Alternate Vulcan Users...

It would depend if it had been upgraded to carry ALCMs at some stage, which would probably be before the POD; Jan did a decent little vignette on such a scenario once upon a time.

If in a traditional configuration, then there could well be some use of them for carpet bombing in Kuwait, with the possibility of more than the mooted 21 x 1000lb due to reduced range.

Re: Supersonic Vulcan, the Avro 732 was the planned supersonic variant. 8 engines, with 4 on underwing pylons. Details and pics are hard to find, but there is a small section in the Aerofax Vulcan book, which I've currently misplaced.
 
i have question
who realistic is chance that the Vulcan is sell to foreign countries ?
(to non Commonwealth of Nations members)

let's take this idea
Belgium develops the Atom Bomb in 1950's
and negotiated with Avro for purchase a small bomberfleet of Vulcans

will british goverment intervene and stop the Deal ?
 
i have question
who realistic is chance that the Vulcan is sell to foreign countries ?
(to non Commonwealth of Nations members)

let's take this idea
Belgium develops the Atom Bomb in 1950's
and negotiated with Avro for purchase a small bomberfleet of Vulcans

will british goverment intervene and stop the Deal ?

I don't doubt that Britain would stop the sale. One, they don't view belgium as a threat, but an ally both historically and now part of NATO. Secondly, it's good business and Britain right now needs business.

The real question is why would Belgium of all countries, a nation that had long relied on others to defend it (not to belittle the belgian people and military - they just stood little chance in the face of the great powers) want to build the bomb?

In answer to your first question, I believe the only nation that seriously looked into buying the Vulcan was Argentina, who viewed it as an andequate sucessor to their Avro Lincolns.

Other than that other nations that considered the Vulcan but i don't know how seriously were Canada, Australia, South Africa and Israel (in the late 60's when they began the development of their own nuclear weapons).

Russell
 
...okay, so this requires 2 PODs working with each other to happen but stick with me. In Vulcan Units of the Cold War by Andrew Brookes, it is mentioned that the RAF seriously considered basing a unit of bombers in Jordan or on Masirah Island to give it better bomber coverage in the Indian Ocean and Middle East.

So let's put 2 and 2 together and suppose that the RAF (1) keeps the Vulcan operating into 1991, even on a level like it was in 1982 and (2) has base facilities for it in either Jordan or at Masirah.

How could a Vulcan bomber unit be integrated into the air war?

Perhaps they could find a role within counter insurgency? The Vulcan, operating from forward air bases and at high altitude would have an impressive loiter rate. Laiden with guided munitions it could hang around for hours, providing large amounts of heavy munitions, on demand - far more than current fighters anyway. A very handy thing to have in Afghanistan.

Russell
 

MacCaulay

Banned
It would depend if it had been upgraded to carry ALCMs at some stage, which would probably be before the POD; Jan did a decent little vignette on such a scenario once upon a time.

If in a traditional configuration, then there could well be some use of them for carpet bombing in Kuwait, with the possibility of more than the mooted 21 x 1000lb due to reduced range.


In 1982, the Vulcans were adapted to use Shrike anti-radiation missiles, Sidewinders (a plan was hatched to kill the Argentine AWACS through the use of the Vulcans), so it doesn't seem that out of the realm of possibility that they could be adjusted to use other missiles. They had an immense ability to sling just about anything under the wings or in the bomb bay.

Perhaps they could find a role within counter insurgency? The Vulcan, operating from forward air bases and at high altitude would have an impressive loiter rate. Laiden with guided munitions it could hang around for hours, providing large amounts of heavy munitions, on demand - far more than current fighters anyway. A very handy thing to have in Afghanistan.

Russell

I never even thought of that...we pitched earlier the thought of the South Africans or Indians having a few Vulcans, and those two would find an immense use for guided munitions in that context.
 
I never even thought of that...we pitched earlier the thought of the South Africans or Indians having a few Vulcans, and those two would find an immense use for guided munitions in that context.

Considering India's vast fleet of Canberras and its current handful of Tu-22Ms, I've always been a bit surprised that they never bought the Vulcan or Victor, because it would be a great way of scaring the hell out of Pakistan.
 

abc123

Banned
Considering India's vast fleet of Canberras and its current handful of Tu-22Ms, I've always been a bit surprised that they never bought the Vulcan or Victor, because it would be a great way of scaring the hell out of Pakistan.


