After Falklands War the Brits get new Long-range Bomber

[Michel Van]

looking on B-1B vs Nimrod "B.MK.1"

buying the B-1B bring additional cost !
next several Bombers and support machine, you need many spare parts.
there is the need for fleet of KC-135 tankers for B-1B, what brings more additional cost
the RAF Airbase and hangars must be adapted to the new aircrafts and it support machines.
the crew and maintains crew have to be instructed on new systems.
the B-1b is complex aircraft what need to be constant maintained, especially the variable-sweep wing.
what give additional cost in form of salaries.

On Nimrod there is no need additional cost for RAF, because they operate the aircraft for decades,
because the UK Navy transfere the Nimrod fleet to RAF in 1970s.
there plenty of spare parts and support machine. no need to adapt the RAF Airbase.

that's big consideration for British government on programs cost and selling it as "Made in UK" to public and parliament

comparison B-1B vs Nimrod MR2 (source wiki)

Rockwell B-1B
Strategic nuclear bomber with variable-sweep wing (first convectional bomb drop was in 1998)
Loaded weight: 326,000 lb (148,000 kg)
payload 125,000 lb (56,700 kg) ; internal and external ordnance combined
Powerplant: 4 × General Electric F101-GE-102 augmented turbofans
top speed: 1,340 km/h in high altitude, 1,130 km/h on very low altitude.
combat range 3,445 mi or 5,543 km (can be refueled in air)
crew 4 man

BAe Nimrod MR2
Maritime patrol aircraft and anti-submarine warfare
Loaded weight: 192,000 lb (87,090 kg)
payload 22,000 lb (9.100 kg) ; 2× under-wing pylon stations and an internal bomb bay
Powerplant: 4 × Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans
top speed: 923 km/h cruise: 787 km/h
Combat range 5,180–5,755 mi or 8,340–9,265 km (can be refueled in air)
crew 12 to 24 men

on black buck style mission
the B-1B has to be refueled 3 times by KC-135 (who need a fleet of KC-135 to refuel them, oh can they be refuel in air ???)
a Nimrod "B.MK.1" need only one refuel by VC10 or another Nimrod "Tanker" on return trip.

 

[HMS Warspite]

looking on B-1B vs Nimrod "B.MK.1"

buying the B-1B bring additional cost !
next several Bombers and support machine, you need many spare parts.
there is the need for fleet of KC-135 tankers for B-1B, what brings more additional cost
the RAF Airbase and hangars must be adapted to the new aircrafts and it support machines.
the crew and maintains crew have to be instructed on new systems.
the B-1b is complex aircraft what need to be constant maintained, especially the variable-sweep wing.
what give additional cost in form of salaries.

On Nimrod there is no need additional cost for RAF, because they operate the aircraft for decades,
because the UK Navy transfere the Nimrod fleet to RAF in 1970s.
there plenty of spare parts and support machine. no need to adapt the RAF Airbase.

that's big consideration for British government on programs cost and selling it as "Made in UK" to public and parliament

comparison B-1B vs Nimrod MR2 (source wiki)

Rockwell B-1B
Strategic nuclear bomber with variable-sweep wing (first convectional bomb drop was in 1998)
Loaded weight: 326,000 lb (148,000 kg)
payload 125,000 lb (56,700 kg) ; internal and external ordnance combined
Powerplant: 4 × General Electric F101-GE-102 augmented turbofans
top speed: 1,340 km/h in high altitude, 1,130 km/h on very low altitude.
combat range 3,445 mi or 5,543 km (can be refueled in air)
crew 4 man

BAe Nimrod MR2
Maritime patrol aircraft and anti-submarine warfare
Loaded weight: 192,000 lb (87,090 kg)
payload 22,000 lb (9.100 kg) ; 2× under-wing pylon stations and an internal bomb bay
Powerplant: 4 × Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans
top speed: 923 km/h cruise: 787 km/h
Combat range 5,180–5,755 mi or 8,340–9,265 km (can be refueled in air)
crew 12 to 24 men

on black buck style mission
the B-1B has to be refueled 3 times by KC-135 (who need a fleet of KC-135 to refuel them, oh can they be refuel in air ???)
a Nimrod "B.MK.1" need only one refuel by VC10 or another Nimrod "Tanker" on return trip.

