Flyable S-3 Viking

[AG-51_Razor]

I'm pretty sure that this has been requested before but recently, with the announcement of the C-130 Herc coming to DCS and the mentioning of the POSSIBILITY of developing a human flown version of the KC-130, it occurs to me that a full fidelity version of the S-3 Viking would be hugely popular. I say this for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would be another carrier capable plane, which I think is a big deal. Being able to provide fuel to your squad mates during an online mission is another very appealing factor. And for those that would poo poo an ASW platform in a sim that doesn't really have any submarine warfare to begin with, I'd just say that the Viking was an extremely versatile aircraft capable of several missions besides ASW, such as the anti ship role, air to ground role as well as the AAR role. And did I mention that it has a tail hook?? I really hope that this is at least being considered.

[Silver_Dragon]

a S-3 has a prime module for me

[Sacarino111]

4 minutes ago, AG-51_Razor said:

I'm pretty sure that this has been requested before but recently, with the announcement of the C-130 Herc coming to DCS and the mentioning of the POSSIBILITY of developing a human flown version of the KC-130, it occurs to me that a full fidelity version of the S-3 Viking would be hugely popular. I say this for several reasons, not the least of which is that it would be another carrier capable plane, which I think is a big deal. Being able to provide fuel to your squad mates during an online mission is another very appealing factor. And for those that would poo poo an ASW platform in a sim that doesn't really have any submarine warfare to begin with, I'd just say that the Viking was an extremely versatile aircraft capable of several missions besides ASW, such as the anti ship role, air to ground role as well as the AAR role. And did I mention that it has a tail hook?? I really hope that this is at least being considered.

+1

[MAXsenna]

YES! Give us the US-3 COD too.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Edited September 28, 2022 by MAXsenna
spelling and grammar

[upyr1]

Only if we get improved submarines and anti-sub warfare for the surface ships. Ideally this would mean naval mods  but the minimum would be better AI and modeling 

[AG-51_Razor]

On 9/27/2022 at 10:26 AM, AG-51_Razor said:

And for those that would poo poo an ASW platform in a sim that doesn't really have any submarine warfare to begin with, I'd just say that the Viking was an extremely versatile aircraft capable of several missions besides ASW, such as the anti ship role, air to ground role as well as the AAR role.

For Pete's sake man, read the whole post!!

[upyr1]

On 9/27/2022 at 12:26 PM, AG-51_Razor said:

for those that would poo poo an ASW platform in a sim that doesn't really have any submarine warfare to begin with, I'd just say that the Viking was an extremely versatile aircraft capable of several missions besides ASW, such as the anti ship role, air to ground role as well as the AAR role. And did I mention that it has a tail hook?? I really hope that this is at least being considered.

I'm not poo pooing the S-3, I'm just asking ED to improve submarine warfare so the S-3 will be even more awesome  

[Northstar98]

On 9/27/2022 at 6:26 PM, AG-51_Razor said:

And for those that would poo poo an ASW platform in a sim that doesn't really have any submarine warfare to begin with, I'd just say that the Viking was an extremely versatile aircraft capable of several missions besides ASW, such as the anti ship role, air to ground role as well as the AAR role. And did I mention that it has a tail hook?? I really hope that this is at least being considered.

I'm not poo-pooing the S-3 either, I would love to have one (especially an S-3A circa mid 80s, or B circa early 90s-mid 2000s, in that order - though I'd even fiy the US-3A) but ASW was its primary role for most of its life (before its ASW equipment was deleted). Having what was primarily an ASW platform (especially during the Cold War) not being capable of ASW and so can't perform it's primary intended mission rings massive alarm bells for me and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to simply just ignore it.

Yes, it can also do ASuW and refuel stuff, but so can the A-6E, which is much more suitable for both and that's from both a historical perspective (ASuW is quite literally the point of the A-6E and what it was used for more often than the S-3) and from a capability perspective (the A-6E is smaller, faster, can carry much more payload (nearly 3.7 times as much) and can carry much more fuel in a tanker configuration (3585 US gal as opposed to 2233 US gal)).

The S-3 was only really more relevant for ASuW and aerial refuelling after the A-6E/KA-6D had gone, but by then it was close to retirement from frontline service and service aboard carriers. It's also going to mean an S-3B, (also the only variant to have Harpoon, SLAM-ER, Maverick and LANTIRN) which has the added disadvantage of being more complex and difficult to develop (ISAR radar and more complex avionics).

Edited October 1, 2022 by Northstar98

[AG-51_Razor]

I too would much prefer to have an A-6 in the game however that airframe is quite a ways off in the future and is not going to be an ED module. The S-3B, on the other hand, is already in the game as a tanker, currently undergoing a significant graphics overhaul and is in the hands of ED. It is for those reasons that I chose the S-3 to pick on. It just seems to me that if something as significant as making a player flown airframe capable of passing gas to another player flown plane, the S-3 might be the one that ED could do it with most easily (in the least amount of time). The weapons systems you mention, HARPOON, SLAM-ER, Maverick and LANTRIN are also already in the game so I don't see the disadvantage there. And as for the ASW role, the Viking was pretty much out of that business for the last 10-15 years of it's service life. It's just a pipe dream anyway. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, AG-51_Razor said:

I too would much prefer to have an A-6 in the game however that airframe is quite a ways off in the future and is not going to be an ED module.

While you’re right, it’ll be a HB module so it’ll almost certainly be excellent.

3 hours ago, AG-51_Razor said:

The S-3B, on the other hand, is already in the game as a tanker, currently undergoing a significant graphics overhaul and is in the hands of ED. It is for those reasons that I chose the S-3 to pick on. It just seems to me that if something as significant as making a player flown airframe capable of passing gas to another player flown plane, the S-3 might be the one that ED could do it with most easily (in the least amount of time).

I’m sorry but I don’t agree, you still have at least 90% of the work ahead of them: there’s still a cockpit to model, a module grade flight model to do, as well as just about all of the systems and avionics (both research and development (the AI all have stuff that’s incredibly simplified with incredibly abstracted) systems.

3 hours ago, AG-51_Razor said:

The weapons systems you mention, HARPOON, SLAM-ER, Maverick and LANTRIN are also already in the game so I don't see the disadvantage there.

True, but you’ve still got the problems with integrating them.

3 hours ago, AG-51_Razor said:

And as for the ASW role, the Viking was pretty much out of that business for the last 10-15 years of it's service life.

Yeah, but the S-3 had a ~35 year service life, so it still spent most of its days with ASW as it’s primary mission.

3 hours ago, AG-51_Razor said:

It's just a pipe dream anyway. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.

Well, I hope not

I want an S-3 don’t get me wrong and I probably would buy one even without ASW, but for me it would never be complete without ASW and a very large omission IMO.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Northstar98

[AG-51_Razor]

Well, I'm glad we finally got that sorted out!