Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


S-3 Viking: How the U.S. Navy Planned to Kill Russia’s Submarines

S-3 Viking
A Lockheed S-3A Viking aircraft of anti-submarine squadron VS-31 in flight with an ASQ-81 Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) boom extending from the tail section. The aircraft was assigned to Carrier Air Wing Seven (CVW-7) aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in 1983.

A few years ago, NASA retired the Lockheed S-3 Viking, which had been in service with the U.S. Navy until 2016 – over four decades after the jet’s introduction in 1974.

(Subscribe to 19FortyFive‘s New YouTube Channel here.) 

The S-3, nicknamed “War Hoover” for the vacuum cleaner-like sound it made, was originally developed as a submarine killer – and was distinct for its four-person crew.

Building the S-3

To replace the aging, prop-driven Grumman S-2 Tracker, the Navy developed the VSX program to procure an anti-submarine successor. The winning design, the S-3, was a carrier-based, all-weather aircraft capable of subsonic, long-range flight. The S-3 was very much a conventional-looking plane, with a slightly swept leading edge and two GE TF-34 turbofan engines mounted under the wings. Whereas most military jets required ground service equipment to assist with the engine start, the S-3 housed an auxiliary power unit (APU) and could perform unassisted starts.  

Four-Man Crew

Unlike most carrier-capable jet aircraft measuring around 50 feet long, the S-3 carried a four-person crew – rather than a two-person, or one-person crew. Upfront sitting side-by-side was the pilot and the copilot/tactical coordinator (COTAC).

In the back, also side-by-side, were the tactical coordinator (TACCO) and the sensor operator (SENSO). The SENSO was enlisted, whereas the other three crew members were commissioned officers. The four-person configuration came with an odd ejection protocol: if the pilot or COTAC initiated ejection, all four crew members would be ejected, with the backseaters firing 0.5 seconds before the frontseaters to allow for separation.

If TACCO or SENSO, sitting in the back initiated ejection, the pilots up front would not be ejected – no, they had to initiate their own ejection. 

Sensors and Displays Allowed Teamwork

The S-3 was renowned for its sensory integration; the S-3 was the first anti-submarine aircraft to integrate all of its sensor systems into a single General Purpose Digital Computer (GPDC). The integration allowed crew members, who were each seated in front of a Multi-Purpose Display (MPD) screen, to consult and collaborate with each other by analyzing the same data at their own station simultaneously. Alternatively, each crew member could assess separate data.

The end result: the S-3 was a powerful detective, with sensory capabilities considered equivalent to the P-3 Orion, a 116-foot plane with a crew of 12. 

Despite the S-3’s adeptness at sleuthing out enemy submarines, by the 1990s, with the Soviet Union folded, there just weren’t many enemy submarines left to sleuth.

Accordingly, the S-3’s mission profile was modified, from anti-submarine operations to sea surface detection, ground-attack, and in-flight refueling operations. For the S-3’s updated, less sophisticated function, the backseat crew was removed, leaving just a pilot and COTAC to operate the S-3 for most missions. The S-3 served reliably until 2016 when it was retired.

Still, some interest in the S-3 has remained, including rumors of a “comeback.” South Korea’s Navy, for example, expressed interest in purchasing the S-3. Even the U.S. Navy has spitballed the idea of bringing a few S-3s back from storage to perform anti-submarine duties.

For a moment, it appeared as though Lockheed was going to refurbish the S-3, rename it the C-3, and use it to replace the C-2 Greyhound for carrier onboard delivery (COD). Instead, the V-22 Osprey was chosen as the C-2’s replacement.

But the lingering interest in the S-3 serves as a testament to the jet’s functionality and reliability.

And now, in light of China’s naval build-up and aggressive behavior, some war planners are longing for the S-3’s vaunted submarine detection abilities, and wondering if the Viking’s retirement was premature. 

MORE: PAK DA – Is Russia New Stealth Bomber a Joke?

MORE: Was the F-14 Tomcat Retired Too Early? 

MORE: Nimitz-Class – The Best Aircraft Carrier Ever? 

Harrison Kass is the Senior Defense Editor at 19FortyFive. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon, and New York University. He lives in Oregon and listens to Dokken. Follow him on Twitter @harrison_kass. 

Written By

Harrison Kass is a Senior Defense Editor at 19FortyFive. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, he joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison has degrees from Lake Forest College, the University of Oregon School of Law, and New York University’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He lives in Oregon and regularly listens to Dokken.



  1. Michael E. Fisher (Mef)

    June 25, 2022 at 1:38 pm

    As a former Naval Aviator and one of the first eight Naval Aviators to fly the S-3A out of Lockheed Burbank’s Factory Training Program, I’m somewhat familiar with the S-3A’s performance and reliability. For it’s time, it was a superb Anti-Submarine platform for defending the carrier battle group, providing real time anti-sub info to battle group commanders. the REAL PROBLEM however was one of battle group’s emitting too much acoustic and electronic information enabling the quick and accurate submarine fire control solution. Deception and stealth by the battle group force the submarine to move and investigate suspicious acoustic and electronic sources that have been minimalized by the battle group/ carrier commander. It is this movement that elevates the submarine’s exposure to sonobuoy pattern’s acoustic detection and classification. In short, force the sub to move and you increase your chances of detecting him. The S-3B was decommissioned far too early considering China’s growing submarine threat.

  2. Obsrvntcynic

    June 25, 2022 at 3:23 pm

    As usual, shortsighted brass abandoned a good aircraft. They were expecting that ONLY the USSR would ever have field a massive Nuclear sub fleet.
    Blinded by their belief that the CCP could never manage to field them.

  3. Dave Barak (Slo-Mo)

    April 1, 2023 at 11:05 am

    What was the state of the airframes when Vikings were retired? Could they have been kept flying from carriers at an operation pace? Obviously NASA’s Vikings (and VX-1’s?) weren’t subjected to the same rigors. Whether Vikings or some new replacement (NOT Ospreys), it seems to me Hornets just don’t have some of the same benefits – long loiter time, long range, room for mission-specific modules, etc. For me, it’s less about Vikings being gone* but more about what the hell can be used to perform the same missions.

    *I was a SENSO, VS-29, Carl Vinson, CVW-15. I was fortunate to see NASA’s last Viking arrive at Gillespie Field in El Cajon (suburb of San Diego). One of the last Viking vets to hear the last spool-down of the engines. Bittersweet.

  4. Dave Barak (Slo-Mo)

    April 2, 2023 at 12:40 am

    “operational pace”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *