Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles

[707guy]

Not the first time this has been discussed but I thought this was a new wrinkle on the issue:

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/08/lockheed-pitching-revamped-viking-fill-carrier-cargo-tanking-roles

"Lockheed Martin is entering the fray to replace the U.S. Navy’s ageing fleet of Northrop Grumman C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery (COD) aircraft.


The company is proposing to refurbish and modify retired Lockheed S-3 Viking anti-submarine warfare aircraft — currently in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona — to fill the nascent Navy requirement. The rebuilt aircraft would be designated the C-3."

 

[xj220]

Yeah, I don't know about that. Cool concept but it seems like there are a lot of unknowns. Plus, with the Navy's propensity for replacing aircraft (mainly lack thereof), starting with an aged platform only compounds the issue. What about the V-22, I thought that was being looked at?

 

[EODDave]

Yeah, they have done such a great job with the F-35! So, let's reward them with another contract they can F away. Really? Until they can short their shit out with JSF, they don't deserve any more military contracts.

 

[707guy]

What about the V-22, I thought that was being looked at?

I don't think there is any urgency on this at all. Too much going on with the budget and the F-35 right now for this to be a priority.

 

[Malo83]

US-3A "Miss Piggy" in her glory days

 

[wink]

Yeah, they have done such a great job with the F-35! So, let's reward them with another contract they can F away. Really? Until they can short their shit out with JSF, they don't deserve any more military contracts.

By this standard no defense company would be eligible for a contract. To be fair, the government and outside contractors Lockheed is not responsible for are just as responsible for F-35 issues.

I don't think there is any urgency on this at all. Too much going on with the budget and the F-35 right now for this to be a priority.

If transporting the F-135 engine as a complete unit is driving this then you might assume there is no rush, since Navy deployment is some years off. But really, isn't this how we end in trouble, not allowing enough lead time so everything is a rush, more expensive, or we have gaps in capability?

There has been some V-22 evaluation for COD. There are issues. Speed, size, lack of pressurization, flight deck interoperability, and others. I don't think the Rhino Viking COD is necessarily the solution, but it is a worthy proposal that needs vetting. From just an operational standpoint, ignoring comparative costs I don't know, the Rhino Viking is the probably the best proposal to date.

 

[EODDave]

Wink. I am going to have to disagree with you here. LM claimed they could make the aircraft the DOD asked for at a certain price and on a certain time scale. There have been colossal failings on both by LM. I am not saying there aren't contributing factors. But by and far, LM has f'd this away.

 

[wink]

Wink. I am going to have to disagree with you here. LM claimed they could make the aircraft the DOD asked for at a certain price and on a certain time scale. There have been colossal failings on both by LM.

The Lockheed promises (contract) were made based on certain representations, and promises made by dozens of subs and the government. Many subs have not come through and the government does what it does by changing requirements. Lockheed is bearing the burden of the failings of others just as much as their own. And they have screwed up (cracks anyone?).

I am not saying there aren't contributing factors. But by and far, LM has f'd this away.

Locmart deserves the heat only because they are the prime contractor. For instance, LM has not fuck away the helmet or the not ready for prime time software. If you build a house and house burns down from faulty wiring you sue the general contractor, even though he may not have any personal experience wiring houses and certainly didn't do the faulty job. The general contractor then must go after the electrical contractor he used. The general is legally liable, but not at fault because he f'ed up the wiring. Same thing here.

 

[EODDave]

I'm talking general design faults. Ie. main gear to hook point length, structural cracking issues, systems integration, etc. and I agree, the helmet has issues as well as all the code, but LM was less than upfront about a lot of the issues. Transparency would have helped. All water under the bridge. It's just not an A/C that I have any interest in flying.

 

[wink]

I'm talking general design faults. Ie. main gear to hook point length, structural cracking issues, systems integration, etc. and I agree, the helmet has issues as well as all the code, but LM was less than upfront about a lot of the issues. Transparency would have helped. All water under the bridge. It's just not an A/C that I have any interest in flying.

Can't really argue with any of that. I just don't feel like I can single out Lockmart when it is about the most complex aircraft program in history, breaking ground on so many fronts, and involving so many sub contractors and government interests. The process won't be pretty or cheap, but in the end I bet it will be totally awesome. We will all love a crack at it some day. Lots of good planes had problems.

 

[robav8r]

I'm talking general design faults. Ie. main gear to hook point length, structural cracking issues, systems integration, etc. and I agree, the helmet has issues as well as all the code, but LM was less than upfront about a lot of the issues. Transparency would have helped. All water under the bridge. It's just not an A/C that I have any interest in flying.

Boy Dave, you have "Acquisition Professional" written all over you

 

[Pags]

I'm talking general design faults. Ie. main gear to hook point length, structural cracking issues, systems integration, etc. and I agree, the helmet has issues as well as all the code, but LM was less than upfront about a lot of the issues. Transparency would have helped. All water under the bridge. It's just not an A/C that I have any interest in flying.

As a data point, I'm pretty sure the Hornet failed its IOT&E.

 

[Renegade One]

Just for the sake of "OP Thread" discussions…what ELSE is being looked at as a C-2 replacement? I guess some variant of the V-22…anything else? Probably best not to go all JSF on this discussion…it being a very different animal.

The S-3 Viking, in it's several forms, didn't exactly suck.

 

[707guy]

But really, isn't this how we end in trouble, not allowing enough lead time so everything is a rush, more expensive, or we have gaps in capability?

Agree - COD just isn't one of those things that is a priority. From the Navy "fact file:"

"The first of two prototypes flew in 1964 and production began the following year. The original C-2A aircraft were overhauled to extend their operational life in 1973. In 1984, a contract was awarded for 39 new C-2A aircraft to replace the earlier airframes. Dubbed the Reprocured C-2A due to the similarity to the original aircraft, the new C-2A includes substantial airframe and avionic systems improvements. All the older C-2As were phased out in 1987, and the last of the new models was delivered in 1990."

Last of the "new" models was delivered 24 years ago. A replacement aircraft should already be in the pipeline.

 

[hscs]

There has been some V-22 evaluation for COD. There are issues. Speed, size, lack of pressurization, flight deck interoperability, and others.

Guess I don't understand why the V22 wouldn't be an acceptable option, and every design is a compromise.

With the V22 - you can make multiple runs without the need for catapult / AG crews, plane guard, etc. You would also not be restricted to day time only ops - so parts runs could occur at night. Not really sure why speed and pressurization is such an issue - they have done plenty of work with USAF / AFSOC.