S-2 Tracker revival?

**surfgun** · 09 Oct 10,, 21:11

I was wondering since the USN has recently been reestablishing it's ASW capability to earlier levels, and since the C-2 and E-2 platforms are still around if it would be beneficial with limited risk to develop a new generation of S-2 Tracker? I figure that this would be cheaper than a brand new airplane or a revival of the S-3 Viking. What do you guys think?

**JA Boomer** · 12 Oct 10,, 19:12

Originally Posted by surfgun

I was wondering since the USN has recently been reestablishing it's ASW capability to earlier levels, and since the C-2 and E-2 platforms are still around if it would be beneficial with limited risk to develop a new generation of S-2 Tracker? I figure that this would be cheaper than a brand new airplane or a revival of the S-3 Viking. What do you guys think?

What does the fact that the E-2 and C-2 are still flying from carrier decks have to do with this? The S-2 is not based on the same airframe design as the other two, nor do they use the same engines. Are you merely pointing out that the USN still utilizes prop aircraft?

The Viking was stripped of it's anti-submarine tasking many years before its eventual retirement. Anti-submarine warfare has been provided exclusively by the SH-60F and SH-60R for some time now. Quite frankly, the USN developing a new aircraft to fulfill this mission isn't going to happen.

Besides which, you'd have to think the S-3 Viking was a much superior, robust, and multi-mission capable platform than the S-2 Tracker.

**surfgun** · 12 Oct 10,, 23:43

What would make one think that the S-3 platform is more robust? The E-2 and C-2 have proven themselves as being robust by outlasting the S-3.
The S-2 shared a common airframe with E-1 Tracer radar aircraft. So if the USN would desire a long range ASW capability, why not use an airframe already in use (E-2/C-2)? SH-60's are hardly long range (thus no comparison to a fixed wing option). It depends if the USN like enemy subs closer to the CSG or not?

**JA Boomer** · 13 Oct 10,, 00:03

Originally Posted by surfgun

What would make one think that the S-3 platform is more robust? The E-2 and C-2 have proven themselves as being robust by outlasting the S-3.
The S-2 shared a common airframe with E-1 Tracer radar aircraft. So if the USN would desire a long range ASW capability, why not use an airframe already in use (E-2/C-2)? SH-60's are hardly long range (thus no comparison to a fixed wing option). It depends if the USN like enemy subs closer to the CSG or not?

Oh, I see. You think it would be a good idea to take the E-2/C-2 airframe (and they’re both different actually) and modify it for use as an anti-submarine platform. You didn’t communicate that very well in your first post.

What makes the S-3 more robust then what you're proposing .. well let’s see. There’s the bomb bay, the hard points, the buddy refueling capability, the compactness (it’s smaller on the carrier deck), the speed, the maneuverability, the fact that it can already carry a targeting pod for ISR work over sea and land, should I keep going or have you had enough?

The S-3 would be a better anti-submarine platform than an updated S-2 or modified C-2 .. the USN probably figured that out in 1968. In any case, there’s no money for this, whether it be a reactivation, modification, or developing a new aircraft, it’s not going to happen. What made you say the USN was increasing their ASW presence in the first place?

I’m not advocating using SH-60R’s for ASW work around the carrier strike groups is optimum, I wasn’t a fan when the USN stripped the S-3 Viking from its primary ASW mission back when. But the USN made their choice, now they have to live with it.

**surfgun** · 13 Oct 10,, 00:42

"What made you say the USN was increasing their ASW presence in the first place?"

The USN had let their helo ASW assets decay until the latest generation of ASW SH-60's. Also, the maritime patrol fleet was neglected as well, until the initiation of the P-8 program. Perhaps, the Navy plans to have longer ranged P-8's fill both the prior role of the P-3's and S-series aircraft (patrolling ahead of CSG's from forward operating bases)?

**JA Boomer** · 13 Oct 10,, 19:07

Originally Posted by surfgun

I was wondering since the USN has recently been reestablishing it's ASW capability to earlier levels

So it sounds as though you've made this statement without any real facts to back it up. Is this correct?