I don't see why Britain didn't buy some american B-52?
It's better than any of V-bombers, it can be used in about 7 roles ( strategic bomber, ELINT, EW, tanker, transport aircraft, MPA, TACAMO, ASTOR...).
;)
 
I don't see why Britain didn't buy some american B-52?
It's better than any of V-bombers, it can be used in about 7 roles ( strategic bomber, ELINT, EW, tanker, transport aircraft, MPA, TACAMO, ASTOR...).
;)

And how many of those, did the Vulcan fill...... ;)
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I don't see why Britain didn't buy some american B-52?
It's better than any of V-bombers, it can be used in about 7 roles ( strategic bomber, ELINT, EW, tanker, transport aircraft, MPA, TACAMO, ASTOR...).
;)

But the B-52 is made by Boeing in Seattle, Washington, USA. The Vulcan is made by Avro, a subsidiary of Hawker Siddeley, at Woodford, Cheshire, UK.

And Mann beats me to the punch. :D

Also, there wasn't any BUFF tanker than I know of. Nor was there a BUFF transport. The Vulcans were built at what was arguably the Cold War height of the British aerospace industry: there was no way they'd go anywhere else when Avro was putting out such an amazing design.
 

abc123

Banned
But the B-52 is made by Boeing in Seattle, Washington, USA. The Vulcan is made by Avro, a subsidiary of Hawker Siddeley, at Woodford, Cheshire, UK.

And, you want to say that Avro could not make B-52 by a licence of Boeing in UK?
And that RAF and UK-defense is better served with worser aircraft?
 
My next crazy idea for this thread. Can we think of a way for the Avro Vulcan to be armed with the M61 Vulcan gun? :)
 

abc123

Banned
It's a nickname for the B52, it stands for big ugly fat fuck I think.

Ok. Thx.

I don't insist on using of B-52 as a tanker/transport aircraft. It clearly isn't projected for that role. But it can be used AND for that purpose. Not so sucessful as Airbus A.330 MRTT, but economy of the scale is a bitch...

Imagine savings if Britain produced about 200 B-52-s in 6- 7 variants...
Maybe some better local engines, so 4 instead of 8 engines and so, a very good solution for the UK until about 2040.?;)
 
Ok. Thx.

I don't insist on using of B-52 as a tanker/transport aircraft. It clearly isn't projected for that role. But it can be used AND for that purpose. Not so sucessful as Airbus A.330 MRTT, but economy of the scale is a bitch...

Imagine savings if Britain produced about 200 B-52-s in 6- 7 variants...
Maybe some better local engines, so 4 instead of 8 engines and so, a very good solution for the UK until about 2040.?;)

You haven't been reading Dale Brown, by any chance?
 
Ok. Thx.

I don't insist on using of B-52 as a tanker/transport aircraft. It clearly isn't projected for that role. But it can be used AND for that purpose. Not so sucessful as Airbus A.330 MRTT, but economy of the scale is a bitch...

Imagine savings if Britain produced about 200 B-52-s in 6- 7 variants...
Maybe some better local engines, so 4 instead of 8 engines and so, a very good solution for the UK until about 2040.?;)

British engines wouldn't be so much better than US ones. B-52's never have been reengined for 4 engines after all these years. Which brings up a good question, why stay with the 8 engine design? There must be pratical reasons for doing so. 4 less engines would mean less maintenance, for one advantage.
 
And, you want to say that Avro could not make B-52 by a licence of Boeing in UK?
And that RAF and UK-defense is better served with worser aircraft?
Actually, yes to the latter question - a license-built B-52 is still a plane designed by the US, and Britain gains no experience in the design of heavy bombers from it, while a domestic Vulcan is a British project, making it not only a source of pride, but also a means of gaining knowledge and experience in the design of heavy bombers.

And is B-52 better? It's got a much bigger RCS and is a slower plane. Sure, it's got a longer range, but that's not that much of an advantage in the '50s. The only real advantage is its bomb capacity.

The B-52's also a bigger plane in general; it was more expensive ($14.43 million/unit) than the Vulcan (£750,000/unit (about $2.1 million/unit, using 1950 or 1960 exchange rates)), too. Considering that only 136 Vulcans, including prototypes, were built in the first place, there'd likely be fewer BUFFs license-built.
 
There was a plan to re-engine the BUFF's with ahem a Rolls Royce engine so yah boo to you for having a go at UK defence industry. Oh and Vulcan is designed for a completely different task to B52-the B52 couldn't do what a Vulcan did and neither can a Vulcan do to the same extent that a B52 can.
 
Top