Chris Rawley of Information Dissemination got it half right in his article on "USMC expands CAS capabilities". In the comments section (where some of his assertions are questioned) he makes this statement...
It was a suggestion, not a mix-up. Why not arm the Greyhounds? What other sea-based long dwell armed ISR does the navy currently employ? Land-based armed ISR is fine until host-nation country ABC decides it doesn't want to base platforms flying strike ops into country XYZ.Well he's right to want more carrier based ISR. He's right to want to utilize platforms that we do have for a variety of missions. Where he's wrong is the platform he suggests. The C-2 Greyhound? Really? Seriously?
We had...and have the perfect platform for the emerging threats that we're facing. We simply retired them too soon. Way too soon.
What was that platform?
The S-3 Viking and the ES-3A Shadow. The Viking was capable of carrying out air support (at least as its being done now...at 15000 feet with smart bombs)...anti-surface warfare...it carried harpoons regularly....aerial refueling...it carried buddy tanks and freed up Hornets and Super Hornets for strike and air defense missions...and in its latest and greatest form, it was a capable ISR platform.
Chris was right...he just picked the wrong airplane!
Sheez, I'm commenting at ID about to mention the ES-3, I see an RSS where you're thinking the same thing.
ReplyDeleteSpooky. :)
The retirement of the S-3 is something that I never understood. The older Intruder/Prowler had to soldier on but the more versatile Viking had to go. Seriously, why? Costs? Not sexy enough?
Btw, I seem to recall that they were offered to Taiwan, so they did have some airframe hours left.
ReplyDeleteReal pity.
oh they have plenty of airframe hours left.
ReplyDeleteas far as thinking the same thing...great minds?
i still haven't heard a justification...i hope the Navy reverses itself...these were economical, multimission super planes. sexy isn't always fast with a pointy nose. sometimes its being able to get the job done!
what about the V-22 in the role. it has the distance and ability to land vertically and short take off so doesnt need catapult. could it be a realistic choice?
ReplyDeletei don't like the idea of modifying an airplane (GREATLY) to fill a role.
ReplyDeletebesides. a refurbished S-3 is much cheaper and get the job done...with no further development costs. the problem with the belly gun on the V-22 is teaching me a simple lesson....even seemingly simple fixes are anything but.
yeah i hear that belly gun has been a pain in the neck (and literally nauseating) to the marines. Also it takes away three seats from the 22. I think 3 well equipped marines are many times better than that belly gun.
ReplyDeleteI think the end of life stress testing did prove that the S3 had lots of airframe hours left IF it operated from runways, but less if it kept on using Cats and traps BUT I don't think there was ever any serious research on what it would take to give them a full SLEP type overhaul and thus increase the carrier based useful life. It is / was an extremely flexible airframe, that could just of got better and better with uprated engines and start of the art avionics !
ReplyDelete