Could one of the V-bombers have become a British B-52?

[alt_historian]

I'm intrigued by the fact that, of the the different British V-bombers, the last remaining examples were decommissioned in the early 1980s (after their use in anger during the Falklands). From introduction to final retirement, the service life of the entire fleet was about 30 years.

On the other hand, the American B-52, designed and introduced in the same period, is still going strong today, and it is often stated that it will continue in operation for many years yet.

So: is it possible that one of the V-bombers cold have become a British equivalent of the B-52 - seemingly obsolete, but soldiering on into the modern day, albeit with modifications, long after more advanced aircraft have been and gone (like the F-111 and the B-1B)?

 

[Thande]

I don't know. I think it may be a cultural thing with this country in general: we have a tendency to scrap things unnecessarily and start over again, when the Americans keep their existing models going and upgrade them.

And it is possible to do it with our stuff, because when we sell it to countries such as India who maintain it well, it's kept going. The current Indian flagship, the INS Viraat, is the former Centaur-class HMS Hermes, which was launched in 1953. The Indians have upgraded it and now manage to fly Harriers and other modern planes off it. So why can't we?

Having said that, I don't think the V-bombers are analagous with the B-52 - they can't carry heavy loads of conventional bombs, as we discovered in the Falklands where the Vulcan raid on Port Stanley, though a propaganda coup, did little actual damage.

 

[Readman]

Those Vulcans had a helluva run too; Mid air refueling to boot on that airfield run. Cojones of steel, that lot.

 

[67th Tigers]

And it is possible to do it with our stuff, because when we sell it to countries such as India who maintain it well, it's kept going. The current Indian flagship, the INS Viraat, is the former Centaur-class HMS Hermes, which was launched in 1953. The Indians have upgraded it and now manage to fly Harriers and other modern planes off it. So why can't we?

We flew SHAR off her in the Falklands. We could have had her soldier on another couple of decades, but Viraat is now a yard queen. Indeed, we could certainly have got another decade out of Ark Royal. Eagle in better condition, and could be seen the RN into the 1990's. Victorious, Albion, Bulwark and Centaur could also have seen it certainly in the 1980's.

Victor had the heaviest bombload of the lot, and lasted (as a tanker) well into the 1990's.

 

[Riain]

The fact that the Vulcan didn't knock out Pt Stanley's runway isn't really the fault of the aircraft per se. It's more to do with the obsolescence of the electronics and weapons used. 1950s radar and 21 x 1000lb dumb bombs is hardly the ideal anti runway weapon, even back in 1982. With the electronics of the TSR2/Jaguar/Tornado and a dozen durandals, or the JP223 submunition packs, the Pt Stanley runway would have been destroyed in a single pass.

 

[Readman]

Yes but as had been mentioned the refueling process was kind of detrimental to its long range operation; I find the B-52 to be the superior aircraft soldiering on much longer than I think anyone has expected

 

[Riain]

The original V bomber spec required an operational radius of about 1500nm, and the Black Buck missions were flown at a radius of twice that so of course ifr was used. It says a lot about the aircraft, and Victor too since they did the tanking and radar recon out to similar vast distances, that with tanking it could double its design spec radius of action. The B52 did exactly the same thing since it's inception, indeed those 700 KC135s were ordered by SAC to support the bombers and throughout the Cold War undertook standing missions over the poles to top up bombers.

Perhaps upgraded V bombers could have participated in the Gulf War by flying missions from Britain with tanker support. Or from out of area bases to avoid congestion with tactical aircraft.

 

[The Dean]

The fact that the Vulcan didn't knock out Pt Stanley's runway isn't really the fault of the aircraft per se. It's more to do with the obsolescence of the electronics and weapons used. 1950s radar and 21 x 1000lb dumb bombs is hardly the ideal anti runway weapon, even back in 1982. With the electronics of the TSR2/Jaguar/Tornado and a dozen durandals, or the JP223 submunition packs, the Pt Stanley runway would have been destroyed in a single pass.

Taking a point from the Barnes Wallis thread it was the bombs at fault as one Grand Slam where any of the 1,000lb bombs hit would have put the airfield out for the duration. The problem with that though would have been that we wanted to use the airfield after retaking the islands and that sort of damage would have taken weeks to repair.

 

[Shimbo]

Rejigging the Vulcan as a Grand Slam carrier would give it a unique capability and maybe a reason to soldier on.

No reason at all that you can't put modern avionics in it. Although if it is just a bomb truck then there might not be that much point.

 

[The Dean]

Rejigging the Vulcan as a Grand Slam carrier would give it a unique capability and maybe a reason to soldier on.

No reason at all that you can't put modern avionics in it. Although if it is just a bomb truck then there might not be that much point.

Wouldn't it have been amazing to see the looks on every-bodies faces as the RAF took out all the deep bunkers in the gulf war?

 

[Archibald]

There's no reasons Vulcan or Victor couldn't have a B-52 like long-lasting career.

I think the Vulcan would be more adequated to the role. Its delta wing was much stronger, and Avro existed for a much longer time (up to 2001 and the demise of the -146) than HP.
Delta wings are rather controversial for low-level ops.

Delta (big) wings area = bumpy ride, but the delta is stubbier than a concentional layout (because its a large triangle attached to a stubby fuselage).

