Nov 072010
A Vought-designed V/STOL derivative of the Lockheed S-3 Viking, circa 1973. At the time, the US Navy was interested in VTOL-izing pretty much damn near everything, from fighters to anti-sub planes to carrier on-board delivery. A number of V/STOL versions of the S-3 were designed. This one, an anti-submarine aircraft, used wing-root engines geared to separate fans, using a vertical thrust system derived from the earlier Vought ADAM and V-460 design. The intent was to operate these planes from ships much smaller than the normal supercarrier.
8 Responses to “V/STOL Viking”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
That aircraft never got fully evolved into what it could have done.
Stick the AN/APG-71 radar of the F-14D on the nose and start hanging Phoenix missiles under the wings…and you would have had a _great_ air defense aircraft to protect a carrier battle group with long loiter time on station.
BTW, regarding the full range of the Phoenix missile, that was officially “Over seventy miles”.
I talked to an F-14 pilot who brought his Tomcat to Jamestown for an airshow about that when I worked out at our airport, and his reply to my question about what the max range of the missile was: “Well, I can’t tell you that…but I can tell you if that if I was flying at 30,000 feet right over here… I could detect and pick off B-52’s around the time they cleared the runway up at Grand Forks Air Force Base.”
Distance from Jamestown Airport to Grand Forks AFB is over 100 miles.
The Navy’s desire to go VTOL was likely linked to their concept for a Sea Control Ship. http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/297192721/m/1740099641001 ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship
I see that the last one has the failed XFV-12 deployed on it.
V/STOL Viking would have also allowed fast transport of light cargo and crew to and from any vessels having a helicopter pad on them, like destroyers and frigates
I’ve done LSE (landing signalman, enlisted) for SH-2F’s and CH-53’s and the rotor wash was pretty intense.
I can imagine the jet blast from a V/STOL S-3 taking off from a destroyer’s helipad would require being chained to the deck!
There’s also the heat of the exhaust to take into account.
I imagine that’s a case where you would stay inside the superstructure and let them land the aircraft all on their own; which, considering how some helicopter landing pad operations go wrong anyway, sounds like a good idea for all things landing on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTqejwFJFS0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoHd5LePyVc
At least the flubbed ship lift-off shown here starting at the 1:50 mark had a happy ending, although I’m willing to bet that the people onboard had to change their underwear immediately afterward. 😀 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4xGZdpWcK4
Then of course, there is the terrible South Korean Chinook accident, showing that the dual curse of modern art is not only the way the awful shit looks, but that looking at it as you lower it down from way up high in the air…. will make you forget that when you are several hundred feet up over a bridge, your rotor’s ground effect lift doesn’t exist anymore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_3GOS-1LTg
More lives and metal slaughtered on the altar of “Modern Art”. 😀
yeah I’ve seen some bad ones. no video though.
we had a few backseaters hand in their wings after a bad landing..and our CO got his nickname “skids” after doing a rolling landing when he came back to base after some shipboard trials. rolling landings don’t work well if you still have the brakes on.
we had one where a practice/dummy torpedo got dropped on the deck just before he got the wave to lift off. luckily I don’t think we ever carried a live torpedo. just fly out, dump the dummy in the water to prove that we still can, pick it up and come home.