Originally Posted by surfgun

The USN had let their helo ASW assets decay until the latest generation of ASW SH-60's. Also, the maritime patrol fleet was neglected as well, until the initiation of the P-8 program. Perhaps, the Navy plans to have longer ranged P-8's fill both the prior role of the P-3's and S-series aircraft (patrolling ahead of CSG's from forward operating bases)?

I believe to say that USN ASW forces have been neglected is inaccurate. The USN obviously believes that the submarine threat to its fleet has been greatly reduced since the end of the cold war. Thus it feels confident enough reducing the P-3 fleet by roughly half and retiring the S-3B Viking from its ASW role since that time without compromising overall protection.

The P-3 has been subject to the same upgrades and modifycations as any other military aircraft during that period. Ensuring that it retains modern capabilities to detect, track, and prosecute submarine contacts. Also, the SH-60B/F are being retired and replaced by what seems to be a more capable machine in the SH-60R.

So although USN ASW forces have been reduced (a reduction most likely comparable to the reduction in the submarine threat faced by the USN) to say that the USN ASW forces have been neglected is just completely wrong.

Although I don't agree with all of the USN decisions, I wouldn't have retired the Viking in the ASW role, and I'm not convinced the P-8 based on the B737 airframe will be more affective in the ASW role than the Orion 21 would have been. I do not think these moves have placed the USN in a situation where they are unable to deal with the current submarine threat.

**Stitch** · 13 Oct 10,, 20:55

If I had to guess (and I do), I'd say that if the USN ever does look into a fixed-wing, carrier-based ASW asset, it would end up being a version of the EA-18G (S-18H?) with Mark 54 ALT capability.

**surfgun** · 13 Oct 10,, 22:14

"I believe to say that USN ASW forces have been neglected is inaccurate."

A bunch of P-3 airframes were not retired due the choice of the USN. It was due to worn out airplanes (cracks galore). The Navy would be flying many of those planes today if the were not forced into retirement.

**JA Boomer** · 13 Oct 10,, 22:36

Originally Posted by Stitch

If I had to guess (and I do), I'd say that if the USN ever does look into a fixed-wing, carrier-based ASW asset, it would end up being a version of the EA-18G (S-18H?) with Mark 54 ALT capability.

LOL, why not eh Stitch

Originally Posted by surfgun

"I believe to say that USN ASW forces have been neglected is inaccurate."

A bunch of P-3 airframes were not retired due the choice of the USN. It was due to worn out airplanes (cracks galore). The Navy would be flying many of those planes today if the were not forced into retirement.

Do you have any links to support this statement, a quick search didn't turn up anything for me. If it was true, that the USN was forced to retire P-3's it would have otherwise liked to retain, then why do they continue to withdraw airframes (was supposed to get down to about 130 P-3C/EP-3 in 2010 as far as I know) and why wouldn't they replace these airframes with the P-8? Only 108 P-8A are currently scheduled to be delivered, about a 1-to1 replacement to the P-3C's that will be remaining when the P-8A reaches the fleet.

**surfgun** · 13 Oct 10,, 23:27

No links, I read hard copy (there is life other than internet searches). Life member of Navy League. Go get yourself some issues of SEAPOWER. It costs allot to maintain worn out airframes. Your P-8 figures are off (6 planes for initial testing, to be followed on by 117 standard production P-8As units). Per the October 2010 Naval Aviation issue of SEAPOWER.

**JA Boomer** · 14 Oct 10,, 00:12

Originally Posted by surfgun

No links, I read hard copy (there is life other than internet searches). Life member of Navy League. Go get yourself some issues of SEAPOWER. It costs allot to maintain worn out airframes. Your P-8 figures are off (6 planes for initial testing, to be followed on by 117 standard production P-8As units). Per the October 2010 Naval Aviation issue of SEAPOWER.

I read too

don't worry.

You're correct I had the wrong numbers. It's still a 1-to-1 replacement of P-3C’s with P-8A’s, leading me to believe the USN was not actually forced to reduce airframe numbers based solely on airframe airworthyness. The USN seems fine with its current level of ASW platforms, despite loosing the aforementioned S-3/P-3 aircraft.

