Register here

Author Topic: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects  (Read 36420 times)

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 307
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2013, 04:09:24 pm »
I'm guessing the "new" Vikings would be to supplement the C-2's along with freeing up Hornets by taking over more tanking missions. So the passenger factor may not be a big issue. I'm guessing the only reason it's being widened at all is for the ramp at the tail.

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2013, 09:04:14 pm »
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?). 

More likely I misremembered it. But I think the requirement is to carry a spare engine, so pick the biggest engine in carrier use.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2013, 01:22:13 pm »
Edited image of Lockheed KC-3 Viking COD

Source:
http://ptisidiastima.wordpress.com/
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 02:49:13 pm by Triton »

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2013, 04:26:07 pm »
Thanks for that. I tried to clean up the image from the AWST article and post it here, but it came out looking lousy, so I quit.

I hope that they release some better imagery. It would be interesting to compare the old and new fuselages. Note the extensions on either side of the bottom of the fuselage. Presumably that is for the landing gear. They would have to move a lot of stuff out of the standard fuselage to get the maximum volume, since the standard S-3 fuselage includes the gear and a weapons bay. Plus, they'd have to beef up the floor. And the tailhook will have to be moved. In other words, it's not simply gutting the fuselage, but completely redesigning it.

Lockheed Martin was doing some experiments with a bizjet fuselage a few years ago. I cannot remember if they were trying to build a composite fuselage or one with standard materials, only trying to speed up the design process. I heard about it during a visit to the Skunk Works in 2011. It was an internal project and they never intended to fly the airframe, but I think that the story got reported.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2013, 08:16:27 pm »
Thank you for sharing the information and the image, blackstar.

Offline zebedee

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 123
    • Mumbling
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2013, 11:00:46 pm »
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
"I have often had the impression that, to penguins, man is just another penguin - different, less predictable, occasionally violent, but tolerable company when he sits still and minds his own business" Bernard Stonehouse

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2013, 05:17:36 am »
Thank you for sharing the information and the image, blackstar.

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

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2013, 05:23:49 am »
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.

Offline tab28682

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 13
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2013, 02:41:18 pm »
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.........

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2014, 07:39:15 pm »
Lockheed Martin C-3

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2014, 07:43:02 pm »
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.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1724
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2014, 08:37:20 pm »
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. 

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2014, 08:55:49 pm »
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.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2014, 10:42:36 pm »
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.
 
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2514
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2014, 04:23:31 am »
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.