That still will get a serious problem, as the few available Nimrods were also in use for NATO ASW and ASUW patrols. It basically will be a waist of money and the few resources available. A much cheaper and more effective way to get longrange strike capabilities worldwide, with no need to hire foreign airbase facilities, is to develop the already under development TLAM capabilities for the existing Swiftshure Class submarines SSN and the under construction Trafalgar class SSN. Both were capable of using the weapon and we all know now what it was capable of in just a few years later in the 1991 Gulf War, just half a decade or so after the scenario is set.

In other words:

The UK will get bankrupt most likely, if it decided to develop, or purchase a new long range classical sort of manned bomber, as it is too expensive to aquire, as well as to maintain. Alternative solutions were already underway, started in the late 70's and early 80's in the form of the Stand Off Cruisemissile, both for land and naval uses. Cutting this development is a waist of money, as too much already had been invested in the project, which originally was to get a capability against the intensified Soviet Airdefence, with no dangers involved for peronel, as the manned strategical aircraft were not longer deemed suitable for such forms of modern warfare.
Developing a second theater weapons platform at the same time is budgettary not possible as well, sicne the money can be spend only once. A more general capabilites weapon was more desired, as it would double the strategical demands against the Soviet Union in NATO alliance, as well as function in Imperial functions for territorial protection.

 

[SunilTanna]

Otl uk did have a long range bomber after the Vulcan.

It's called the tornado.

They did a test mission, uk to akrotiri after the falklands.

Yes a Vulcan carries a lot more bombs, but remember only 1 out of 63 iron bombs hit the runway.

One jp233 from a tornado, would have done vastly more damage to the runway... Although th tornado would be at great risk of being shot down by the args aa.

 

[EAF602Whizz]

I was going to mention the Tornado as an alternative to a large bomber such as the B1b. How many refuels would it require to carry out a black buck type op though? Agreed about the Nimrod. Too few, too valuable and too specialised for conversion into a bomb truck. Actually the Nimrod saga in recent years makes me .
A carrier with a decent Bucc/Tornado type striker on board would maybe have been ideal for long range trouble.

 

[Michel Van]

I was going to mention the Tornado as an alternative to a large bomber such as the B1b. How many refuels would it require to carry out a black buck type op though? Agreed about the Nimrod. Too few, too valuable and too specialised for conversion into a bomb truck. Actually the Nimrod saga in recent years makes me .
A carrier with a decent Bucc/Tornado type striker on board would maybe have been ideal for long range trouble.

range of Tornado is 1,390 km (870 mi) on typical combat mission
it need ten times to refuel in air for black buck type mission
were the fifth and six refuels are dam close to Falklands or Argentina air force

 

[amphibulous]

Exactly! That is why no major power uses manned aircraft any more.

Sarcasm aside,

That wasn't sarcasm; it was a strawman. The argument was the cruise makes long range bombers largely obsolete, not all aircraft.

the fact that there are still manned aircraft in service makes me suspect that those who make such decisions must see some sense in the idea. So how could we find out what those reasons are?

Those aircraft that fit the long range bomber role were developed BEFORE cruise. Even the B2 development program was started before cruise missiles were in service. So, no, you do not have an argument.

The British stopped developing long range bombers because at the time their strategic priority was the USSR, and staging deep penetration missions there would have been suicidal. The Falklands in now way changed this and in no way could provide an another adequate motivation for an long range bomber. (Especially as the Vulcan raids were so ineffective.)

