Talk:Lockheed S-3 Viking/Archive 1

Archive 1

UNIVAC?

What is the meaning of the reference to UNIVAC after LTV in the discussion about the S3's design? The link takes the reader to the UNIVAC computer page, though I doubt that the reference on the S3 page has to do with some sort of CAD that the UNIVAC facilitated, especially since the most advanced devices carrying the UNIVAC tag appeared in the mid-60's and this craft was first deployed in '74, meaning that more advanced computer equipment could have been available during the development cycle of the S3. Srajan01 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Google "sperry univac" I believe that is the Univac associated with the GPDC computer. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/UYK-7 The AYK-10 was supposedly an airborne UYK-7. *That* Univac. It had core memory -- you could shut it off and turn it back on without dumping the program. There was a separate momentary-action restart switch if you needed to reload the program.

Dive bombing

I recall seeing something on the History Channel or something where an S-3 dive-bombed and destroyed an Iraqi ship during the first Gulf War. Anyone want to verify? Masterblooregard 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a "dive bombing" attack. It may have been a 30 degree dive or a ten degree dive (the last standard bombing tactic is the level lay). The plane also lost its ARS while dropping the bomb. Hawarren (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Bullshit "lost" the ARS. I know the guy who was Pilot in Command and (he'll never admit it) dropped the buddy store on the ship.

---

It was Cmdr (at the time) Bruce Bole from VS-32. He later became the commanding office of VS-31. He "bombed" an Iraqi ship by dropping his buddy store (ARS) on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:8010:0:0:0:0:668 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Mission

The following is the intro paragraph. I find it contradictory. Please observe:

The Lockheed S-3 Viking is a jet aircraft originally used by the United States Navy to identify, track, and destroy enemy submarines. In the late 1990's, the S-3B's mission focus shifted to surface warfare and aerial refueling. After the retirement of the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II, the Viking was the only airborne refueling platform organic to the Carrier Air Wing(s) until the fielding of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It also provides electronic warfare and surface surveillance capabilities to the carrier battle group. A carrier-based, subsonic, all-weather, multi-mission aircraft with long range, it operates primarily with carrier battle groups in anti-submarine warfare roles. It carries automated weapon systems, and is capable of extended missions with in-flight refueling. Because of the engines’ high-pitched sound, it is nicknamed the "War Hoover" after the brand of vacuum cleaner.

The aircraft does not and cannot participate in ASW anymore. All Navy jets have had the MAD booms and sonobuoy tracking equipment removed. They still participate in surveillance, however their primary mission is in-flight refueling. It is my intention to remove the second of the bold statements from the article. Any criticisms are welcomed. Txredcoat 01:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Any left?

Are there any S-3s left in active or reserve service? E2a2j (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

-Yes, there are currently two active squadrons, VS-22 and VS-32. Both are home ported in Jacksonville, FL. Txredcoat (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Assume they're both scheduled for decom by the end of the year? E2a2j (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

--As of Dec '08, VS-32 is gone. It was decom'd in Sept or Oct. Links through NAS Jax site show VS-22 to be decommissioned 1/29/09, with the seastrikewing to be decommissioned the following day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.29.36.15 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Navy One

Propose Navy One paragrph being moved from "Operational History 3.1 Iraq War" into its own section. This section to be placed before "Retirement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"was used to ... destroy enemy submarines."

The header said the aircraft "was used by the US navy to detect, track, and destroy enemy submarines." This is false. An aircraft which never destroyed an enemy submarine cannot be said to have done so, even if that was its theoretical mission. For now, I have removed the incorrect "and destroy" though somebody may want to re-insert something with a better wording that does not imply that actual enemy submarines were destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.121.174 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

VS-22 Detachment vs Deployment

Chitownr23, why did you change the VS-22 detachment to deployment? Thanks for you input. Hawarren (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reactivation

I think that it should be noted on the article that the S-3 have been reactivated and are in limited use...Oh it is in the Deactivated segment. So should we make a note in the status?--Lostend (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Citation Needed ICO APU accumulator

Noticed the following statement in regard to the APU was flagged as citation needed:

"The APU accumulator was fed from the primary hydraulic system, but could also be pumped up manually (with much effort) from the cockpit."

