Vulcan and Victor still in service?

TheMann

TheMann

Avro Vulcan
Handley-Page Victor

Is it possible to still have these two aircraft be part of the RAF fleet?

We all know about the B-52, C-130, KC-135, Tu-95 and Canberra, which have all managed to have more than 50 years of front-line service, but what about the Vulcan and Victor?

The Vulcan was the better low-flier, the Victor the better bombtruck. I'm envisioning both of these become missile-carriers, carrying anti-ship missiles, the British equivalent of the Tu-16, Tu-22, Tu-22M, Tu-95 and Tu-160, long-range anti ship killers or strike bombers.
 
trekchu

trekchu

IIRC the problem was cost when compared to the fact that by the time the MRBMs reached the UK most bombers were barely airborne.
 

Riain

Banned
It would one one of those PoDs that has a wealthier, more assertive and independent minded Britian rather than a mere military requirement for a medium/heavy bomber.
 

Alexius

Not sure about the Victor- the airframes were apparently getting knackered and were built out of a honeycomb-type material that would make them hard to restore. Also, they were judged operationally useless as bombers in the early 1970s- why they were all converted to tankers.
We also already have long-range anti-ship missile carriers- the Nimrods.

The Vulcan, however, is a more interesting WI. There was a design for a Vulcan B.3 with a larger wing and 6 Skybolt missiles, which could well have remained in service into the 90 had Skybold not been cancelled. More interesting, however, is the fact that completely accidentally, Avro had designed a remarkably stealthy aircraft- with the exception of the air intakes and the huge vertical tail. Could there have been a "Stealth Vulcan" with revised intakes and a V-tail?
 

The Dean

Alexius said:
Not sure about the Victor- the airframes were apparently getting knackered and were built out of a honeycomb-type material that would make them hard to restore. Also, they were judged operationally useless as bombers in the early 1970s- why they were all converted to tankers.
We also already have long-range anti-ship missile carriers- the Nimrods.

The Vulcan, however, is a more interesting WI. There was a design for a Vulcan B.3 with a larger wing and 6 Skybolt missiles, which could well have remained in service into the 90 had Skybold not been cancelled. More interesting, however, is the fact that completely accidentally, Avro had designed a remarkably stealthy aircraft- with the exception of the air intakes and the huge vertical tail. Could there have been a "Stealth Vulcan" with revised intakes and a V-tail?
Click to expand...

The Victor stayed in service longer than the Vulcan still being operational in the first Gulf War as a tanker. The airframe issue was not a major problem. As to modifying the Vulcan that would have been possible and given computer controlled fly by wire there would have been a stealth bomber carrying up to 21 1,000lb JDAMs. The "bomb truck" Victor could carry 35 JDAMs 2,600 miles at 55,000 ft cruising at 550 mph. That would have been useful in any of the recent conflicts.
 

PMN1

The Dean said:
The Victor stayed in service longer than the Vulcan still being operational in the first Gulf War as a tanker. The airframe issue was not a major problem. As to modifying the Vulcan that would have been possible and given computer controlled fly by wire there would have been a stealth bomber carrying up to 21 1,000lb JDAMs. The "bomb truck" Victor could carry 35 JDAMs 2,600 miles at 55,000 ft cruising at 550 mph. That would have been useful in any of the recent conflicts.
Click to expand...

The book mentioned here

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5553.msg55304.html#msg55304

has some interesting bomb truck VC-10 proposals that included the carriage of up to 8 bomb panniers each capable of carrying eight 1,000lb bombs.

The panniers were apparently designed for the Valiant with each Valiant able to carry two each carrying six 1,000lb bombs.
 

Alexius

The Dean said:
The Victor stayed in service longer than the Vulcan still being operational in the first Gulf War as a tanker. The airframe issue was not a major problem.
Click to expand...
I only heard about it because in one of the many arguments about the recent accidental Victor flight, someone suggested restoring the one that flew to actual flying condition like Vulcan XH558 was. The suggestion was shot down because apparently, due to the construction, Victors are harder to restore than Vulcans.

Also, if there wasn't a stress issue, why did they clip the wings?
A Victor would be a very useful British version of the B-52, but not much use in a hot war IMO. Also, it certainly wasn't an ideal tanker- I have heard that in 1982, Hercules had to refuel in a shallow dive in order to keep up with it!