 

[amphibulous]

range of Tornado is 1,390 km (870 mi) on typical combat mission
it need ten times to refuel in air for black buck type mission
were the fifth and six refuels are dam close to Falklands or Argentina air force

Excuse me??? The Argentinians didn't base fighters on the Falklands and this was known. And the flight path came nowhere near Argentina itself. So is the Argentine Airforce relevant?

 

[amphibulous]

One jp233 from a tornado, would have done vastly more damage to the runway... Although th tornado would be at great risk of being shot down by the args aa.

More still isn't much. Iraq showed that; concrete, steel sheet and bulldozers are much cheaper than airframes.

 

[MUC]

U do see, that the Nimrod can only carry a fraction of the payload the B1b can, right?

 

[amphibulous]

U do see, that the Nimrod can only carry a fraction of the payload the B1b can, right?

??? The Nimrod is in no way a viable bomber. It doesn't have the speed, or the agility, and the airframe is not designed to take the stresses or centre of gravity changes of dropping sane bomb loads. Plus the Cold War is still on and the Nimrods are one of NATO's key ASW platforms.

 

[Michel Van]

Excuse me??? The Argentinians didn't base fighters on the Falklands and this was known. And the flight path came nowhere near Argentina itself. So is the Argentine Airforce relevant?

the Argentine still used A4 Skyhawk with air-refuel. so there abel to reach the Falklands airspace.
but they could not use the airstrip on Falklands because the British one bomb hit it.

 

[NothingNow]

The UK will get bankrupt most likely, if it decided to develop, or purchase a new long range classical sort of manned bomber, as it is too expensive to aquire, as well as to maintain. Alternative solutions were already underway, started in the late 70's and early 80's in the form of the Stand Off Cruisemissile, both for land and naval uses. Cutting this development is a waist of money, as too much already had been invested in the project, which originally was to get a capability against the intensified Soviet Airdefence, with no dangers involved for peronel, as the manned strategical aircraft were not longer deemed suitable for such forms of modern warfare.

Not really. They'd been able to get ex-SAC FB-111s fairly cheap. Fit them with GE F110-400s (it'd save money in maintenance costs, and increase performance for fairly little outlay) and they'd be a decent long-range complement to the Tornado suitable for colonial operations and long-range strike missions, especially when paired with an increased order of maybe 15 Tristar conversions. It wouldn't be as good as a specifically designed Buccaneer and Vulcan replacement, but it'd be an effective system regardless, and cheaper than a strategic bomber would be.

If the Tristars are also fitted out as freighters, the unit would have a pretty impressive self-deployment capability as well.

The British stopped developing long range bombers because at the time their strategic priority was the USSR, and staging deep penetration missions there would have been suicidal. The Falklands in now way changed this and in no way could provide an another adequate motivation for an long range bomber. (Especially as the Vulcan raids were so ineffective.)

That's only due to the Vulcans using conventional munitions instead of Durandals. JP233 would've been useful, but not useful enough to give up the shrikes.
Also, the fact that the RAF didn't have decently capable tankers at the time, and thus needed to stage tankers as well as the Vulcans made a decent bombing campaign impossible. With just a handful of KC-135s they'd have been able to launch more raids, using more bombers, and even strike the argentine mainland with Vulcans if so desired. All with a more varied load than a cruise missile can offer.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Not really. They'd been able to get ex-SAC FB-111s fairly cheap. Fit them with GE F110-400s (it'd save money in maintenance costs, and increase performance for fairly little outlay) and they'd be a decent long-range complement to the Tornado suitable for colonial operations and long-range strike missions, especially when paired with an increased order of maybe 15 Tristar conversions. It wouldn't be as good as a specifically designed Buccaneer and Vulcan replacement, but it'd be an effective system regardless, and cheaper than a strategic bomber would be.

If the Tristars are also fitted out as freighters, the unit would have a pretty impressive self-deployment capability as well.

Instead of one platform for long-range bombing, you'd want two? Wouldn't either the Tristar or the F-111 suffice?