Please note the following:
1. That the only documentation available to support this is contained in a non-publicly available document.
2. Similar factoids regarding this aircraft are neither cited nor carry the Citation Needed tag.

This being said, is there any way that this tag can be removed? --Txredcoat (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I would remove the "(with much effort)", as the bar would be moved and down until pressure was available to start the APU. It may be in the NATOPS manual for the S-3B. If its worth anything, I have pumped up the APU a few times during my tour with S-3s. Hawarren (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC) --- It's found in NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model S-3B Aircraft, NAVAIR 01-S3AAB-1, pg. 2-18. http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/lockheed/s-3viking/navair-01-s3aab-1-natops-flight-manual-navy-model-s-3b-aircraft.html. I would say "much effort" is quite an understatement. If you got out of the pilot seat to get better leverage you could do a full on cardio workout for about 30+ minutes to pump that thing up. I did it once as a Plane Captain. It was easier to push the aircraft by hand over to an electrical outlet. 167.220.151.242 (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)JoshJ

Operational History /GPS/editorial remark

In this section it says that post Cold War, non-ASW-Vikings had been equipped with "additional GPS systems". Since the 'S' in GPS already stands for 'system', as explained in the cross reference, "GPS system" is an unnessessary double. 178.10.181.188 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The text still needs to says what the GPS equipment is, such as GPS receiver or GPS navigational system. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is not redundant: Global Positioning System (GPS) is the entire network of satellites and other equipment that forms the whole network. A GPS system in an aircraft is the indivdual components and equipment mounted on that aircraft that access the GPS information. - BilCat (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• These aircraft systems uses GPS for navigation, whatever you want to call it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sweep angle

The given value of 15 at leading edge does not match the planform drawings (where it's 18.091), maybe it's 15 at quarter chord? Don't have any reference book to modify effectively though... ALe801 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALe801 (talk • contribs)

Also the maximum speed does not correspond to the mach-number... ALe801 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the calculations for Mach at various altitudes, as Mach number varies according to altitude. Is it incorrect for 20,000 feet? - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually 828 km/h at 6100 mt (T 248.5 K) is M 0.728. Anyway I'm gonna go on Jane's and check/fix the page paramters. ALe801 13:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALe801 (talk • contribs)

War Hoover

It was commonly known as the "War Hoover", not simply "Hoover". Objectively: Naval Aviation News. July 1, 2004. Article "S-3B Viking: war hoover" by Chris Buhlmann Subjectively: Ask the veterans in the Viking community (I'm one). They can be found in S-3 and various VS facebook pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.220.151.242 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Also adding: See "War Hoover" patch on crew members shoulder: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30525/confessions-of-a-submarine-hunting-s-3-viking-crewman-during-the-twilight-of-the-cold-war?fbclid=IwAR2cZnqh_XVgCdVfQYw1WAcEU175PKbA0HVtjbydqsFqA4_3yBrfk7B4PiY

http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/images/images/vs24pilots.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.29.109 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Outlaw Viking

An old magazine publication put out by Lockheed says that the Outlaw Viking's bureau number was 160124. ([1](Check on page 11.)) The Viking at the USS Midway Museum is BuNo 157966, so it's not the same plane as currently claimed in this Wikipedia article. Does anyone have any sources that say otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barleyfields (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

60 sonobouys?

The text says "59 sonobouys" were carried, and I was curious, because the only one I'd ever seen had 16 chutes under the rear fuselage. I looked for a few more photos, and it appears that some S-3s had only 16 chutes in 4 groups of four, and others had a much larger, wider field of chutes mounted aft of this. Apparenlty this is the 60 sonobouys mentioned. I don't know if they removed some later, after they stopped using them for ASW, or what, but they didn't ALL carry 60 sonobouys.

Idumea47b (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• The specification is for the S-3A which had 59+1 chutes, the number was reduced on the S-3B I understand. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The S-3B also had 60 chutes, but this was reduced later in it's lifetime. During the time when they had 60 chutes it was rare for all to be loaded. I had to load those all the time and it was typically half that. Reason for the "59" - Even when empty they always carried a single SAR (search and rescue) buoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.23.40 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)