Ideal British deterrent

Why didn't they just encourage companies to join together to submit joint tenders with design, components, and final assembly spread across several companies? That's how several defense and aerospace projects have been executed in the United States since at least the 1960s.
That's what they did with TSR.2, and it ultimately led to the consolidation of the British aerospace industry into BAC and Hawker Siddeley. If they'd done it earlier, it might have saved the British aviation industry.
 
I'm not saying the United States didn't field multiple bombers, I'm saying they were differentiated. The British developed four strategic bombers with similar performance to do the same role and fielded three of them. The United States tested two strategic bombers and chose one (Boeing B-29 vs. Consolidated B-32 for the first one, Northrop YB-35/YB-49 vs. Convair B-36 for the second one, and Convair YB-60 vs. Boeing B-52 for the next one) except during World War II. There were other bombers in the USAF and USN as well, but they had different performance and roles.

I just don't see why there would ever be a need to develop and field more than two systems of the same generation for the same role.

The v bomber specification, design, production period lasted 20 years (Tizard committee in 1945, specs were written 1946 to 1948). In that time, the us went through several generations of bombers. you might say the Sperrin was the 1st generation, Valiant the 2nd, and Vulcan/Victor the 3rd.

If there had been a war the Sperrin would have been flying and fighting in about 1950 (let's not forget it was cancelled in 1949)... 16 years before the last V bombers were delivered.

The valiant did fight in Suez in 1956, when the Vulcan and Victor were still far from combat ready.

Plus there is one more thing. when the British specified the aircraft, the ministry of supply would give no guarantees as to the eventual dimensions of the British special bomb. Aircraft manufacturers were told they might be expected that they might have to redesign the aircraft significantly to accommodate it, once the bomb was ready - so there was a huge amount of uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
The Vulcan production timeframe was 1956 to 1965, the Victor production timeframe was 1957 to 1963. I'm guessing that Avro could accommodate building 86 extra airframes in 9 years more easily that HP could accommodate building 132 extra airframes in 6 years. Either way I'm guessing it would be a job of work and thus most likely easier to order both bombers into production to build up the numbers fast.

Avro and Handley Page built variants of Vulcan and Victor, and B.1s were replaced, not supplanted, by B.2s. Quicker production of earlier models could be pointless, as production of later models proved to be. Victor was not suitable at low altitude, and Vulcan, with strengthened wing, was still limited to 400 mph. While the Vulcan was made to 1966, it had no deterrent function by 1969, while the Victor became a tanker in 1968.

And yes, the merger between Vickers, English Electric and Bristols to build a cancelled strike aircraft was a brilliant move.
 
Valiant gives way to Victor gives way to Bombcorde (need a better name) combines later with British built Cruise missiles.
Plus Anglo-French SSBNs, common missiles national submarines.
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
The UB.109T cruise missile hasn't been mentioned. It's essentially a higher flying and higher payload MGM-1 Matador with a shorter range. Would the 5,000 pound payload capacity have been suitable for the second generation of British nuclear weapons?
 
The UB.109T cruise missile hasn't been mentioned. It's essentially a higher flying and higher payload MGM-1 Matador with a shorter range. Would the 5,000 pound payload capacity have been suitable for the second generation of British nuclear weapons?
It would have carried them just fine - the Grapple Z devices were 1 tonne/1 megatonne weapons. The problem is the performance of the missile (Mach 0.83 at 50,000 ft) is actually inferior to that of the Victor (Mach 0.95 at up to 56,000 ft) or the Vulcan (Mach 0.96 at 55,000 ft) - and the criterion here is getting through to the target with a weapon, not getting the crews home again safely. It's a Victor/Vulcan alternative, not replacement.

There was a UK Skybolt equivalent (not just evolved Blue Steel), but I don't have time to dig out the name right now - I think it was mentioned further up the thread.
 

Delta Force

Banned
How far did it get developed? Where did it fit into the British nuclear arsenal?