To have Vulcan lasting into our days we must suppose that the production line was re-opened after the TSR-2 debacle, and an upgraded Vulcan B.3 was produced.

Yeah, that's how I see it. Put upgraded Olympus and TSR-2 avionics onto a Vulcan.
Then wait 10 or 20 years and fit cruise-missiles (again, that's what happened with the B-52). Another 10 years and guided-weapons come.

Now your Vulcan is a stand-off weapon platform.

It would be rather similar to the B-52H, the last rolled-out in 1962 and they still see service today.

(Without reheat) Concorde engine could be use as basis for an upgrade of the Olympus, or maybe the Vulcan could receive civilian turbofans as they did to the Nimrod MR.4 with the BR.701 (the last Vulcans had Olympus mk.301 giving 9 tons of thrust and 60 000 ft+ ceiling).

Btw I've build a french Vulcan last year with a tan-brown camo similar to what the Jaguar wore in Tchad in the 80's. I've put AS-30L and an ATLIS pod under its wings, plus a martel ARM.

 

[George Carty]

Could the Vulcan have been redesigned into a stealth bomber by moving the jet intakes back along the top surface of the wing, and replacing the single vertical fin with twin canted fins outboard of the engines?

 

[Michel Van]

Could the Vulcan have been redesigned into a stealth bomber by moving the jet intakes back along the top surface of the wing, and replacing the single vertical fin with twin canted fins outboard of the engines?

yes it possble (from wiki)

Despite its large size, it had a relatively small radar cross-section (RCS). It is now known that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin.

the bomber need Radar absorbent paint and modifde tail fin.( in V form)

from all V-bombers the Vulcan Airframe is solidly constructed.
and decision to withdrawn from service, was polical one.

IMHO the Vulcan had stay much longer service, used in Golfwar One & Two and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Note on very long service time
the USAF wat to used the B-52H until 2040 !
that means the B-52H Airframe gona be 79 years old at withdrawn from service

 

[CalBear]

The question is, why?

The RAF has no ongoing need for a long range heavy lift conventional/nuclear bomber. The Falklands was a serious one-off event, and it is the only instance that the UK could have made use of a BUFF.

Maintaining a very costly system for use once in 40 years is a bit pricely.

 

[larpsidekick]

As CalBear has said - it could, but only if the UK had a much hogher defence budget - and even then, the money would likely go to something with more use for the UK defence mission at that time - defence of the North Sea against Soviet ingress.

 

[Alexius]

Had Skybolt not been cancelled, Britain's nuclear deterrent would have been heavy bombers, so the Vulcans would have been upgraded again- to B.3 standard- and kept going into the mid-90s with that. The replacement might well be upgraded Vulcans again- perhaps a complete redesign to make them stealthy- or perhaps a UK buy of B-1s or B-2s.

Also- Victors were used in the Gulf War, as tankers, though by then their bombing capability had been removed.

Archibald- see above for Vulcan as stand-off weapon carrier- it was planned in the 60s, but we got Polaris instead. As for Avro- of the 3 V-bomber manufacturers, Handley Page went bust in 1970 and were not absorbed by anyone. Avro were absorbed by Hawker-Siddeley in 1963, and Vickers by BAC in 1960. H-S and BAC merged to form BAE, who had the rights to the Avro name, and used it on the 146- which was originally developed by De Havilland.

 

[zoomar]

One thought.

All of the V-bombers had their engines buried in the wings rather than hung on exterior pylons. From pictures at least, it also looks like they depended more on their internal weapons bays rather than wing hard points to carry conventional loads.

Unlike the B-52, which could be fairly easily provided with upgraded engines on the exterior mountings and provided pylons to carry lots of dumb bombs in asymetrical wars against 3rd world opponents with minimal design changes, is it possible the design of the V-bombers did not allow this flexibility? Were they too specialized as nuke deliverers?

 

[TheMann]

Wouldn't it have been amazing to see the looks on every-bodies faces as the RAF took out all the deep bunkers in the gulf war?

Beat that, Yankees!

As for CalBear's point about the RAF not needing to keep a bomb truck, you would be surprised how useful said bomb truck can be. I've repeatedly said one good option would be putting a rotary launcher for ATGM missiles in a bomber, and using it as a support tool. Smart bombs would be another option, though you'd have to upgrade the Vulcan's avionics to use them.

 

[Riain]

Engines buried in wing roots apparently offers a lot of advantages, but this configuration died with the British aircraft industry; the problems with the Comet and the non development of the V bombers. The Soviets used this setupo for many more years successfully enough.

The Vulcan did have underwing pylons, developed as part of the Skybolt system. In the Falklands these carried ECM pods or one or two Shrike launchers. Presumably these pylons could be used for lots of things if the Vulcan had been kept at the forefront of British defence; Martel, LGBs, more bombs etc.

 

[strangeland]

The question is, why?

The RAF has no ongoing need for a long range heavy lift conventional/nuclear bomber. The Falklands was a serious one-off event, and it is the only instance that the UK could have made use of a BUFF.

Maintaining a very costly system for use once in 40 years is a bit pricely.

The advantage of the B-52 is that it can strike virtually anywhere in the world with a huge payload. I think the British would have had good use for them in the Gulf or Afghanistan, where US B-52s and B-1s gave a good account of themselves. It would also be useful to launch ALCMs or guided bombs in small interventions like Sierra Leone, especially since the foe would have virtually no air defenses.