After Falklands War the Brits get new Long-range Bomber

[SunilTanna]

If you can convert a comet into a bomber, why not another airliner?

How about a bae 146 for example?

Doesnt have the same long range, but cheap, available, and in production in the 80s?

 

[amphibulous]

If you can convert a comet into a bomber

You can't. Not sanely anyway - the Nimrod is an ASW aircraft, which imposes trivial changes to c-of-g in flight compared to a bomber.

 

[Gunnarnz]

If you can convert a comet into a bomber, why not another airliner?

There's a few reasons. For starters, aircraft have to be balanced around their center of gravity (which ideally will be collocated with the center of lift). But most airliners are low-wing designs, which presents problems when you try to turn them into bombers: no matter if you put the weapons compartment ahead of the main wing spar or behind it, the center of mass will shift abruptly when the weapons are released. You can put one ahead and one behind, but then you have to make sure the weapons are released in a sequence that keeps things roughly balanced. And if you're thinking that cutting a hole in the wing spar will let you put the weapons at the center of mass... no. Just no.
Don't forget that airliners also have a pressure hull, to keep the passengers comfortable. If you put the weapons inside that, you also have to figure out how you'll deploy them when the time comes without harming the crew.

There are ways around this, but they usually involve not actually carrying the weapons inside the fuselage. Next time you look at a Nimrod or the new P-8 ASW aircraft, you'll note that there's a fairing below the wing spar. I'd bet that's where they carry their weapons, outside the actual hull.

Even if you reluctantly decide to just hang the weapons off the wings, the problems aren't over. The wing will need a good deal of work to support the extra mass, which is a major undertaking. And since we're probably talking about a low-wing design, we also have to consider ground clearance. Is the undercarriage long enough and strong enough?

There are some cargo aircraft that it might be possible to convert into an acceptable bomber, but really it's easier just to design the airframe from the ground up for the role in my opinion.

 

[pdf27]

Are you sure that you mean Victor and not Vulcan???

Yep. Part of my fourth year aerodynamics project was analysing the two to see which fitted the original B.35/46 specification better. Ever since then I've been convinced that the RAF should only have bought the Victor, and scrapped both Vulcan and Valiant at the prototype stage.
For this specific tasking, the fact that it has much better payload and range wins out. The only reason the Vulcan stayed on as a bomber after the Victor was retired to tanking was that the delta wing was inherently very strong and hence had the fatigue life to operate at low-level (considered the only way it could survive in Europe). If you're in a much more permissive environment, staying high has advantages (range, less vulnerability to cheap SAM/AAA systems and makes life harder on cheap defending fighters) so the Victor is back in the game.

Firstly, no v-bomber had a meaningfully lowered RCS. It is a common fan boy meme on the web that the Vulcan did, but this is because it looks stealth bomberish and because the bedroom poster crowd don't do equations. You have to remember that detection ranges are reduced only by the inverse fourth power of reductions - so what seems like a big reduction is actually tiny in terms of detection range. Eg you need 1/256 the RCS to merely halve detection range.

The lowered RCS comment is based on what I've read about participation by both aircraft in SAC exercises in the 1960s - they were explicitly stated to be able to get much closer to the defensive radars than their US equivalents. They are most certainly NOT stealth aircraft, but appear as if they might have reduced RCS for two reasons:
1) Lack of corner reflectors - the blended wing/body shape actually helps quite a lot with this.
2) Buried engines - much of the RCS is from the spinning front fan blades on the engine. With the fan blades 2-3m back from the leading edge and operating at high altitude as designed, there is quite a narrow angle over which the fan blades are visible to a radar.

Secondly, the need is for aircraft with small bomb loads that can operate from local strips. Large aircraft that need long strips and big ground crews either mean horrible logistical requirements in theatre or basing outside of the theatre with long flights back and forth to their targets; this is again expensive, and also sucks because you can't extra air support without waiting 8 hours.

Err... no. They've got something like that already (Hawk, BAE Strikemaster, Harrier, there are probably even a few Hunters still floating around). As I've said before much earlier in the thread, the actual answer to this problem is submarine-launched Tomahawk (a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than the V-bombers would ever be).
However, IF they decide that after the Falklands they really do need the continuing capability to do Black Buck all over again, then the logic leads to updating one of the V-bombers to do it and retiring the other.

