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.

Here are the S-3 Vikings awaiting orders and getting a tan in Arizona.

The F/A 18 Super Hornet is a dual role combat aircraft not a refueller LTC Stephen Conway. I certainly am in favor of ensuring that all military aircraft which either can fly long distances or deploy OCONUS are equipped with the same refueling equipment and that the USA does not develop special refueling systems tied to specific aircraft. The only exception I would concur with would be for "spy" aircraft that fly at much higher than usual altitudes.

Did I miss something? Are we using Hornets as refuelers?

While it makes sense to utilize S-3s as dedicated tanker aircraft (and it has many advantages over the Super Hornet in this regard), the 18 is a multirole aircraft, which is the new flavor of the day... it can be reconfigured to strike, refuel, or to provide air interdiction. I also agree with the lack of parts availability, but if you only have limited space on a carrier, the Navy believes it makes more sense to have an airframe that can do as many things as possible.

Limited repair/ Maintenance resources, they have to choose where to utilize assets.

It all comes down to money there is none! To get something new you have to get rid of something old, to keep something old you have to cancel something new. It really is getting bad equipment wise in the field. Not only do service members have to worry that they will get support when they need it they don’t know if the equipment they have will make it through the day.

We can also offer the pilots and crewchiefs/mechanics(if we use the wrong navy term you know what I mean) from the Navy a 2-3 year contract to come back to active duty at their former rank and get them back on active duty. We can use the S-3 as a utility aircraft as part of the Carrier Air Wing and, like it or not, we do have a new Chinese, Russian and Iranian diesel electric sub threat. Most can be used as in-flight refueling and other utility tasks other ASW.