Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html Please click the link to watch our other French Systems videos th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LoxjAFtfDr8wwS6K_51gZ0x.html Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Air videos videosth-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lpl6SQpA2WBti_WsykOgtgy.html
The Marilyn Monroe of aircraft: yes, it's a Size 12, but it has nice curves in the right places. I used to play golf at the North Island NAS. Vikings, on finals, would often generate wing-tip vortices that would come down to ground-level, dancing around me and disturbing my play. Good video. Bonus-point for the footage of the mission systems.
ANOTHER..... Well narrated video and subject!! I have studied MANY USN a-c, but didn't know that 'Viking' fired 'Maverick' missiles at enemy targets.....did know about "bombing" capabilities.
I read somewhere in an old book, referencing someone who supposedly was involved in the process, that the competition for the S-3 was considered Grumman's to lose considering the previous 2 generations of aircraft in that role had been built by them. Their entry based on the than new E-2 airframe would have offered great commonality for parts and training. But Lockheed put great effort into their proposal and Grumman arrogantly tried to phone theirs in and really annoyed the Navy. In the end, the USN still got a great aircraft. A lot of people point out that the S-3 would be useful in the Pacific today with China's growing submarine fleet. The silver lining is that many of the S-3's were retired early with plenty of life left in their airframes so they could be reconditioned and upgraded if really needed today for less than building a new aircraft, provided the USN decided it needed them enough to allocated part of their budget. The thing about China is the area where their submarines are most likely to operate in, can be covered by land base aircraft like the P-8 and the Triton drone, though gaps in time of their coverage would be expected. But if China starts operating further from their coasts in the open ocean, I think we may see a return to fixed wing carrier based ASW. If nothing else, a navalized version of the new US Army V-280 tiltrotor (Bell had created a navalized mock up for display a few years ago) may be able to help fill that gap.
Look into WW2 ships if you want your mind blown as to how advanced things were even back then. They had remote control of the guns and firing computers. Granted they were analog computers but still they had some pretty advanced stuff for a while now. They had datalinks between anti ship missiles in the 70’s and those missiles could “talk” to each other to select targets so two didn’t hit the same target. Wild.
@@arduinoguru7233The first Tom Cat didn’t fly till December of 1970 and didn’t enter service till 1973. I saw them being tested on the land based catapult and arresting gear in the spring of 1972
A great aircraft with looks to boot. With the various capabilities it had, I’m surprised that it was taken out of service before another all rounder replaced it.
I’ve been saying it for a while now….the USN needs to immediately start development of a new ASW aircraft and possibly even pull the S-3s out of the desert in the meantime. If we think there’s potential for a peer / near peer conflict in the next 2 decades (and we are certainly preparing as such) then we desperately need to improve the ASW bubble not just for the CSGs hit the ARGs and supply convoys as well.
The Falklands war clearly showed the need for an ASW aircraft that was carrier based - I had no idea that once again navies were losing this very vital capability!
What always caught my attention around them was how quiet they were. They hardly sounded like a jet; more like a reasonably loud piece of machinery in a building.
The USN seems to have prematurely retired many of its former assets. There were upgrades planned for the A6 Intruder, F14 that were cancelled w/o a clear replacement. Surely one could have been created for the S3 as well. The carriers are now fitted with variants of the F18 originally a failed contender for the USAF’s lightweight fighter that the F16 eventually won. The current replacement appears to be the F35 with reduced speed and likely range. ASW now provided by helicopters only. Even with Tomcats and Intruders the Nimitz class could have a complement circa 90 aircraft they probably typically now field only 2/3 that number. With only one yard in the US able to build a super carrier It’s a wonder the US doesn’t start building a fleet of Medium sized V/STOL carriers like the British & French to name a couple.