 

[pdf27]

In addition to Amphibulous' post;
how dare you mention Britain, '50s aircraft and conversion in one sentence after the Nimrod AEW and even more sad the Nimrod MRA4 disasters?

I don't disagree with you there - if I was the CDS in 1984 and someone came to me with this idea I'd ensure their next posting was counting penguins on South Georgia. In tropical kit.
Like I said earlier in the thread, the correct way to do this is submarine-launched Tomahawk. However, given that they did try to convert Nimrod twice rather than building new aircraft, it isn't ASB to suggest they would try.

Although your idea starts sensible, you'd need to replace the wings too, as they're having issues with metal fatigue. Then there'll be other parts replaced and you'll end up in exactly the same situation as with the MRA4 debacle; trying to mate a 1950's handbuilt airframe to late 20th century built parts.

Actually, I'm far from convinced that would be as much of a problem as it was with MRA4:
1) Part of the reason for the new wings on Nimrod was the improved aerodynamic efficiency they could get. If you're doing this on the cheap, that means you won't try for that - new wing spars and some new skin would probably be it.
2) Manufacturing accuracy has come on in leaps and bounds in the last decade or two. I'm far from convinced that aircraft were being built to micron tolerances in 1984 - and any rebuilds of a low-priority aircraft wouldn't go to the most capable factories. If I had to guess I'd say they would pull the old parts out, make up the new ones and fettle them until they match. That's the easiest way to do it with relatively low technology, and serendipitously happens to be the best way with aircraft of this age.

IMHO the only lowcost viable strategic bomber with enormous range on a dime the British are going to get is the Vickers VC10 with Skybolt for the strategic deterrance and airlaunched cruisemissiles for standoff conventional use.
If that doesn't work, then the only alternative are carriers with a decent strike.

If Skybolt had gone ahead, then I can sort of see the point. In 1984 - 15 years after the last VC-10 was produced - then I think a conversion is a dead duck. More effort for less capability than a V-bomber, and it's an old enough airframe you still get the problem of different tolerances between airframes.

 

[Foxvc10]

The Nimrod was designed to include the carriage and dropping of -750 and 1000lb bombs from the start, for similar use as the Avro Shackleton in the "colonial policing" role. The Shackleton was used quite extensively in this role including air to ground gunnery with the twin 20 mm cannon fit in the nose.

The bomb fit was resurrected in the Nimrod for the Falkands war and I believe trialled (not seen anything offical I have to say) with weapons which where dropped on Garvie Island range.

Black Buck was succesful so the requirement was not needed.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I strongly disagree with this. In the time period the Cold War was still on and spending on aircraft that would have been useless to it and expensive to operate - V-bombers need big ground crews - would have been crazy.

I agree that a long-range strategic bomber will have - drumroll - strategic bombing as it's first goal and conventional long-range bombing a distant second. With strategic bombing meaning nukes post '45 is why I mentioned the VC10 Poffler in my previous post.
Unfortunately thanks to geography a flying deterrent isn't going to work for the UK, especially post Falklands as the OP specified, as pdf27 mentioned.

 

[amphibulous]

Yep. Part of my fourth year aerodynamics project was analysing the two to see which fitted the original B.35/46 specification better. Ever since then I've been convinced that the RAF should only have bought the Victor, and scrapped both Vulcan and Valiant at the prototype stage.
For this specific tasking, the fact that it has much better payload and range wins out. The only reason the Vulcan stayed on as a bomber after the Victor was retired to tanking was that the delta wing was inherently very strong and hence had the fatigue life to operate at low-level (considered the only way it could survive in Europe).

That's interesting - especially the fatigue life.

The lowered RCS comment is based on what I've read about participation by both aircraft in SAC exercises in the 1960s - they were explicitly stated to be able to get much closer to the defensive radars than their US equivalents.

If you mean the simulated attacks on the USA, these are irrelevant - there was no real US military radar net to penetrate.

They are most certainly NOT stealth aircraft, but appear as if they might have reduced RCS for two reasons:
1) Lack of corner reflectors - the blended wing/body shape actually helps quite a lot with this.
2) Buried engines - much of the RCS is from the spinning front fan blades on the engine. With the fan blades 2-3m back from the leading edge and operating at high altitude as designed, there is quite a narrow angle over which the fan blades are visible to a radar.

Yes, but the reductions are minor when translated into reduced radar detection range by the 1/4 law.

Err... no. They've got something like that already (Hawk, BAE Strikemaster, Harrier, there are probably even a few Hunters still floating around).

