S-3 Viking (MIA)

It looks like the USN has quietly removed the S-3 Viking from service. I cant find any active Viking squadrons in service on any carrier. I have seen one article saying all Vikings have been removed or modified as cargo or ECM platforms. Apparently with the demise of the USSR SUB fleet USN does not consider any other fleet as a threat? The USN is counting on its Orions for long range (land based) and Helos for short range support. Looks like someone likes to play (craps) chancey dice game.

Looks Like the Moderators are fumbling around. Sorry this just didnt pop up on CNN or FOX. Shhhhhhhhssss! No ones suppose to know. Keep quite.
No Mid-range support for USN carrier groups. Now Kilos have a chance.

Hi Dennis. The USN has actually shifted priorities in this realm. I also don't like the idea of removing the S-3 from dedicated ASW work. But the fact is, the USN has the short range air-ASW work covered with MH-60's. And at this time, no nation fields the credible open ocean nuclear submarine fleet that the Soviets once had. Simply put, the threat has changed. Diesel subs carrying torpedo's and ASM's are not as mobile as nuclear subs and aren't really suited to chase down fast surface ships. Not unless they want to deplete their energy rapidly and totally give their position away. Even Kilo's are loud at mid-range speeds. Diesels are most efficient when loitering in areas quietly and slowly. Kilos are deadly submarine platforms. And they are very good at what they were designed for. They aren't going to be running down CSG's like a nuclear sub though. And CSG's are escorted by 1-2 nuclear submarines in ASW/ASuW roles anyways. To cover mid to long-range ASW work, the USN will ultimately bring this into the fold:



The P-8A will be much more flexible in it's wartime ASW role. You can easily put a P-8 into areas/straits/channels you wish to pass through by putting a P-8 with fighter escorts overhead to counter diesels threats. The P-8's ability to get on scene quicker and remain on station for longer periods of time will give it a much greater capability than P-3. The real disadvantage to this is that it's not based on the carrier. You have to rely on P-8's to either move with the battlegroup, or you need the battlegroup to be positioned near airfields. Of course that's relative as P-8's range is quite alot higher than P-3 and S-3.

Sea Dog said:

I also don't like the idea of removing the S-3 from dedicated ASW work.

Click to expand...

I believe the P-8 will be an excellent choice for a replacement for the P-3, particularly if new airframes are built.

I still believe we MUST have a carrier-borne ASW platform with longer legs, longer endurance, and larger carrying capacity. The S-3 was all of this and I believe it premature to have retired them from that role, just as I believe it was premature to retire the Spruances.

The Russians still have a credible SSN fleet and the Chinese are building them. As time goes on, we will have to reintroduce those type platforms into the fleet, perhaps at a time when we will wish we had maintained the experience level. The sub-surface threat, IMHO, is still the greatest threat to the CSG, or SAG. Just my opinion.

According to the USN, about 100 S-3s are to be maintained in flying condition for possible sale to friendly countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Greece, Turkey, and others. the most interesting possibility here is Brazil, the only nation from the list that operates a ctol carrier which could provide a base for the Vikings. The Sao Paolo currently operates an understrength air group of about 15 A4 Skyhawks and a similar number of helos. She has rooom for nearly twice that number, and a squadron of S-3s would provide a potent modern strike element to the Brazilian fleet as well as an ASW capability par excellence. This could then lead to the possibility of Brazils CSG participating in more joint ops with the US and allied fleets or on UN operations, gaining Brazil a higher world profile. Food for thought...

Mr Jeff Head

I think the USN is playing a time game with the other worlds navys. Its when do we next field our new carrier launched midrange ASW aircraft, such as the Osprey-or when does a USN carrier hit the deep six ( that means its sunk). There will be all kinds of Congressional hearings in Washington when that happens, No matter how much money you have in your deffencse budget its never enough.
By reading the other posts so far- no one seems to think it was a good idea to get rid of the S-3.

Obi-Wan, Thanks for the info- the USN may need to call them back- after they lose a carrier or 2. Of course there still are S-3"s in service- gutted and hauling frieght.

The Descision to withdraw the S-3 was in truth purely financial; in a world of shrinking defence budgets the US Navy was most likely asked "What are you prepared to sacrifice in order to keep what you want most?" The S-3 Viking, despite being excellent in all the roles it has been asked to perform, isn't seen as 'sexy' like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or the F-35 Lightning II (I wonder how long before the F-35 becomes the F/A-35? Especially as it was designed as a STRIKE fighter!) and this coupled with the receding threat from the Russian Navy's submarine force made it a candidate for retirement,- premature, to be sure, but I believe the USN is looking to the future. If you look at all the worlds armed forces, they appear to be in a state of transition from the old (Cold War) world order to the new one (we're not there yet) and so perhaps the Americans think there is time to prepare, and allow airframes such as the V-22 to mature before ordering an ASW variant to succeed the Viking. The F-35 won't be ready for service until the next decade, so perhaps an American equivalent of the 'Ten Year Rule' is in effect. That might turn out to be a bad idea, it was for us after all...

Obi Wan Russell said:

so perhaps the Americans think there is time to prepare, and allow airframes such as the V-22 to mature before ordering an ASW variant to succeed the Viking.

Click to expand...

Which, IMHO, is a recipe for disaster.

The US has ample funds...more than ample funds...to cut in other social spending areas and other foreign aid...or some of the most rediculous grant money you have ever heard of to the tune of hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars...to not skimp on vital defense areas of some of our most vital weapons systems and task forces...which the CSG most surely represents. The sub surface threat, in my estimation, is still, clearly, the graves threat to any carrier.

Cutting the S-3 amounts to a guessing and a gambling game the US need not play, IMHO...but as you have already indicated on a number of occassions, the politicians (note I do not include statesmen in this group) who are more worried about their image, their "carreer", and their own pork, have no heart and no care for such things.

I agree with you Jeff. I was recently lamblasted in a yahoo group for stating why the USN is getting rid of the S-3 and not stating my position on the aircraft.. It is a big waste of a fine naval asset. Espically considering the USN spent millions to upgrade the aircraft to S-3B in very recent years. Even though the USN had taken away it's ASW mission it is still a great aircraft.

Wasteful. The USN CSG has limited sea legs for it's ASW suit now for several years. SH-60's ,fine aircraft, just don't have the range of a Viking. And cannot deliver the varied ordanance a Viking could. Did you know that a Viking could use all USN air delivered munitions?..I guess P-3's will take up the slack..if they are avaliable in the operating area. Of course all CSG have LA class SSN's at their disposal....

Bottom line the Viking will be missed....

Just to clarify my position, I don't agree with the premature retirement of the Viking, I was just trying to clarify the political reasoning behind the decision. Be in no doubt, it was a political choice to do with reduced funding and in no way reflects on the superb fighting ability of the S-3. The politicians will say the Soviet sub fleet is no more, rusting at it's moorings and so the need for the Viking has receded, but that is to ignore the threat from other nations with rogue governments and a small but effective sub force. Letting down your guard only invites attack, which ultimately costs more. Defence cuts don't save money in the long run, but the politicians behind them have usually left the stage by the time things rebound and others (the Navy) are left to pick up the pieces.