I don't know anything about the airframe lifetimes of the CG's Falcons or Herks but I do know the Hoov has tons of life left.
...From the XO of one of the remaining S-3 squadrons, "they're just figuring out if it's even possible to stop the sundown process, much less re-org the funding, OPTAR, training to sustain continued ops." The weps school/wing is pretty much a ghost town too for what it's worth. Capt Bob Buehn retired yesterday, long time S-3 bubba, and the S-3 mafia at the O-club reception wasn't talking much about the possibility of sticking around. But, stranger things have happened.
What did they say in The Right Stuff? "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"....... While I think that if many people could, they would keep the S-3 around to continue missions in the Navy and/or the Coast Guard. But you are going to run into the same problem as the Marines with the Prowler, if they keep it around for long after the Navy retires them. If the Coast Guard is the sole operator of the aircraft they will be responsible for all of the long term care and feeding that goes into maintaining the aircraft fleet, of a pretty old platform. No matter how much airframe life is left in a platform things have a tendency to crop up, like cracks in the wing, that would effectively ground the fleet if they don't have a solution to it. Not only that, it makes little sense to me to get the Hoover when there are a variety of platforms out there that could easily be used for the same mission, like the HC-144 and HU-25. Many countries use executive jets/medium civil aircraft for CG and MARPAT duties. It makes little sense to me to use an older platform that would be cost intensive in the long run. The CG doesn't hunt subs and doesn't perform maritime strike, like other interested parties that have looked at the S-3, and they don't land on the carrier. So why does the CG really need the mighty War Hoover? To me, it just smacks of wishful thinking on the part of S-3 guys....... I see the only viable users of the S-3 being foreign navies that could replace their S-2's or like aircraft, firefighters and companies using them for test platforms (I believe Raytheon still flies A-3's testing radars, etc).
Airframe life does not always equal viability. There is plenty of airframe life left in E-8 JSTARS but they still have serious issues with the aircraft. Same thing with the B-52, they have lots of airframe life left in them but if not for the expensive care and feeding that the USAF has put into them, they would not be viable. Who is willing to pony up the money to keep the S-3 viable?
Bombs and aerial refueling giving a loiter time of 6.5 hours+ is pretty darned good! Taking an unbiased look at this is hard for me to do but the Hoov is definitely capable of handling the stress of the non0carrier environment for another 12,000 hours. It does not require R&D and the purchasing thing is not a factor since it is a government transfer of an asset to a different "department". Safety is also a factor....the S-3B is a single-engine capable airplane that can take a beating so it beats out the Falson in that respect. It is less of a "beast" than a Herc, and more maneuverable. The only thing that I would not want to see is the Hoov painted White and Orange. NASA is operating 2 that I know of as icing research testbeds also.
But is the USCG going to start doing AR, much less start dropping bombs? As cool as it would be to drop Rockeye on a drug-running cigarette boat, I don't think the capability is really needed.
I think that is the basic problem, the Hoover guys can't look at this unbiased. Other than getting a relatively 'free' aircraft, which they might have to pay for in the short and long term, how is the Hoover advantageous over other platforms for the USCG mission? The USCG is already investing in the HC-144, which is smaller than the Herc and which I would be reasonably certain is single engine capable. The USCG does only light weapons, not Maverick's or Rockeye's. They don't air refuel. Other aircraft have better range and loiter time. They don't stress their airframes anywhere close to a carrier environment, obviating the need for an aircraft stressed for that. And where would they get the money mission specific equipment that the USCG would need to install on the Hoov? Too many questions, not a lot of reasonable answers, other than the stars in the eyes of former Hoover guys. HC-144A (maybe our resident Coasties can tell us more): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200702/ai_n18708911 http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/mrs/default.asp
Two S-3's were down here in Homestead from Jax (VS-22 me thinks was the tailflash) a couple of months ago for the Coasties to fly in and check out. I was also told that the Forest Service is looking at acquiring a certain number also to be fire-bombers.
THe S-3 brings survivability, safety, weapons if you need 'em, a ridiculous loiter time, and a great sensor package. I am not sure what the coastie requirements, and I am sure they are doing a cost-benefit analysis. I will call my buddy who is still at the Weps School to get the scoop to pass along.
i don't think anyone is disputing that the Hoov is a great plane with lots of life left in it. But seems like it doesn't bring anything to the fight (that the CG needs) that their existing fixed-wing fleet, especially if they've already got those HC-144s in the pipeline.
Dude, you have had to much of the Kool-Aid.. It was a good jet for it's mission back in the day but there is new and better stuff out there... What is the threat? A cigarette boat, cessna, ??? I think a more sensor loaded C-130 would be just fine.. Follow this argument for one second.. A tactical fighter (F something or another) into a hot area.. What you want.. Once that threat is low enough.. An AC-130.. One bad ass airplane for the mission (loiter, weapons, sensors, operators).. I think the arugument for the S-3 is what does it bring (that is needed) to the Coast Guard..
You bet. If it loses an engine it can easily climb up and it has a great single-engine radius. In fact, it does better losing an engine than the C-144 in this respect. That is, if you are doing a mission way out 1200 mile away from land and you lose an engine on the C-144, you might have to dump quite a bit of fuel to continue flying if you are hot & heavy, and then you may not be able to limp all the way to shore. It is my understanding that this would be just a stop gap measure as the C-144 comes (slowly) on line through missionization/testing. The reasons that the C-144 was chosen was it was cheap (it was during the initial bids, at least), and we are looking at contract maintenance. It is much cheaper to operate a prop than a jet and the loiter time is good (better than the Falcon's which is around 3.5 hours...less than an HH-60!), but it is still taking a while for it to move through. I don't have all of the facts, but I can see someone at HQ saying "Admiral, we can lease these available aircraft with great radar/loiter/established record and we can have them on line in just xx months vice the X years we are looking at with the Casa. And look, here are hard numbers on the operating costs". I would love to hear all of the reasoning on this one.
Nothing official...just rumor mill. Of course, "contract maintenance" is a rumor that spreads like wildfire as it is near & dear to so many.
The Hoov burns about 2400pph. THe last time I saw an operating cost for the Hoov I believe it was about $3800 per hour.
Like the Augusta birds? I remember reading that contract maintenance was part of the original proposal for Deepwater...part of the naysayers saying that it would be more cost effective. And I know it has been revisited many times, though I didn't know an official determination was made. I know the hangar deck will be happy, but too bad that we didn't get the C-27Js and have a common engine between two airframes. That is good news, as I like having fixers be flyers.
I would not be surprised if contract maintenance was in the Deepwater proposal because the program was being run by.........contractors.
There's a surprise and the contractor in question not only built the C-130 and the S-3, but do a lot of contractor maintenance all over the world. That said, it would be hard for USCG to create a Viking maintainer cadre overnight unless they borrowed or got transfers from Navy Viking personnel before they disappear into other communities or elsewhere.
The last I have heard from my very reliable contacts is that the Coast Guard is considering S-3s as a interim survelliance package but it simply that, a consideration. If the CG were to do so, it would be a complete package. We would use Navy aircraft, pilots, and maintainers.
New info....CG will not be getting S-3 Vikings. The CNO however with the stroke of a pen is in deep consideration of retaining the S-3 for 5-6 more years to gap what is lost with the P-3 fleet being half down. Two squadrons will stay around. This info is from the pit at the Weapons School.