This doesn't make sense. I did not say that such aircraft did not exist and need developing, I just explained by the economic reasons to use them for colonial bombing. Also: you are wrong. The cost of using any those aircraft is high compared to a turboprop CI aircraft. They all need larger ground crews, burn more gas, and need longer runways than real COIN aircraft. And when an extra ground crew member costs +$500,000 a year in theatre, and av gas at least $50 a gallon, these things matter a LOT.

As I've said before much earlier in the thread, the actual answer to this problem is submarine-launched Tomahawk (a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than the V-bombers would ever be).

It depends what problem "This one is". If it is hitting tents in A'stan, no. To the original topic of long range bombing, they are somewhat of answer - but not a total one, because you need a launch platform c. 1000km from the target, which can take weeks to achieve via submarine.

The real answer is, of course, "The UK just shouldn't care" - it doesn't have a sufficient strategic reason to justify developing an effective long range bombing capability. Real world defense planning is about setting sane priorities.

 

[Michel Van]

by Abraham Gubler from secret project forum, today

A month late but what about the F-111? The F-111 could have carried out the Black Buck missions with far less tanker support and more ordnance on target. Years ago I wrote a “Back Roo” what if on some forum crunching the numbers for a fictional RAAF F-111C deployment to Ascension to support the Falklands campaign. The results would have been far more significant than what the Vulcans could have achieved and just as applicable to the RAF’s own F-111K plans.

the irony was that Labor party after killing TSR.2 oder F-111K planes and chancel the order while two F-111K were in production.
and now the Tory Government want to to buy F-111 while the USAF in US say over that Bomber "Hey we need to replace that old bird soon"

but there alternative (in alternative history?) what about the Australian F-111 would the government "Lend" there fleet to British government in such crisis ?

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

The advantage of the B-1B (a small squadron of probably 12-15 bombers with one or two training/development aircraft) would be that

1) The B-1B program was just starting to ramp up about then so the British could probably have gotten them at cost and producing another 15 bombers would've been no big deal for Rockwell.

2) This could serve as "payback" by the British to the U.S. for all their help during the Falklands War.

Ironically, given that British B-1Bs would probably be "conventional only" then in all likelihood they would receive their first taste of combat in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm while the American B-1B had to wait for Desert Fox seven years later.

 

[allanpcameron]

Hi, new here, one comment, one question:
Having medium style attack aircraft bomb Port Stanley wouldn't just need air to air refuelling but also I don't think they would have enough oil capacity for the flight.
Did anyone ever consider putting a conventional warhead on a polaris or trident missile? Yes, i know that launching said weapon during the cold war may have been problematic, but there must have been a system for informing the soviets about test firings, so use the same system to let them know it's not the start of WW3.
We're assured of the accuracy of the missiles, so even an inert warhead would do substanial damage to an airfield. Just a thought!

 

[fscott]

Hi, new here, one comment, one question:
Having medium style attack aircraft bomb Port Stanley wouldn't just need air to air refuelling but also I don't think they would have enough oil capacity for the flight.
Did anyone ever consider putting a conventional warhead on a polaris or trident missile? Yes, i know that launching said weapon during the cold war may have been problematic, but there must have been a system for informing the soviets about test firings, so use the same system to let them know it's not the start of WW3.
We're assured of the accuracy of the missiles, so even an inert warhead would do substanial damage to an airfield. Just a thought!

Putting a non nuke bomb on a SLBM is a lose lose situation. Especially when you have to tell the Soviets it will be launched. They will monitor the launch and landing. If it is very accurate, more so than we admit, or is inaccurate, we lose deterrent. Either way we are giving to much information out.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

Hi, new here, one comment, one question:
Having medium style attack aircraft bomb Port Stanley wouldn't just need air to air refuelling but also I don't think they would have enough oil capacity for the flight.
Did anyone ever consider putting a conventional warhead on a polaris or trident missile? Yes, i know that launching said weapon during the cold war may have been problematic, but there must have been a system for informing the soviets about test firings, so use the same system to let them know it's not the start of WW3.
We're assured of the accuracy of the missiles, so even an inert warhead would do substanial damage to an airfield. Just a thought!

Even the most advanced Trident II ballistic missile is too inaccurate for disabling a single point target like a runway with a conventional warhead.

You're talking about missing the middle of a runway by 20 meters and you have failed.