The F-111's might be purchased cheap, but maintenance and use is going to cost an arm and and a leg. IIRC it's something like 80 to 180 hours of maintenance per hour flown. The Americans will be ditching them pretty soon too so the cost of using them will only go up. It's not strange the Australians retired them too.

 

[amphibulous]

the Argentine still used A4 Skyhawk with air-refuel. so there abel to reach the Falklands airspace.

If you're talking intercepting a tanker - which is the point - no. The Argentine would have to fly out from the mainland; the Argentines would have no idea to do this until a raid occurred. But the time a tanker reached the Falklands, the British strike force would be a vast distance away and impossible to catch as it moves even further away - even if the Argentines could have found it, which they couldn't. (They don't have AWACS !)

but they could not use the airstrip on Falklands because the British one bomb hit it.

The damage was trivial; holes are easily repaired (rubble, steel sheet.) The Argentines didn't base Skyhawks there because supporting them (hello - aviation fuel for jets? the Islands are blockaded - plus repair facilities, weapons, air defense) is not trivial and because they were apathetic and incompetent.

 

[NothingNow]

Instead of one platform for long-range bombing, you'd want two? Wouldn't either the Tristar or the F-111 suffice?

That's a spectacularly bad misreading of my post. The Tristar is just a tanker. It's not competing with the FB-111, just serving as a support system.

The F-111's might be purchased cheap, but maintenance and use is going to cost an arm and and a leg. IIRC it's something like 80 to 180 hours of maintenance per hour flown. The Americans will be ditching them pretty soon too so the cost of using them will only go up. It's not strange the Australians retired them too.

Yeah, but replacing the engines would drive down the maintenance requirements a lot, and would simplify some of the logistical concerns.
The Australians ended up retiring theirs about 15 years after the USAF did, almost 40 years after accepting them. That's pretty much a normal service life.

 

[amphibulous]

That's a spectacularly bad misreading of my post. The Tristar is just a tanker. It's not competing with the FB-111, just serving as a support system.

I think you've missed the point - which is that the added refuelling capability would make F111s redundant given a Tornado fleet.

Yeah, but replacing the engines would drive down the maintenance requirements a lot,

So maybe only 150 hours per hour in the air, instead of 180. Hip hooray! Of course, this might not even pay for the cost of the engine replacement, and no one can say why the British need a weapon system like this.

 

[CS62]

it's problem: it's range. the UGM-109 Tomahawk had range of 1600 km, means it needed to be carry or ship to launch point.
for fast reaction Black Buck missions, it needed a long range bomber, while Warship or U-boat need a month until launch point...

a B-1B could bring the cruise-missiles to launch point or a Bomber based on Vickers VC10

a suggestion from The Secret Project Forum on this Topic
BAe proposed a modular VC10 system for different mission: Tanker, maritime reco or carrier for cruise-missiles.
not new, the VC10 was also consider as Skybolt carrier aircraft.

The VC10 would much cheaper as B-1B and "Made in UK"

The critical weakness in the whole plan was the lack of a strategic tanker, the RAF would be better off upgrading the Vulcan and bringing in a dedicated tanker based on the VC10

 

[NothingNow]

I think you've missed the point - which is that the added refuelling capability would make F111s redundant given a Tornado fleet.

Not really. Tornados don't have the lubricating oil for a particularly long mission, and has half the payload of the FB-111, without any ability to carry a payload internally.

 

[amphibulous]

Not really. Tornados don't have the lubricating oil for a particularly long mission,

Contradicted by an earlier post in the thread. Not that I care; I was correcting an obvious misreading, not endorsing the mis-read opinion.

and has half the payload of the FB-111,

I can think of a stunningly brilliant solution to this: send twice as many aircraft.

without any ability to carry a payload internally.

I really don't think bombs mind.

 

[amphibulous]

So -

- The UK is seeking defense cuts

- It has to cancel many planned cuts after the Falklands

- It's main orientations are to fighting a Battle Of The Atlantic and an armoured war in Germany; tasks which this bomber has no relevance to

- It commissions a pointless bomber anyway "Just because"