Tornado is just about coming online as well, which if required can carry a similar payload (over a much shorter range) with higher chance of survival and a smaller crew.
HMS EAGLE in the Falklands
- Thread starter flasheart
- Start date
Tornado is just about coming online as well, which if required can carry a similar payload (over a much shorter range) with higher chance of survival and a smaller crew.
And here I thought it was the army that’s treated like the ugly stepchild in regards to the defence budget.
Since about the mid-late 1950’s it’s been the RN that got whatever was left over.
The joys of having to maintain the BAOR on the North German Plains.
The H-model B-52s that the USAF kept after the Col War were practically brand new planes even 30 years afer construction. Between constant maintenance for the nuclear role and sitting pad alert instead of airborne alert or training, they were in great condition with almost no flight hours. The wet wing fatigue issue was fixed in the 60s and the BUFFs were back at high-altitude with ALCMs by the 80s.
RAFG and BAOR were taking up the Lions share of the Military Budget - and quite rightly so
So given that the Polaris subs were now handling the Nuclear missiles the Vulcans were surplus to requirement
Even with her success Eagle might not get a lease of life and again the RN would be limited to the 3 'Through Deck Cruisers'
However this would change more rapidly ITTL post draw down of RAFG and BAOR in the mid 90s and the budget might then be able to support big flat tops again.
So given that the Polaris subs were now handling the Nuclear missiles the Vulcans were surplus to requirement
Even with her success Eagle might not get a lease of life and again the RN would be limited to the 3 'Through Deck Cruisers'
However this would change more rapidly ITTL post draw down of RAFG and BAOR in the mid 90s and the budget might then be able to support big flat tops again.
Last edited:
Yeah the Vulcan lacks the range, ease of upgrade, and payload of the B-52 and not enough built were to remain viable in the long run (only 136 were made as compared to 736 B-52s) especially as they had been worked hard over their service lives especially as compared to the later B-52Gs and the Hs
There were multiple BLACKBUCK missions in OTL so I don't see how anything changes.
If anything I think that Black Buck would reinforce the relative durability and cost-effectiveness of aircraft carriers. Given that a single Vulcan sortie to deploy 21,000lbs of ordnance required eleven Victor tankers while an aircraft carrier with a dozen Buccaneers that can deliver around 100,000lbs of ordnance and continue to do so as long as they have ammunition and fuel.
What would have made a Signiant difference to HMS Eagle ITTL would have been a viable long range COD aircraft. A tanker version of which could have been used for the Blackbuck aircraft hence cutting down the number of Victor sorties required. This links into a have a better AEW aircraft than the Gannet!
Mark1878
Donor
The other problem for RAF here is that Vulcans only worked (as do B-52) when there was no effective air defence ie interceptors or SAM. Buccaneers are more manoeuvrable (and cost less so you can have more and it matters less when they are lost) and with the aircraft carrier as base can have a fighter escort.
Last edited:
The Vulcans were supposed to carry the Skybolt missile. When that died out, much of their usefulness disappeared, afaik. They'd have to last long enough for cruise missiles to show up...
AFAIK, Vulcan's were more survivable than B-52's because they could fly low and had a relatively low radar cross-section. IIRC, there was an exercise in the early sixties where Vulcan's flew from the UK and Bermuda to "attack" targets in the US and seven of the eight managed to complete their mission and return to base. I'd expect that things would have substantially changed by the '80s of course.
Yes by the 80s - look down and shoot down radar equipped fighters had put paid to such antics
My understanding is that while the Vulcans looked impressive flying low and sounding like a mornful wounded angry godzilla (that noise was amazing by the way) by the Falklands the jig was up and this was proven in multiple Red flag type exercises with F15s lazily following them through what would otherwise be some very impressive manouvres.
Against a Peer opponent it would have been at a serious disadvantage and likely the RAF would suffer serious losses if they had tried
The B-52 was saved (mostly) by the apperance of long range guided weapons, like cruise missiles, Harpoon missiles, etc. Then the cold war ended, and with it the "big enemy" that could counter it with fighters and long range SAMs.
At which point the RAF would probably have been better off converting the Victors in to cruise-missile carriers than sticking with the Vulcan.
The US was retiring upgraded B-52D aircraft in 1982 and 1983. I wonder if the RAF could have gotten a dozen or so de-nuclearized to use with CALCMs or some other cruise missile. Gravity bombs would of course be an option. Unrefueled combat radius would be 3,300 nmi, close to the distance between Ascension and the Falklands, so maybe only one post-departure and one recovery tanker would be necessary (these could be the same aircraft). The CALCM can probably fly more than 1,000 nmi. I have heard problems about the life extension program that allowed the last B-52D models to continue past initial D-fleet retirement in 1978.
SsgtC
Banned
AIUI, the -52D was used hard and put away wet after Vietnam. Since they had the Big Belly modifications to allow them to carry more conventional bombs, they saw the most use over Vietnam. I'm not really sure how much life was left in those airframes by that point.
The Pacer Plank modification was supposed to add 7,000 hours to eighty of the 150 or so remaining D-models, primarily by re-skinning parts of the wings and fuselage. The mods were added in the mid-1970s and appear to have added four or five years of life over the un-modded airframes. Considering that USAF bombers in peacetime will fly about 300 to 500 hours a year, they might have used up to 3,000 of the extra flight hours, which is probably an indication of the success of the Pacer Plank program.
Still not a great deal of hours and the Navy is likely to chime in and point out they can do the same thing with more flexibility using a Carrier. A carrier that would have a fifty year life span not ten and oh by the way who won us the war?
Also given the situation in 1982 the need to air drop nukes or carpet bomb is unlikely to recur. The Polaris/Trident system is a far safer way to deploy the nukes, a B-52 does not have great survival odds in WW3 scenarios and most likely interventions would almost certainly need a naval taskforce anyway.
Yet another reason the navy would push for a new fleet carrier in place of buying the RAF a bunch of clapped out bombers.
The Vulcan did just carpet bomb Goose Green. We know that B-52s were carpet bombing in Iraq.
That's why the USAF equipped their B-52s with cruise missiles.
Obviously the best reason to get a carrier is cost-effectiveness compared to heavy bombers. With cruise missiles and tankers, heavy bombers can fulfill the expeditionary strike role in a matter of hours, but carriers can provide sustained tactical air anywhere in the world for weeks.