Talk:Lockheed S-3 Viking

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)

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)

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)

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 "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)

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)