Basically, Britain is very unlikely to keep 2 different models of subsonic bomber in service, given that the Victor doesn't have the sheer size of the B-52. The Vulcan has a smaller payload, but better low-altitude and perhaps better high-altitude performance. Also, it can be made stealthy.

A good TL might be:
1963, Skybolt not cancelled.
1965, as IOTL, Valiant fleet withdrawn due to fatigue. Victor B.1 fleet converted to tankers.
Late 1960s, Skybolt enters service on Victor B.2 (4 each) and Vulcan B.2 (2 each) as temporary measure. Polaris does not enter service.
1970s, Vulcan B.3 enters service. Victor bombers probably leave service around this time, being converted to tankers as IOTL.
Mid to late 1980s, after learning of existence of stealth aircraft, Vulcans modified with radar-absorbing paint, new air intakes and a V-tail as Vulcan B.4. Payload is dramatically reduced due to requirement for internal weapons carriage.
2000s, UK and US co-operate on a future stealth bomber project to replace Vulcans and B-2s.
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

the problem with the airframe issue was Vickers Valiant not the HP Victor.

the Handley Page Victor, Avro Vulcan could be today in service.
but its was a political decision to take them out service.
 

PMN1

Alexius said:
Basically, Britain is very unlikely to keep 2 different models of subsonic bomber in service, given that the Victor doesn't have the sheer size of the B-52. The Vulcan has a smaller payload, but better low-altitude and perhaps better high-altitude performance. Also, it can be made stealthy.

A good TL might be:
1963, Skybolt not cancelled.
1965, as IOTL, Valiant fleet withdrawn due to fatigue. Victor B.1 fleet converted to tankers.
Late 1960s, Skybolt enters service on Victor B.2 (4 each) and Vulcan B.2 (2 each) as temporary measure. Polaris does not enter service.
1970s, Vulcan B.3 enters service. Victor bombers probably leave service around this time, being converted to tankers as IOTL.
Mid to late 1980s, after learning of existence of stealth aircraft, Vulcans modified with radar-absorbing paint, new air intakes and a V-tail as Vulcan B.4. Payload is dramatically reduced due to requirement for internal weapons carriage.
2000s, UK and US co-operate on a future stealth bomber project to replace Vulcans and B-2s.
Click to expand...

There is an interesting alternative the the Vulcan/Victor developments.


Vickers VC-10, AEW, Pofflers and other Unbuilt Variants – Chris Gibson

According to this book,

The existing plan for the V-Force was to operate one hundred and four Mk.2 V-bombers in scramble mode. In this role 27 VC-10 (codeword was Poffler) carrying 4 Skybolts each would be needed. The main thrust of the Ministry’s 1960 Poffler study examined the continuous airborne deterrent and concluded that 72 Vulcans and 32 Victors would be required to maintain a credible deterrent while only 42 VC-10’s would be needed. The study also pointed out that the VC-10 could provide a true continuous airborne alert whereas the Vulcan and Victor fleet could remain on alert for 4 to 6 weeks at a time only if followed by a period of recovery.

The commercial airframes had about 30,000 hours life while the military V-bombers 10,000.

The VC-10 Poffler would usually carry 4 Skybolts on two underwing pylons but another 4 could also be carried if necessary on an additional 2 pylons.

It could also carry up to 4 Avro W.130 or 6 Bristol Guided Weapons X-12 - though given the weigths liste in BSP, that i'm not sure of.


</p>
 
Last edited:

The Dean

OK you've asked for it! You've gotta have Victor pics

xh648-bombing.jpg
b2-bluesteel.jpg
xm715-banking.jpg


1080254F.jpg
 

The Dean

PMN1 said:
I think a VC-10 bomber dropping 64 x 1,000lb bombs from 8 external bomb panniers would look interesting......
Click to expand...

I could cry when I think of all of the outstanding aircraft that could have been made by the British aviation industry.:(

VC10_AEW_Pofflers_small.jpg
 
trekchu

trekchu

PMN1 said:
Or 'Stuck on the Drawing Board: Unbuilt British Commercial Aircraft Since 1945'.

:mad:
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I own both Project Cancelled and Stuck on the Drawing Board. Project Cancelled cost me 100€..... Worth it though.
 
trekchu

trekchu

The Dean said:
For gods sake shut up you two! I'll have to stab myself if I hear any more!!
Click to expand...

I cant!


1) Extended Vulcan able to carry 38 1000 pounders
2) Supersonic Harrier
3) F-86 Class interceptor
4) Supersonic Passenger Aircraft supposedly without sonic boom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top