AHC: British strategic bomber

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is for the Royal Air Force to operate its own long-range strategic bomber in 2015.

I thought one possible scenario would be for the RAF Vulcan's to play a major role in the Falklands War, and then have the government put funding into buying B-1Bs from the U.S., or producing its own strategic bomber.

What about the RAF buys (or is given) a few B52s during/post Falklands war? (or earlier as Skybolt carriers ?)

With START on the horizon the US could decide that it will be limited in the numbers of B52/bombers it will be allowed so why not give a few to UK rather than cut them up ?

Historically 365 B-52s got cut up, so what about a squadron of Gs (or earlier) get given to the RAF who then refits the with RR engines and new systems for conventional long range use, by 2015 they would have been well used above Afghanistan etc....

Forcon said:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is for the Royal Air Force to operate its own long-range strategic bomber in 2015.

I thought one possible scenario would be for the RAF Vulcan's to play a major role in the Falklands War, and then have the government put funding into buying B-1Bs from the U.S., or producing its own strategic bomber.

Click to expand...

B-1's would be very expensive to buy and operate so unless there's a big increase in the budget something else is going to be cut.

My own idea is that either Blue Steel Mark 2 or Skybolt make it into service so that the RAF retains its strategic strike role. The Vulcan fleet gets continuously upgraded with new engines and avionics, which may allow for one of the navigator seats to be removed and making it easier to give the remaining navigator and AEO ejector seats. It could also be fitted for LGB's with a designator turret and advanced missiles.

The Vulcan certainly had the potential to perform a greater range of roles as the engineers at RAF Waddington proved in 1982, sadly by then it was too late.

The RAF wouldn't have wanted B-52's post 1982. By that time they were on their way out, due for replacement by the B-1 and heading for their current role which is basically explosive ordnance transport rather than a true strategic bomber. The newest B-52's dated from 1962, which would make them three years older than the Vulcans that the RAF was about to retire.

To make this work you need a much earlier POD, at least 1945 with Britain either having better finances or stupider politicians who were determined to follow the USSR's example of maintaining a great power military at the expense of a third world social infrastructure.

Forcon said:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is for the Royal Air Force to operate its own long-range strategic bomber in 2015.

I thought one possible scenario would be for the RAF Vulcan's to play a major role in the Falklands War, and then have the government put funding into buying B-1Bs from the U.S., or producing its own strategic bomber.

Click to expand...

I think the easiest answer is that Vulcan is kept in service and benefits from upgrades etc to its avionics and weapon carrying ability

However there is not a lot more it can do that a pair of Tonkas cannot do for far less money and on a newer airframe

Perhaps during the Falklands the black buck raids actually strike at a Mainland base knocking out aircraft on the ground (they would only have to do this once)

The Oncoming Storm said:

B-1's would be very expensive to buy and operate so unless there's a big increase in the budget something else is going to be cut.

My own idea is that either Blue Steel Mark 2 or Skybolt make it into service so that the RAF retains its strategic strike role. The Vulcan fleet gets continuously upgraded with new engines and avionics, which may allow for one of the navigator seats to be removed and making it easier to give the remaining navigator and AEO ejector seats. It could also be fitted for LGB's with a designator turret and advanced missiles.

The Vulcan certainly had the potential to perform a greater range of roles as the engineers at RAF Waddington proved in 1982, sadly by then it was too late.

Click to expand...

Any strategic bomber program will be very expensive. Maybe the next generation nuclear deterant could be strategic bombers replacing trident?

No way the UK ditches SSBNs and returns to strategic bombers. Unless the enemy can track and sink the boomers before the war starts (highly unlikely) you can expect the vast majority of warheads to land where they are supposed to go. With bombers, you have to deal with air defenses and given each sea launched missile has 3-7 warheads, you need a fair number of bombers to match that throw...and MIRVs can be targeted to hit targets some distance apart, or hit one spot sequentially. Finally, the problem for the UK with bombers is that they are very vulnerable until they get off the ground and a good distance from home - even dispersed they are easy targets and the time of flight for a missile headed for the UK is very short.

naraic said:

Any strategic bomber program will be very expensive. Maybe the next generation nuclear deterant could be strategic bombers replacing trident?

Click to expand...

But just think how many bombers (on minutes warning) spread over how many bases (or even airborne alert) you would need to realistically survive a first strike?

The simplest way for Britain to keep a strategic bomber force would be if during the early 70s they made the choice to replace the Vulcans with a bomber version of the Nimrod. Use the internal space in the fuselage to enlarge the bomb bay and for extra fuel tanks. The production line is already there so there are no additional costs other than paying for the extra aircraft. It's already in service so the need for an expensive testing period is greatly reduced. It's an all British aircraft so there will be no need to make compromises to suit other countries needs. It is built in Britain so jobs aren't exported for political reasons. Because it's an all British project it gives credibility to Britains claim of an independent nuclear deterrent that the Polaris and later Trident don't. Having both submarine and aircraft based strategic forces makes it almost certain that ir Britain is suddenly attacked it can respond. As a bomber it is flexible, while an SSBN only has one use.