The Vickers 825 proposal was at prototype stage upon cancellation in September 1954. The cruise missile was planned with one conventional 5,000 pound warhead or five 1,000 pound bombs, but that should be sufficient payload capacity for a nuclear warhead.

It would be used in a role akin to the United States Air Force MGM-1 Matador or the United States Navy SSM-N-8 Regulus, which the UB.109T shared similarities with in terms of capabilities and role. Later it could be developed into something akin to the USAF MGM-13 Mace.

The fact that the MGM-1 Matador was kept on six minute alert status by the USAF in the FRG might be of interest.

The main issue is that this cruise missiles would lack strategic range, but there's no reason why a strategic cruise missile couldn't be developed. The United States developed and fielded some.
 
There was a UK Skybolt equivalent (not just evolved Blue Steel), but I don't have time to dig out the name right now - I think it was mentioned further up the thread.

Could have been BAC Blue Water, air-launched version, cancelled......for financial reasons, after the money was blown for no gain.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Could have been BAC Blue Water, air-launched version, cancelled......for financial reasons, after the money was blown for no gain.

There is some question as to if the air launched variant for the TSR-2 was even a real proposal. Even if it was, performance would have been on part with the AGM-69 SRAM, which is no where near Skybolt territory.
 
Weapons I’m aware of (including US imports) - some of them are missing the rainbow codes since I don't have the codes to match up to the weapons in most cases:
  • Boulton Paul P.123 (to OR.1097 / UB.109T): V-1 equivalent with swept wing and V-tail, powered by two RB.93 jets in underwing pods. Payload was to be 2 x 2,000 lb warheads (one in the nose and one in the tail). Cruising speed was 593mph at 40,000 ft.
  • Bristol 182 Red Rapier (to OR.1097): Bit of a frankenplane, using the wing from a Folland Gnat and manufactured using asbestos-resin composite. Cruising speed was 576mph at 41,000 ft.
  • Vickers Type 725 Red Rapier (to OR.1097): 547 mph at 51,500ft.
  • Vickers Blue Boar (to OR.1059): TV-guided glide bomb, development started in 1947 and cancelled in 1954 to be replaced by Blue Steel.
  • Avro Blue Steel (to OR.1132): 14,640 lb missile, 35ft long with a 13ft span wing, powered by a pair of hydrogen peroxide/kerosene rockets. Typical range for a high-level launch is 100 NM flown at 70,000ft and Mach 2.5. Full operational capability achieved in February 1963.
  • Avro Blue Steel II (to OR.1159): 25,000 lb missile, ramjet powered. Development cancelled on the 1st of January 1960 in favour of Skybolt.
  • Douglas Skybolt: 11,000 lbs ballistic missile, 1,000 NM range
  • North American Hound Dog: 10,000 lb missile, 700 NM range, Mach 2.1 at 50,000 ft.
  • Avro W.107 (to OR.1149): 23,000 lb missile, 1,000 NM range, in service 1963/64
  • HP.106 (to OR.1149): 1,000 NM range, in service 1963/64
  • Avro W.140 (to OR.1182): 8,550 lb missile, 37ft long with a 6ft 6in span delta wing, powered by a RB.153-17 jet engine. Range is 950 NM with the last 100 NM flown at sea level and Mach 1.5, the rest of the flight being at Mach 3 and 70,000ft. Brochure submitted November 1961 and never got much further.
  • BAC X-12 Pandora (to OR.1182): 20,000 lb missile, 50ft long with a 6ft span delta wing, powered by a BS.10-13 ramjet. Range is 1,000 NM with the cruise being at around 75,000ft and Mach 4. Brochure submitted November 1962 and never got much further.
 
Plus there is one more thing. when the British specified the aircraft, the ministry of supply would give no guarantees as to the eventual dimensions of the British special bomb. Aircraft manufacturers were told they might be expected that they might have to redesign the aircraft significantly to accommodate it, once the bomb was ready - so there was a huge amount of uncertainty.

There is anecdotal evidence that the bombs used for the Christmas Island tests didn't fit the aircraft, which had to go back to the factory to have their bomb doors widened.
 
Top