Maximum Vautour

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Vautour

b78b55e7c5a1e479d0e4eed01ac21dfb.jpg


Sud Aviation Vauteur is everything a perfect 1950's aircraft should be. It has French looks, good range and an internal weapons bay. Even though it was not supersonic, it had excellent low level performance.

How could history be more kind to it? Could it be upgraded with better avionics and used instead of Mirage IV for longer time? With performance it offered, it could actually rival Buccaneer, the sweetheart of AH.com. Could it fly from French carriers to offer long range multimission performance? How about service in RAF?
 

Archibald

Banned
cool, a french aircraft thread.

SNCASO become Sud Aviation by 1958, then Aerospatiale in 1970, and EADS by 2000.

The Vautour had a tremendous potential.

First, drop the Atars, and put turbofans on the nacelles. Just like the Bucc' Gyron to Spey, performance would be better.

Then, avionics. France really sucked at radars until the 60's, to Dassault despair. The Vautour was build with a WWII Norden radar in a glazed nose, somewhat like a jet-powered B-25 Mitchell or A-26 Invader (no kidding: the Israelis were aghast when they bought the aircrafts in 1959).

Third, France itself. The Vautour never found its place.
As an all-weather fighter, France got F-86K (one squadron), then Mirage IIIC.
As a bomber, the Mirage IV steamrolled it, because it was Dassault, because it was supersonic, because the Force de frappe.

Not many Vautour were build (less than 150), and most of them went to Israel.

Israel, by contrast with France, just loved the aircraft, and used it in daring missions. My favorite is bombing Luxor airfield in the Six day war, flying part of the trip on one engine to save fuel.
The Israeli loved the Vautour because it was as fast as a Hawker Hunter (or even a Mig-21 at very low level) yet it had plenty of fuel, guns, and a big weapon bay to carry bombs.
In the six day war the Vautours flew without any escort because the Mirage III themselves were used as bombers. Vautours tangled with Arab fighters at low level and either outran them, or out-manoeuvered them.
The Vautour had 4*30 mm guns in the nose, so even without bombs, it packed some devastating punch.

the Vautour was something between a Hunter, a F-89, a Canberra, and a Buccaneer. It was neither of them, somewhat a unique category of aircraft by itself.

Final note: there was a massive update of the Vautour for Israel, the Tsiklon, with a pointed nose, a couple of RR Speys, and plenty of others goodies.
Neither Dassault nor the French governement allowed it to happen, and Israel was proposed Mirage IVs, then the Mirage F1 bigger and elder brother, the Mirage F2, they finally went with Phantoms after De Gaulle embargo in 1967.

800px-Vautour_IIN.svg.png


https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=837.0;attach=7692;image
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
From French carriers no, it was too heavy, and the undercarriage made it a little tricky to land.

For the RAF - the Bucc' is probably better, and then the RAF wants pointy and supersonic, TSR-2, F-111, Jaguar, AFVG, Tornado.

Against the Mirage IV - the trick was to carry an AN-11 or AN-52 free fall nuclear bomb. Dimension-wise, it would fit within the Vautour bomb bay without any problem. Same for American Mk.7 tactical nukes (the ones carried by F-100s).

As for range - the Israelis proved beyond any doubt the Vautour could fly pretty far. In 1959 they flew all over the Mediterranean, from Istres (near Marseille, south east France) to Israel, without any refueling stop.

The irony is that at some point before buying KC-135, the French Air Force considered Vautours (!) to refuel the Mirage IVs on their way to Moscow. Put a big fuel tank in that bomb bay, add a refueling hose. During a low level cruise, a Vautour can fly along a Mirage IV at Mach 0.85 without any problem.
 
To get the Vautour into the publics mind you need to spread it out and possibly have it involved in a war or two. Couple of ways i can think of to do that, first would be to have it designated as a colonial fighter bomber, having it fly in Africa during Frances many colonial wars there. Perhaps even replacing the Buccaneer in SAAF service? If they came as a packaged deal with the Mirage III's that the SAAF procured they could have had a long and interesting service life there. Another idea that comes to mind is south american service, replacing the Hawker Hunters in Chilean service or replacing the Canaberra's in Argentine service. The Argentine option seems like the most interesting to me as they could have been used as refueling craft or strike craft during the Falklands war in addition to the recon role that the Canaberra's had IOTL and if they had an effect... well then you would probably have multiple AH threads about how they could have been used earlier. Especially if the Argentine Mirage III's had been modified with air to air refueling capability. That might just be enough to completely change the war and would certainly vaunt the Vautour into a regard commiserate with the plains actual capabilities.
 