Mission accepted:

First: Have Britain leave NATO so they would actually need a strategic bomber force instead of just task-sharing their deterrent strategy with the Americans.

Second: Have them realize that -despite the need for runways - aircraft are much better for carrying A-bombs then ballistic missiles. Have them realize that in the 1970's at least 5 years before the Americans did and re-instated the B1 project. Of course, Britain no longer part of NATO and relations with the US being pretty sour, they might just HAVE to go with airplanes as they can't get access to the Polaris rockets they depended on for their nuclear deterrent OTL. So airplanes might be their only choice, at least until they sunk enough time and money - especially money- into their own ICBM program to actually see their first rocket becoming operational.

Third: Out of necessity have them team up with France who already left the NATO in 1963 and since developed its own, albeit minimal strategic bomber program in the Mirage IV. As France and Britain already have experience in co-developing aircraft, the new deterrent bomber will inevitably be a BAE-Aerospatiale co-production, as will probably the new Franco-British next-generation cruise missile.
...(insert some sneaky remarks here on the fact that French missiles did so well against British warships in the Falkland crisis)...

Fourth: Be prepared to drastically reconsider all programs underway once the Iron Curtain comes down....

ennobee,
Don't you just get a TSR2(or Mirage IV) with a stand off missile, the range from UK to USSR isn't huge so should do the job ?

aircraft are much better for carrying A-bombs then ballistic missiles

Click to expand...

Why are they better ? Apart from flexibility (ie you can alter targets and maybe recall it in the air), but not sure a deterrent needs flexibility as long as it can survive a first strike under water?

The possibilities that were being looked at in the 1960s were,
1 Avro 730. Imagine a really good B70 Valkyrie and you are nearly there.
2 a derivative of the VC10 that would have made the B52 look small.

Other options were also looked at but the above two were the most likely. IF the RAF were to have got a system in the 80s then an even more stretched Tonka F3 airframe with loads more space for fuel and avionics is a good bet. Other than that a small batch of say 30 B1 could have happened.

Perhaps the FB111H that was proposed, a stretched F111 that would make it 'Eurostrategic' rather than fully intercontinental which is all Britain really needs.

I think an up to date definition of the role or roles of a strategic bomber is required before one is selected or designed. The old definition doesn't seem relevant these days.

Just Leo said:

I think an up to date definition of the role or roles of a strategic bomber is required before one is selected or designed. The old definition doesn't seem relevant these days.

Click to expand...

The Su34 has a galley and toilet and is specifically designed for crew comfort on long missions, I'd seriously consider taking that out of the fighter-bomber and into the Eurostrategic bomber class.

Riain said:

The Su34 has a galley and toilet and is specifically designed for crew comfort on long missions, I'd seriously consider taking that out of the fighter-bomber and into the Eurostrategic bomber class.

Click to expand...

It also has curtains, but I believe it is only an addition so that crews will be prepared for when the shit hits the fan.

American heavy bombers were specifically addressed in START and SALT discussions. So giving the British any would require a major Soviet concession.

Possibly it might be worthwhile to give the British some but it would definitely count as far as the Soviets are concerned in the overall NATO force levels. The plus side for the US is a reduction in operating expenses, but the negative side for the British is a significant increase in operating expenses. A squadron of heavy bombers also pretty much needs a squadron of tankers too by the way

galveston bay said:

American heavy bombers were specifically addressed in START and SALT discussions. So giving the British any would require a major Soviet concession.

Possibly it might be worthwhile to give the British some but it would definitely count as far as the Soviets are concerned in the overall NATO force levels. The plus side for the US is a reduction in operating expenses, but the negative side for the British is a significant increase in operating expenses. A squadron of heavy bombers also pretty much needs a squadron of tankers too by the way

Click to expand...

Thats another reason to go with a Nimrod bomber, it can't be signed away by another country's treaty. 4 or 5 squadrons + 1 O.C.U and reserves gives Britain options no other aircraft in the RAF can.

Peg Leg Pom said:

Thats another reason to go with a Nimrod bomber, it can't be signed away by another country's treaty. 4 or 5 squadrons + 1 O.C.U and reserves gives Britain options no other aircraft in the RAF can.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting replacing the V bombers with a Nimrod based unit from the start or something post retirement of the V's, cause at that stage the Nimrod's are in the exact situation as the V's themselves (ie 60's designs with no standardisation and out of production), so how do you get that number (what more than the ASW variant's) at that stage?

One thing that always bothers me with these challenges is that people always seem to obsessively focus on making a POD as late as possible. This forum covers a hundred and fifteen years, so why limit things to a post V-bomber or even post WW2 world?