Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
5
Does anyone have any information on the design for the enlarged S-3 Viking offered as a carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft in competition with the second batch of Grumman Greyhounds? And I don’t mean the US-3 which was just a stripped ASW Viking for high speed COD duties. Apparently this super Viking COD had a new fuselage, engines and seats for up to 30 passengers.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
12
Did not JP Santiago (aka Sentinel Chicken) do some what-iff's of a Viking COD with a longer fuselage?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,615
Reaction score
5
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Do you mean these:




See here: http://www.madoc.us/profiles.html#rainbower12h

Regards,

Greg
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,092
Reaction score
12
Yes!!! ;D

Note also new main gear!
Maybe JP Santiago / Sentinel Chicken or someone else can give us info, if this concept is based on facts or on fiction.
If fiction, the mods have the right to move this thread over to Scale Modelling, CGI and Profiles forum.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
5
Nope, the Vector site article is pretty clear that the Lockheed COD would have a new fuselage and engines and not just a remodelled aft fuselage. It would also have seats for 30 which is quite large.
 

nova10

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Hi there

Has anybody got any info or pics on the proposed smaller "mini" or "micro" s-3 viking intended to operate from smaller carriers?

Many thanks
 

Sentinel Chicken

American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Website
www.tailsthroughtime.com
My COD version was purely conjectural on my part. Couldn't find any info at the time on the COD Viking so more or less took a wild-arse guess.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
3
Sentinel Chicken said:
My COD version was purely conjectural on my part. Couldn't find any info at the time on the COD Viking so more or less took a wild-arse guess.
Looks good nonetheless! :)
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
41
Greetings All -

I did not find a previous thread looking at AEW variants/proposals of the S-3 so started up this one. This model is in the possession of the Frontiers of Flight Museum at Love Field in Dallas, TX. This is a Vought/LTV proposal for an AEW variant of the S-3. Makes sense coming from Vought as they did the Navy acceptance qualification work for the original S-3 and obviously had far more navair experience than Lockheed. Not bad looking either....

Any other proposals out there to replace the E-2? There's the joined wing Boeing design in another thread but what else might be out there?

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

Pyrrhic victory

This is going to hurt
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
An older thread

Lockheed & Grumman Multiple Purpose Subsonic Naval Aircraft (MPSNA) studies (1986)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2012.0/highlight,lockheed+grumman.html

As a side note on the E-2 in general, its been said that Vought's E-2 submission was superior to Grumman's but the contract went to Grumman anyway. The more aerodynamic antannae from Vought's proposal found its way into the Hawkeye.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,301
Reaction score
113
Hi,

proposed S-3A-based CCW/USB STOL aircraft.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880008202_1988008202.pdf
 

Attachments

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
A recent issue of Naval History magazine had an article by Norman Polmar about the S-3 Viking. It mentioned the stretched COD version of the aircraft that was proposed in the 1980s. It did not mention a new fuselage or seats for 30, only a fuselage plug of 70 inches.

The vector website is gone. Anybody know what it referred to?
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
blackstar said:
The vector website is gone. Anybody know what it referred to?
Not gone, the author just hived off the aviation side of his site to a separate URL. The relevant article can now be found here:
http://www.airvectors.net/avs3.html
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
Thank you for that. Here is an excerpt:

"One of the interesting derivatives of the "stock" S-3A was a modification for the "carrier on-board delivery (COD)" cargo / personnel transport role. Lockheed initially proposed a major redesign of the Viking for COD operations, featuring a longer and wider fuselage with a rear loading ramp and accommodations for 30 passengers, plus more powerful engines to handle the bigger airframe. The Navy didn't buy the idea, so Lockheed came up with a minimum-change solution, originally given the designation "S-3A(COD)" but then redesignated "US-3A". Combat avionics were removed, with a color navigation radar and a LORAN-Omega navigation beacon receiver installed. The seats for the SENSO and TACCO were removed, though a place was installed for a loadmaster. The US-3A could carry six passengers or up to 2,125 kilograms (4,680 pounds) of cargo internally in a cargo hold with 7.6 cubic meters (10 cubic yards) of usable space. It could be fitted with either an external tank or a cargo pod under each wing, depending on whether the mission demanded range or load.