**Pioneer** · 28 Oct 10,, 06:30

I am no ASW or aircraft expert in any way, shape or means!!
But I would support the notion of the S-3 Viking being prematurely retired by the powers that be with in the USN was a bad bad move!
As for the argument of a ASW variant of the Lockheed Grumman E-2/C-2 airframe or Lockheed (Vought) S-3, I would think the S-3 to be the better of the designs. Why - because the S-3 Viking was specifically made for its role/mission
Would not the turbofan of the S-3, give a more comfortable ride (for both crew and equipment!) than the proposed variant of
the E-2/C-2's turboprops?
Does not the existing Viking airframes (and associated expensive R&D) already sit in a desert under the backing sun?

It is my belief, that in the not to distant future, the USN is going to need to resort back to just such a role and capability offered by carrier-based fixed-wing ASW platform. It is not going to be an easy task either - not just because of lack of a specialised carrier-based, fixed-wing ASW platform, but more importantly the lost skill of their special crews!

On a side note, the S-3 Viking itself was designed in the late 1960's as a replacement for the S-2 Tracker. I have read that the Viking amazingly able to pack in the systems capabilities of that of the P-3 Orion into its small airframe (in fact I believe the Canadian's were so impressed, that they had the systems of the Viking replace that of the original P-3 Orion's systems, when they picked the P-3 Orion to replace their CL-28 Argus`s). This capability of the Viking to pack the capability of the the bigger P-3 Orion was predominantly due to the miniaturization of electronic, which intern also allowed the scaling down of the number of system operators. So it makes me wonder in 2010, what the size/weight of a modern carrier-based, fixed-wing S-3 Viking replacement could be achieved? But then again, I am unfortunately conscious that the USN could muck-up and potentially destroy such a program though its mismanagement or by trying to achieve a massive and ridicules range of missions and role and specifications on such a promising and potential design (although I would like to see a common airframe-based replacement for the E-2 Hawkeye, C-2 Greyhound and Viking!!).

P.S. Stitch I almost laughed at your analogy of the USN did look into a fixed-wing, carrier-based ASW platform, it would end up being a version of the EA-18G (S-18H?) with Mark 54 ALT capability, if it was not such a scary possibility!!

Regards
Pioneer

**Kilo 2-3** · 28 Oct 10,, 22:48

I know the notion of a SH-18H is being derided somewhat; but is it really a total impracticality? There's not question that a fast jet certainly isn't ideal for the role (shorter loiter time, smaller crew capacity, etc.), and that an S-2 or S-3 platform can certainly do the job better; but could it be made to work?

It might prove to be a reasonably useful asset when operated as a part of the CBG's greater ASW network, for example as a "killer" within a team of MH-60R (or in the future, UAV?) "hunters."

On another note, is a UAV/RPV ASW aircraft a possibility? Seems to me like they have a good number of traits which would strongly suit them for the role.

**Pioneer** · 29 Oct 10,, 06:08

Interesting comment and analogy Kilo 2-3

It might prove to be a reasonably useful asset when operated as a part of the CBG's greater ASW network, for example as a "killer" within a team of MH-60R (or in the future, UAV?) "hunters.

So would this be a standard F/A-18E/F, which is simply able to use its speed/reaction time to deliver say (as Stitch suggested) the likes of Mark 54 ALT onto a designated target area (via data link info and coordinates from the likes of MH-60R and ships sensors). Which means the F/A-18E/F`s do not need to much specialised modifications and ASW systems fitted - just the ability to handle and deliver transonic speed capable ASW torpedoes.
(How fast can a modern lightweight DP torpedo travel? and at what speed can it be deployed, out of curiosity??)

For if this is the case, and the F/A-18E/F is simply fitted with and to deliver ASW torpedoes cued by external sensors via data link, then maybe the likes of -

is a UAV/RPV ASW aircraft a possibility?

It would be smaller, lighter and (in theory) cheaper than a manned aircraft like the F/A-18E/F, as well as freeing up such aircraft for Fighter/strike/EW/SEAD missions.
In a sense this would make it a modern day fixed-wing cousin of the Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH system!

Regards
Pioneer