The Intruder, Viking, and Tomcat were all victims of the end of the cold war and a lack of a peer or near peer enemy. Still to this day we don’t have a platform that can match the F-14’s capabilities but the Super Hornet can - for the most part - match the A-6. That said the loss of the S-3 is still a gaping hole and I think the USN needs to immediately start development of a replacement and potentially bring them back from the desert until such a replacement can be fielded.
the naval carrier borne S-3 Viking multi mission ASW aircraft could serve as a fast lightweight bomber . . . modifying the internal weapons bay to accommodate newer state-of-the-art guided missiles & guided munitions . . . for e.g. AGM-158J JASSM XR active radar homing inertial guided air-to-surface land attack cruise missiles & AGM-84 Harpoon semi-active radar homing inertial guided anti-ship missile . . .
I still think the US Navy still has a use for the S-3 Viking. Especially now with increasing threats of submarines from China, North Korea and Iran. And it would have been an excellent long-duration platform to launch smaller precision-guided weapons.
I'm wondering if one could make a V-22 variant that can do ASW missions like the Viking, not only could US Navy regain any lost capability from S-3's retirement but it opens up the idea of V-22 (or smaller tiltrotors like V-280, once it hits production) to be used on other carriers that don't have catapult-launch equipment, like what the British, Italian and Spanish (and others worldwide) have, allowing them to supplement their ASW helicopter fleet while having something that loiter around longer and somewhat keep pace with their fixed wing jets, like Harriers or F-35B.
You are absolutely correct there’s still a need for it - or a more modern platform. I think if tensions become imminent with China the Navy will pull them out of the desert pretty quickly but by then it’ll be too late….i think they need to be returning them to service NOW and developing a more modern platform.
@@casuallatecomer7597the CV-22 COULD fill this roll but it would not be an effective utilization of the precious limited space on the carrier. The S-3 was designed for a crew of 4 but a more modern aircraft would probably be fine with just 2 crew. That said you need an airframe designed for extended loiter, enhanced electrical generation, sonobuoys, and external / internal hard points for torpsedos and anti-ship weaponry. The S-3 was damn near perfect in every way but especially for its capabilities in such a small platform. A rotor wing or even tilt rotor is not sufficient for this mission. They need something capable of long range extended duration patrols which dictates fixed wing. The advantage of such an aircraft is it can also double as a carrier based tanker
@well-blazeredman6187 But the P-8s are land based anyway. They can't help the carrier groups on far away deployment. A suitable replacement should have been found... just in case.
@@alancranford3398 not sure why you're bringing the P-8 into the foray but anyway it's the MH-60R or "Romeo" that fulfills the rotor wing ASW role not the SH-60. They don't have anywhere near the range or capabilities that the S-3 had which will be crucial in a peer / near peer conflict. Since you mentioned the P-8 it is, of course, more capable than the MH-60R and S-3 but like the S-3 it serves ASW and ASUW roles but additionally has extensive ISR capabilities. The USN even has specialized P-8s for the ISR mission. That being said, the P-8 is not a replacement for the S-3 just as the P-3 Orion did not negate the need for the carrier-based S-3.
@@cruisinguy6024 I was not happy that the S-3 was retired without a replacement. Will the Navy use F/A-18 Growlers for the S-3 mission? I got up close to a P-8 this past summer at the Hill AFB air show and talked with PATRON 62 personnel. The P-8 has a lot of capability.
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html
Please click the link to watch our other French Systems videos
th-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LoxjAFtfDr8wwS6K_51gZ0x.html
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Air videos
videosth-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lpl6SQpA2WBti_WsykOgtgy.html
Please make a video about carl gustav Recoiless rifle 84mm
Pls do a vid about the Soviet 82mm automatic mortar pls
one of my favourite carrier aircraft!
The Marilyn Monroe of aircraft: yes, it's a Size 12, but it has nice curves in the right places.
I used to play golf at the North Island NAS. Vikings, on finals, would often generate wing-tip vortices that would come down to ground-level, dancing around me and disturbing my play.
Good video. Bonus-point for the footage of the mission systems.
ANOTHER..... Well narrated video and subject!!
I have studied MANY USN a-c, but didn't know that 'Viking' fired 'Maverick' missiles at enemy targets.....did know about "bombing" capabilities.