One of the original YS-3A Viking prototypes was converted as a demonstrator, performing its first flight on 2 July 1976. The Navy was impressed, but decided to standardize on the Grumman C-2A Greyhound instead. However, the Navy did acquire six more US-3A conversions to meet a specialized COD requirement. They provided service during the Gulf War, but were retired in the mid-1990s. One was lost in a crash. The US-3A's cargo pods, known as "blivets", were carried on other Viking variants on rare occasions."


I think that there are actually three COD versions that were proposed or built:
1-the original COD proposal, with a much larger fuselage.
2-the actual US-3A COD that was built, essentially consisting of the standard fuselage with the interior stripped out to serve in the COD role.
3-the COD version mentioned in Polmar's Naval History magazine article, which would have consisted of the basic S-3 airframe with a 70-inch fuselage plug. The article linked above does not refer to that version.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,301
Reaction score
113
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
 

Attachments

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
499
Reaction score
21
Two images of the Viking AEW concept.


The first is a PK Nagata artists concept of the Viking AEW getting ready to launch
The second is a different scan of the same poor image of a Viking AEW model
Both from Vought Aircraft Historical Foundation archives.


bill
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
25
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
blackstar said:
Proposed revised version of Viking COD. New fuselage.
Related topic:

"Common Support Aircraft (C-XX) competition [2014]"
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19148.0.html
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,957
Reaction score
14
Maybe the results of the X-55 ACCA could be incorporated ?
 

Attachments

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
I wish they had released a better illustration of the aircraft. I am curious as to how they add a larger fuselage to an existing cockpit. Is it just longer or do they increase the width?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,957
Reaction score
14
My interpretation is an increased length, a higher set wing and maybe
taper of the rear fuselage on a shorter length of the aft fuselage, so
retaining the maximum width on a longer part of the cabin.
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
476
Reaction score
14
Going by the article, both widened and lengthened . They will have some interesting challenges due to "knock-on" effects.

- If they are to keep the wing intact, they are limited as to how much the fuselage can be widened - this is driven by the current engine placement (i.e. you can't move the engines outboard to make room for more fuselage width). As a very rough guess, they can't bump out the fuselage sides more than 9-12 inches on either side. (The reduced clearance could have some aero effects as well as impede maintenance accessibility to the inboard side of the engines.)

- The fuselage outer mold line would probably be bumped out on the sides like that of the 747 Dreamlifter.

- Raising the wing above the "cargo box" of the fuselage means that the empennage group must be raised by roughly the same amount; this driven by the need to have the engine exhaust plume not interact (much) with the horizontal stabilizer.

- Tying in the new fuselage structure to the existing cockpit/nose landing gear structure will be a challenge; the S-3 was designed around a very efficient dual keel beam structure that reacted longitudinal loads all the way from the nose landing gear (cat loads) to the main landing gear, to the tailhook (trap loads). The depth of this structure will have to be greatly diminished in the cargo box to make room for, well, cargo; the transition to the existing structure under the cockpit will be interesting. On the other hand, they won't have to have the gaping [structural] holes in the current upper forward fuselage for the back seaters to eject through.

I would imagine that a lot of the initial groundwork for this was done by Lockheed and Vought in the late 70s/early 80s when last a new COD aircraft was needed. (The customer's solution then was to reprocure the C-2 essentially "off the shelf" rather than engage in a development effort.)

My thoughts anyhow, YMMV.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
I think that the COD requirement is to be able to carry an F110 engine without any disassembly. So they need a fuselage that can hold that.

But I agree that eliminating the taper at the back could constitute "widening."
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
476
Reaction score
14
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.
 

Attachments

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
352
Reaction score
0
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.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
aim9xray said:
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.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
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.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
Triton said:
Thank you for sharing the information and the image, blackstar.
I didn't provide the image. I provided the AWST article.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
4
zebedee said:
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

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
aim9xray said:
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.........
 
Top