov

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19801201/60/2

 

[GTX]

That last one is quite interesting.

 

[hesham]

That last one is quite interesting.

Thank you my dear GTX.

 

[Bill S]

In 1989 the Advanced Concepts group at LTV studied adding additional stores capacity to the S-3B Viking.
Five new stores loads were studied including: Four AGM-88 HARM Missiles, Four AGM-84 Harpoon missiles,
Two AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow missiles, and Two AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles.

A number of different combinations of these missiles were envisioned. The major limitation was the 2,500lb limit
to the wing pylon on the aircraft. An additional concern was the asymmetric effects caused when only one of the
two weapons on the pylon was deployed.

Here are a few drawings of the reviewed twin weapon adapters and the possible Sidewinder installation.

VAHF material

 

[hesham]

Also AIBF,ultra-STOL concept,fitted with four engines;

To assess the AIBF ultra-STOL performance potential,the experimental data
developed by the NASA/USAF/Lockheed large-scale tests for the AIBF concept
were used for analyzing the deck performance of a typical sea-based aircraft
configuration.Figure 10 depicts this conceptual AIBF ultra-STOL configuration
which had an aspect-ratio 7.73 wing of 68-ft span and a wing area of
598 sq.ft.The power plants were four TF34-GE-2 turbofans. It was assumed
that the TF34/AIBF installation was similar to the AIBF application scheme
shown in Figure 1b and that the flap setting for both takeoff and landing
configurations was 30 degrees.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a078909.pdf

Also from anther report;

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a089492.pdf

 

[litzj]

Nice finding !

 

[hesham]

Nice finding !

Thanks.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Fighting World War Three In A Fjord And Chasing Soviet Submarines In The S-3 Viking

It was the twilight of the Cold War and both Kevin Noonan and his S-3 Viking were maturing into more potent and wise weapons of war.

www.thedrive.com

One of the interesting tidbits:

So, did any of you ever have to do that school science project where you drop an egg off the roof after having built what is hoped to be a durable container that will allow the egg to survive fully intact? We’ll come back to this in a moment.

One of the things we learned from this exercise was how the Marines weren’t able to get relatively real-time reconnaissance photos of the battlefield they were fighting on. Remember, this was 1989. We needed to figure out a way to get Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS) photos taken by the Tomcats, whether of a changing battlefield or Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA), developed and analyzed and then transmitted to the boots on the ground.

Some of our genius NFOs worked with Carrier Intelligence Center (CVIC) and came up with a styrofoam container and some other material (I don’t have a clear memory of it, just the event) that the photos could be stuffed in and we would launch it out of one or more of our sonobuoy chutes. They worked on it for a couple of months and ended up testing it during another exercise where the Marines were doing an amphibious landing.

I was on that flight.

We launched and headed to rendezvous with the Marines. Everyone was excited to see if this would work. We established comms with the ground Forward Air Controller (FAC) on the shoreline. The idea was to jettison the…well…egg…into the surf so the Marines wouldn’t have to go too far out and get it. We would also launch one over the sand to see if it would survive.

The FAC cleared us in and we punched out two containers. We then flew away while they retrieved them. Then, we were called in for the beach drop. Apparently, they were having a hard time breaking into the containers because they were packaged so well. So, we said our “goodbyes” and headed out on our secondary mission.

Upon returning to the boat, we all went into CVIC to find out what happened. As I recall, only one package survived the water landing (I think saltwater had penetrated the container and ruined the photos). The beach drop failed completely.

I never did do that science project at school and I’m not sure if anyone involved in this project did either. The concept was a good one for that time because, as I said, there just wasn’t any way to get those much-needed photos to the Marines faster. However, our idea simply didn’t work. But you gotta hand it to the S-3—fulfilling its role as NAVAIR’s Swiss Army Knife, she answered the call to perform yet another uncanny mission.

 

[riggerrob]

If it can only do 1 at a time (which makes sense given the size), then wouldn't a better solution be a pallatized hose & fuel bladder (like they tested on the V-22) coupled with external fuel tanks be a better solution?

The disadvantage of a palletized hose-and-drogue re-fuelling system is that it hogs valuable space in the cargo hold. OTOH wing-mounted h&d systems (ala. KC-130) can remain installed while hauling cargo, albeit with a reduction in cargo weight.

 

[isayyo2]

KS-3A testing, circa: unkown. From user GTX on whatifmodlers

 

[GTX]

Wow, that's was a few years ago now...

 

[Pioneer]

Source:

http://home.comcast.net/~wmiipms/NewsLetters/1994/WMIIPMS_09-1994_NL.pdf

Looking at these fantastic concept drawing (thank you Overscan), I can't help wonder how the radar/tail fin configuration would have fitted below deck in the hanger. For where as the actual S-3 Viking had a folding tail fin arrangement, I can't see any such 'emphasised' arrangement in the drawing.....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[TomS]

Looking at these fantastic concept drawing (thank you Overscan), I can't help wonder how the radar/tail fin configuration would have fitted below deck in the hanger. For where as the actual S-3 Viking had a folding tail fin arrangement, I can't see any such 'emphasised' arrangement in the drawing.....

The folding tail was only needed in older carriers (especially the Midways, which had only 17.5-foot hangars plus a high hat area). The Forrestal and later ships had 25-foot hangars throughout, enough to provide a couple of feet of clearance over the S-3's tail. I suspect that AEW versions here have shorter tails so that the dome top is about the same as the ASW version's tail.

 

[Pioneer]

Looking at these fantastic concept drawing (thank you Overscan), I can't help wonder how the radar/tail fin configuration would have fitted below deck in the hanger. For where as the actual S-3 Viking had a folding tail fin arrangement, I can't see any such 'emphasised' arrangement in the drawing.....

The folding tail was only needed in older carriers (especially the Midways, which had only 17.5-foot hangars plus a high hat area). The Forrestal and later ships had 25-foot hangars throughout, enough to provide a couple of feet of clearance over the S-3's tail. I suspect that AEW versions here have shorter tails so that the dome top is about the same as the ASW version's tail.

Thank you my dear TomS

Regards
Pioneer

 

[fightingirish]

Here from the early 70's a 3-view drawing showing the Lockheed S-3 COD.
Source:
The Shadow of the Eagle @clemente3000
The primary source might be a magazine like AW&ST from that time period.