The Navy should not have retired the S-3. It was a valuable airframe
I read somewhere in an old book, referencing someone who supposedly was involved in the process, that the competition for the S-3 was considered Grumman's to lose considering the previous 2 generations of aircraft in that role had been built by them. Their entry based on the than new E-2 airframe would have offered great commonality for parts and training. But Lockheed put great effort into their proposal and Grumman arrogantly tried to phone theirs in and really annoyed the Navy. In the end, the USN still got a great aircraft.
A lot of people point out that the S-3 would be useful in the Pacific today with China's growing submarine fleet. The silver lining is that many of the S-3's were retired early with plenty of life left in their airframes so they could be reconditioned and upgraded if really needed today for less than building a new aircraft, provided the USN decided it needed them enough to allocated part of their budget.
The thing about China is the area where their submarines are most likely to operate in, can be covered by land base aircraft like the P-8 and the Triton drone, though gaps in time of their coverage would be expected. But if China starts operating further from their coasts in the open ocean, I think we may see a return to fixed wing carrier based ASW. If nothing else, a navalized version of the new US Army V-280 tiltrotor (Bell had created a navalized mock up for display a few years ago) may be able to help fill that gap.
Thanks for answering my request you are the best
Cool aircraft. Thank you for making this video!
I served as a jet mech in the 90s on the S-3B. They were great aircraft, miss the hoovers.
thats crazy digital CPU in the 70's
in the 60's for F14
Look into WW2 ships if you want your mind blown as to how advanced things were even back then. They had remote control of the guns and firing computers. Granted they were analog computers but still they had some pretty advanced stuff for a while now. They had datalinks between anti ship missiles in the 70’s and those missiles could “talk” to each other to select targets so two didn’t hit the same target. Wild.
@@arduinoguru7233The first Tom Cat didn’t fly till December of 1970 and didn’t enter service till 1973. I saw them being tested on the land based catapult and arresting gear in the spring of 1972
A great aircraft with looks to boot. With the various capabilities it had, I’m surprised that it was taken out of service before another all rounder replaced it.
Excellent video presentation.
Great video as always mate.
Could you make a video on the AVRO Shackleton and the Alvis Saladin please.
I’m surprised that this is the first I’m ever hearing of this aircraft
I’ve been saying it for a while now….the USN needs to immediately start development of a new ASW aircraft and possibly even pull the S-3s out of the desert in the meantime.
If we think there’s potential for a peer / near peer conflict in the next 2 decades (and we are certainly preparing as such) then we desperately need to improve the ASW bubble not just for the CSGs hit the ARGs and supply convoys as well.
The Falklands war clearly showed the need for an ASW aircraft that was carrier based - I had no idea that once again navies were losing this very vital capability!
Good video. Thanks.
Great Aircraft
What always caught my attention around them was how quiet they were. They hardly sounded like a jet; more like a reasonably loud piece of machinery in a building.
VS-41 Shamrocks, NASNI, USS Constellation, VS-38 Red Griffins. Great times, cool technology. There is a hole in the ASW program now…
The USN seems to have prematurely retired many of its former assets. There were upgrades planned for the A6 Intruder, F14 that were cancelled w/o a clear replacement. Surely one could have been created for the S3 as well. The carriers are now fitted with variants of the F18 originally a failed contender for the USAF’s lightweight fighter that the F16 eventually won. The current replacement appears to be the F35 with reduced speed and likely range. ASW now provided by helicopters only. Even with Tomcats and Intruders the Nimitz class could have a complement circa 90 aircraft they probably typically now field only 2/3 that number. With only one yard in the US able to build a super carrier It’s a wonder the US doesn’t start building a fleet of Medium sized V/STOL carriers like the British & French to name a couple.
The Intruder, Viking, and Tomcat were all victims of the end of the cold war and a lack of a peer or near peer enemy. Still to this day we don’t have a platform that can match the F-14’s capabilities but the Super Hornet can - for the most part - match the A-6.
That said the loss of the S-3 is still a gaping hole and I think the USN needs to immediately start development of a replacement and potentially bring them back from the desert until such a replacement can be fielded.
