Do you agree we should save the Air Frames on the newer F-18 SuperHornets and use the still safe and useable S-3 Vikings instead?

2016-06-11T14:30:05-04:00

1.The USN has retired the S-3 Viking made famous by President G.W. Bush on the supposed end of hostilities in Iraq back in May, 2003.

2. The S-3 Vikings at DM AFB are still flyable and have airframe time to spare.

3. Why wear the hell out of the F18 Super Hornet as a refueller when we have these planes sitting, just like the A-10 Warthog, ready for service?

4. Aviation experts: we need your feedback!
SGT Damaso V Santana COL M Stock Col Private RallyPoint Member PO1 John Miller CPT Pedro Meza] CSM Charles Hayden TSgt Joe C. SMSgt Lawrence McCarter

CPO Tim Dickey] CPT Pedro Meza LTC Private RallyPoint Member [~802663:SSG Derrick L. Lewis, MBA, DSL, DL

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2016 2:31 PM

2016-06-11T14:31:28-04:00

Did I miss something? Are we using Hornets as refuelers?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2016 2:34 PM

2016-06-11T14:34:34-04:00

Because some Congressman has the factory for a replacement in his/her district or the new company is contributing greatly to the Congressman or his/her party

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 11 at 2016 3:53 PM

2016-06-11T15:53:41-04:00

Works for me. S-3 is an excellent Aircraft.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2016 5:58 PM

2016-06-11T17:58:40-04:00

Here are the S-3 Vikings awaiting orders and getting a tan in Arizona.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2016 7:16 PM

2016-06-11T19:16:38-04:00

We can also offer the pilots and crewchiefs/mechanics(if we use the wrong navy term you know what I mean) from the Navy a 2-3 year contract to come back to active duty at their former rank and get them back on active duty. We can use the S-3 as a utility aircraft as part of the Carrier Air Wing and, like it or not, we do have a new Chinese, Russian and Iranian diesel electric sub threat. Most can be used as in-flight refueling and other utility tasks other ASW.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 11 at 2016 7:31 PM

2016-06-11T19:31:07-04:00

The F/A 18 Super Hornet is a dual role combat aircraft not a refueller LTC Private RallyPoint Member. I certainly am in favor of ensuring that all military aircraft which either can fly long distances or deploy OCONUS are equipped with the same refueling equipment and that the USA does not develop special refueling systems tied to specific aircraft. The only exception I would concur with would be for "spy" aircraft that fly at much higher than usual altitudes.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2016 10:05 PM

2016-06-11T22:05:38-04:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FA-18_Automated_Aerial_Refueling.ogg

File:FA-18 Automated Aerial Refueling.ogg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 53 second movie clip shows an F/A-18 Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR). Engineers at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center are evaluating the capability of an F/A-18A aircraft as an in-flight refueling tanker to develop analytical models for an automated aerial refueling system for unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). The Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) project is documenting how an operational tanker's drogue basket responds when in the presence...

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2016 2:39 AM

2016-06-15T02:39:32-04:00

It's not a question of having airframes with "flight time" available on them in a field in mothballs. It was a great aircraft, but once the supply channel is shut off and the parts are divested from the inventory, the cost to re-implement is prohibitive. Trying to operate an S-3 now would be like trying to find parts to keep your Saab 900 Turbo going. Just not practical, nor cost effective. The reason airframes are retired is because the operational cost (time, energy, maintenance, money) to sustain them outweighs the operational benefit to the warfighter. Moving towards versatile, multi-role platforms saves the U.S. taxpayer BILLIONS while keeping the advancement of technology moving forward. I know this is an unpopular view to have with all the social media experts these days on the subject, but in my professional opinion, it's better for us as a nation to spend billions advancing technology and capabilities vs. spending billions to sustain antiquated equipment and stagnate the forward progress of R&D.

Response by MSgt Michael Lane made Jun 16 at 2016 11:07 AM

2016-06-16T11:07:26-04:00

It all comes down to money there is none! To get something new you have to get rid of something old, to keep something old you have to cancel something new. It really is getting bad equipment wise in the field. Not only do service members have to worry that they will get support when they need it they don’t know if the equipment they have will make it through the day.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 7:58 PM

2016-06-16T19:58:22-04:00

Limited repair/ Maintenance resources, they have to choose where to utilize assets.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 8:06 PM

2016-06-17T20:06:17-04:00

While it makes sense to utilize S-3s as dedicated tanker aircraft (and it has many advantages over the Super Hornet in this regard), the 18 is a multirole aircraft, which is the new flavor of the day... it can be reconfigured to strike, refuel, or to provide air interdiction. I also agree with the lack of parts availability, but if you only have limited space on a carrier, the Navy believes it makes more sense to have an airframe that can do as many things as possible.

Response by LCpl Brian Jennings made Jun 17 at 2017 7:44 AM

2017-06-17T07:44:41-04:00

Why let a perfectly capable aircraft sit and collect dust while wearing out a valuable fighter jet. Keep the Vikings flying