I'd think swapping them for some Canberras somewhere would be the best bet.

However I think the biggest problem might be political, France isn't much chop as an ally in the 50s. Only in the 60s with the Mirage III and a strong economic comeback was France a good enough ally with a strong enough economy to make buying their gear worthwhile for countries with other options. Only Israel, an international pariah and India, desperate to get away from Britain, were big users of French aircraft in the 50s.
 

Archibald

Banned
Also SNCASO was state-owned and was no Dassault when selling aircrafts. Israeli Vautours sale provided zero money to SNCASO, it was really the Armée de l'Air handling the aircrafts to Israel.

I agree about Canberra. Maybe a good start could the Vautour entering the "B-57" USAF procurement against the Canberra, the CF-100 Vautour, and Martin XB-51.

The Vautour would be faster and less vulnerable than a Canberra, unlike the CF-100 it has a weapon bay and it is quite similar to a XB-51, smaller, with two engines instead of three (that should help range).

Martin B-57
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra

On 16 September 1950, the USAF formally issued a request for a jet-powered bomber; the sought aircraft had to possess a top speed of 630 mph (1,020 km/h), ceiling of 40,000 feet (12,190 m), and range of 1,150 miles (1,850 km). Full all-weather capability and a secondary reconnaissance role also had to be included in the design. The American contenders included the Martin XB-51, the North American B-45 Tornado and AJ Savage.[1] To expedite the process, only projects based on existing aircraft were considered and, unusually, the service considered foreign aircraft. These included the Canadian Avro Canada CF-100 and the British English Electric Canberra, which had not yet officially entered service with the Royal Air Force (RAF).[1] Aviation authors Bill Gunston and Peter Gilchrist commented that "It seems likely that this first batch of trials convinced the Americans that the Canberra was ideal for the job, but in order to satisfy the US Senate a competitive evaluation of all likely contenders had to be arranged".[1]

As part of the USAF evaluation's process, all five aircraft were submitted to a series of fly-offs to determine their performance. On 21 February 1951, a British Canberra B.2 (WD932), flown by Roland Beamont, made the transatlantic journey, arriving in the United States to participate in the competition; by making this journey, the Canberra thus became the first jet aircraft to perform a non-stop unrefueled flight across the Atlantic Ocean, travelling from Warton, England, to Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, in the record time of 4 hours 37 minutes.[1] On 26 February 1951, the flyoff took place at Andrews Field, Prince George's County, Maryland; each aircraft was tasked with performing a set sequence of maneuvers within a ten-minute window, directly demonstrating its agility and performance against its rivals. According to Gunston and Gilchrist, the Canberra proved to be significantly superior to any of the competing aircraft, and that its selection was beyond doubt by the end of the competition.

The main problem of course is that the Vautour didn't flew until late 1952... way too late, unfortunately. Then again, delays with the B-57A got the first operational B-57B entering service long after the Korean war ended - in 1955 !
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b57_4.html

There is also the B-66 saga
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b66_1.html

Canberra or Skywarrior ? performance-wise, the Vautour bury them.
 
Last edited:

Thanks Archibald for your comments! On B-66, maybe after problems with B-66 prototype USAF decides to ditch B-66. They need a new aircraft for low level missions fast. SNCASO teams up with, say, North American, and voila! American avionics and engines, Vautour airframe. Will get probably service in Vietnam, at least in EW / recon role.

I'd think swapping them for some Canberras somewhere would be the best bet.

However I think the biggest problem might be political, France isn't much chop as an ally in the 50s. Only in the 60s with the Mirage III and a strong economic comeback was France a good enough ally with a strong enough economy to make buying their gear worthwhile for countries with other options. Only Israel, an international pariah and India, desperate to get away from Britain, were big users of French aircraft in the 50s.

Yes, Vautour has to live long enough to get the necessary upgrades. India might be a good candidate for Vautour to fill in Canberra role.

