Do you agree we should save the Air Frames on the newer F-18 SuperHornets and use the still safe and useable S-3 Vikings instead?

Because some Congressman has the factory for a replacement in his/her district or the new company is contributing greatly to the Congressman or his/her party

It's not a question of having airframes with "flight time" available on them in a field in mothballs. It was a great aircraft, but once the supply channel is shut off and the parts are divested from the inventory, the cost to re-implement is prohibitive. Trying to operate an S-3 now would be like trying to find parts to keep your Saab 900 Turbo going. Just not practical, nor cost effective. The reason airframes are retired is because the operational cost (time, energy, maintenance, money) to sustain them outweighs the operational benefit to the warfighter. Moving towards versatile, multi-role platforms saves the U.S. taxpayer BILLIONS while keeping the advancement of technology moving forward. I know this is an unpopular view to have with all the social media experts these days on the subject, but in my professional opinion, it's better for us as a nation to spend billions advancing technology and capabilities vs. spending billions to sustain antiquated equipment and stagnate the forward progress of R&D.

Works for me. S-3 is an excellent Aircraft.