• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USN Another call to "bring back S-3's" (Vikings are Zombies)

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Just curious, does that mean that it would take a metric ton of money to get them right, or basically they were so worn out and/or with obsolete innards that you'd be better off starting from scratch if you wanted that capability?

My outsider guess would be that at some point a ship, no matter how well you maintain it is just done at some point. Even the one someone is getting ready to post to prove me wrong.
As others have already pointed out, the key word in my post was 'operational'. Museum pieces that are old as dirt? Sure, but not anything still a front-line asset.

Have they really done the math lately, or are they just sticking to a flawed decision made in the heady 90s when some people in the Navy thought it was the end of history and savings could be found by killing VS.
I think part of the problem with bringing the S-3 back is no one really has a clue just how much it would cost. As I mentioned earlier, the first S-3 for VX-30 that went through depot was not only a learning process but also a contant stream of surprises behind every other panel or part they pulled. Stuff was often deteriorated, in the wrong place or just not there.

There are certainly examples of aircraft pulled out of the boneyard after a long period, NASA pulled a WB-57F from the boneyard after it was there for 41 years (a record), but they are almost always unique and still operational.
 

GroundPounder

Well-Known Member
As others have already pointed out, the key word in my post was 'operational'. Museum pieces that are old as dirt? Sure, but not anything still a front-line asset.



I don't think my humor translated. I guessed that someone would jump in and say, " we have older ships in service " in that same vein of humor.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Are we doing...flown in...or flown?

T-34B/C
SH-3 (flew as a mid, does that count?)
SH-60B
SH-60F
UH-60A (there may be a few franken-hawk 60A+ around, but nobody flies straight up 60As anymore)
HH-60H (are they still around?)

Flew in
S-3B
SH-2F
CH-46

Plank owner on a ship that is now decommissioned
USS Thomas S Gates CG-51
 

BarryD

Well-Known Member
Are we doing...flown in...or flown?

T-34B/C
SH-3 (flew as a mid, does that count?)
SH-60B
SH-60F
UH-60A (there may be a few franken-hawk 60A+ around, but nobody flies straight up 60As anymore)
HH-60H (are they still around?)

Flew in
S-3B
SH-2F
CH-46

Plank owner on a ship that is now decommissioned
USS Thomas S Gates CG-51
I saw some -60Hs flying over Mission Valley the other day, I think HSC-85 has the remaining active airframes.
 

robav8r

D-FENS
None
Contributor
I have all y’all beat.
T-34C
T-2C
TA-4J
S-3B
B727-100
B727-200
A310-200

I count 7 that are now gone..

Still in service.
T-45C
B757-200
A300-600
A310-300

And I actually flew them.. Not just a passenger. (Smiles for the sarcasm... NFO dig)
Is the T-43A still in service out in Randolph ?
 

robav8r

D-FENS
None
Contributor
Are we doing...flown in...or flown?

T-34B/C
SH-3 (flew as a mid, does that count?)
SH-60B
SH-60F
UH-60A (there may be a few franken-hawk 60A+ around, but nobody flies straight up 60As anymore)
HH-60H (are they still around?)

Flew in
S-3B
SH-2F
CH-46

Plank owner on a ship that is now decommissioned
USS Thomas S Gates CG-51
Since were doing ships as well . . . . .
Knox Class FF
OHP Class FFG
Spruance Class DD
Ticonderoga Class CG
Sturgeon Class SSN
 
Top