A very interesting looking Aircraft
This aircraft should be brought back and upgraded.
IIRC the S-3 was in harms way in 1986 in the Gulf of Sidra. Off Libya. Bullets and missiles were flying
the naval carrier borne S-3 Viking multi mission ASW aircraft could serve as a fast lightweight bomber . . . modifying the internal weapons bay to accommodate newer state-of-the-art guided missiles & guided munitions . . . for e.g. AGM-158J JASSM XR active radar homing inertial guided air-to-surface land attack cruise missiles & AGM-84 Harpoon semi-active radar homing inertial guided anti-ship missile . . .
I still think the US Navy still has a use for the S-3 Viking. Especially now with increasing threats of submarines from China, North Korea and Iran. And it would have been an excellent long-duration platform to launch smaller precision-guided weapons.
I'm wondering if one could make a V-22 variant that can do ASW missions like the Viking, not only could US Navy regain any lost capability from S-3's retirement but it opens up the idea of V-22 (or smaller tiltrotors like V-280, once it hits production) to be used on other carriers that don't have catapult-launch equipment, like what the British, Italian and Spanish (and others worldwide) have, allowing them to supplement their ASW helicopter fleet while having something that loiter around longer and somewhat keep pace with their fixed wing jets, like Harriers or F-35B.
Nah all the China talk is hyperbole , the US can only bomb non peer adversaries with no airforce or navy
You are absolutely correct there’s still a need for it - or a more modern platform.
I think if tensions become imminent with China the Navy will pull them out of the desert pretty quickly but by then it’ll be too late….i think they need to be returning them to service NOW and developing a more modern platform.
@@casuallatecomer7597the CV-22 COULD fill this roll but it would not be an effective utilization of the precious limited space on the carrier.
The S-3 was designed for a crew of 4 but a more modern aircraft would probably be fine with just 2 crew. That said you need an airframe designed for extended loiter, enhanced electrical generation, sonobuoys, and external / internal hard points for torpsedos and anti-ship weaponry.
The S-3 was damn near perfect in every way but especially for its capabilities in such a small platform.
A rotor wing or even tilt rotor is not sufficient for this mission. They need something capable of long range extended duration patrols which dictates fixed wing. The advantage of such an aircraft is it can also double as a carrier based tanker
Does this mean the USN is no longer interested in detecting submarines at long distances, n just relies on its Seahawks?
No. It has many P-8As. But, arguably, the S-3 should have been replaced, even at the expense of a smaller P-8 force.
@well-blazeredman6187 But the P-8s are land based anyway. They can't help the carrier groups on far away deployment. A suitable replacement should have been found... just in case.
The US Navy still has SH-60 ASW helicopters.
Yes, but those serve a very different function from the S-3.
@@cruisinguy6024 P8 is sea control.
SH-60 is local ASW and additional missions as required.
@@alancranford3398 not sure why you're bringing the P-8 into the foray but anyway it's the MH-60R or "Romeo" that fulfills the rotor wing ASW role not the SH-60. They don't have anywhere near the range or capabilities that the S-3 had which will be crucial in a peer / near peer conflict.
Since you mentioned the P-8 it is, of course, more capable than the MH-60R and S-3 but like the S-3 it serves ASW and ASUW roles but additionally has extensive ISR capabilities. The USN even has specialized P-8s for the ISR mission.
That being said, the P-8 is not a replacement for the S-3 just as the P-3 Orion did not negate the need for the carrier-based S-3.
@@cruisinguy6024 I was not happy that the S-3 was retired without a replacement. Will the Navy use F/A-18 Growlers for the S-3 mission?
I got up close to a P-8 this past summer at the Hill AFB air show and talked with PATRON 62 personnel. The P-8 has a lot of capability.
Please make a video about carl gustav Recoiless rifle 84mm
We added the Carl Gustav to our list.
Much appreciated@@WeaponDetective
I think you mean "four man crew"
Retiering this aircraft was not very wise. They should have developped the EAW version and retired the E2.
There’s no way the S-3 could replace all the functionality of the E-2 especially in terms of airborne battle management
Nice video