Lockheed S-3 Viking Variants and Projects

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
486
Triton said:
Thank you for sharing the information and the image, blackstar.

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

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
486
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

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
33
Reaction score
62
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.........
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
486
Lockheed Martin C-3
 

Attachments

  • LockheedC-3.jpg
    LockheedC-3.jpg
    674.4 KB · Views: 904

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
486
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.
 

Attachments

  • LockheedC-3part2.jpg
    LockheedC-3part2.jpg
    902.8 KB · Views: 844

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
814
tab28682 said:
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.........

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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
486
F-14D said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
434
aim9xray said:
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

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,882
Reaction score
4,232
Website
beyondthesprues.com
F-14D said:
tab28682 said:
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.........

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

Lost in the Sky
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
1,492
From the C-3 flyer in post #29: "Carries F135 Full Engine or Power Module"
 

Attachments

  • Carries F135 Full Engine.JPG
    Carries F135 Full Engine.JPG
    81.2 KB · Views: 1,537

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,295
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Attachments

  • Refuel_1_LG.jpg
    Refuel_1_LG.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 1,423
  • F135_DeckLoad-1.png
    F135_DeckLoad-1.png
    332.9 KB · Views: 1,470

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,714
Reaction score
1,295
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Richard N said:
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:
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,913
Reaction score
486
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
94
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

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,521
Reaction score
5,116
blackstar said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
679
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
538
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.
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
550
Reaction score
626
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
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

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
255
Reaction score
691
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.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0494.jpg
    IMG_0494.jpg
    126.8 KB · Views: 1,197

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
17,454
Reaction score
7,307
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
631
Reaction score
843
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
 

Attachments

  • S-3B-Dual-AGM-88-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    S-3B-Dual-AGM-88-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 735
  • S-3B-Dual-AGM-84-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    S-3B-Dual-AGM-84-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 686
  • S-3B-AGM-136-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    S-3B-AGM-136-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 662
  • S-3B-AIM-9-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    S-3B-AIM-9-Launcher-VAHF.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 343

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
29,203
Reaction score
7,164
hesham said:
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;

 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    77 KB · Views: 353

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
17,454
Reaction score
7,307

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

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,196
Reaction score
1,614
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.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,380
Reaction score
995

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,911
Reaction score
4,399
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

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,380
Reaction score
995
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
 
Top