To get the Vautour into the publics mind you need to spread it out and possibly have it involved in a war or two. Couple of ways i can think of to do that, first would be to have it designated as a colonial fighter bomber, having it fly in Africa during Frances many colonial wars there. Perhaps even replacing the Buccaneer in SAAF service? If they came as a packaged deal with the Mirage III's that the SAAF procured they could have had a long and interesting service life there. Another idea that comes to mind is south american service, replacing the Hawker Hunters in Chilean service or replacing the Canaberra's in Argentine service. The Argentine option seems like the most interesting to me as they could have been used as refueling craft or strike craft during the Falklands war in addition to the recon role that the Canaberra's had IOTL and if they had an effect... well then you would probably have multiple AH threads about how they could have been used earlier. Especially if the Argentine Mirage III's had been modified with air to air refueling capability. That might just be enough to completely change the war and would certainly vaunt the Vautour into a regard commiserate with the plains actual capabilities.

Argentine Vautour might be a good choice and would completely change the air war in Falklands war.
 

Archibald

Banned
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-66.htm

FAS nails it well: both B-57 and B-66 were stopgaps and never really satisfyied the Air Force (although they found interesting missions in the 60's: RB-57F and EB-66).

I think a good POD might be the end of the Korean War. The Vautour flew in October 1952.
At the end of the Korean war, both B-57 and B-66 programs are cancelled.

By the fall of 1952 Chuck Yeager and Richard Boyd (later the father of the F-16 LWF: the fighter mafia) are in France to flight test Dassault Mystères II and IV (it really happened OTL). In the process the two pilots stumble on the Vautour and phone the Air Force "I got your bomber to replace B-57 and B-66 !".

Also: France was a major user of A-26 Invaders in Indochina, and just like the Air Force, they want to replace them.

So by late 1953 SNCASO gets in touch with a US Company (pick your choice !) and sell them a licence to build a much improved Vautour.
First, the engine: America had plenty of excellent engines to replace the Atar. J52 might do the job. Or J65. Or J57 (all of them without afterburner).
Of the three, the closest from the Atar is the J52. It really fits like a glove. Plus A-4 and A-6.
Then the avionics. Gone is the Norden, all-weather avionics are fitted. Probably a LABS, too.
As for the missions, the US Vautour will have many of them: tactical and strategic reconnaissance, electronic warfare, low level bombing, aerial refueling... its career will span into the 70's and the Vietnam war.

Foreign sales: it will essentially eat OTL Canberra sales to
And of course Israel as per OTL.

Note: India used Ouragan and Mystere IV.
South Africa used Canberras and Buccaneers: if the Vautour is good enough, no need for the latter. They will fought along Mirage IIIs and Mirage F1s.
As for Argentina in the Falklands: France and the United States will probably embargo any spares, still the Vautours could indeed be use as tankers.

Vietnam will be "fun" with Australian and U.S Vautours fighting all kind of missions. The pair of 30 mm guns will get a couple or trio of MiG kills. ECM Vautours, perhaps anti-radar strikes with Shrikes and Standards ARMs.

now if you are a little more ambitious... with its pair of J-52s and large internal volume... the Vautour may kill the A-6 Intruder...
I checked their respectives sizes, the Vautour is only a little smaller than an Intruder (51*51 ft versus 55*55 ft, their wing areas are quite similar).
How about that.

also if the F-100 youth is as troubled as OTL, Vautours may fill the gap.
 
Last edited:
By the fall of 1952 Chuck Yeager and Richard Boyd (later the father of the F-16 LWF: the fighter mafia)

Also: France was a major user of A-26 Invaders in Indochina, and just like the Air Force, they want to replace them.

General Richard Boyd is not the Boyd you're looking for. Forty Second Boyd is Major/Colonel John Richard Boyd.

France was still using Invaders in Algeria in 1959, after Vautours had entered service, and only terminated for political reasons.

The Soviet Yak-28 Brewer has a lot in common with a better developed Vautour, but wasn't considered a stop-gap.
 

Archibald

Banned
Ah dang, got my Boyd wrong. Naughty Boyd (lame pun assumed)

Brewer. NATO codenames of Soviet aircrafts. Really ? Did the yak- 28 ran of beer fumes ? or its pilots, although Russians usually prefers strong vodka, or the aircraft de-icing alcohol.
 
For the Vautour to replace the A-6 it would need a complete redesign of the undercarriage to be carrier capable. If that was done i could see it replacing the S3 Viking, assuming it also got an avionics and engine upgrade at the same time.
 
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-66.htm

FAS nails it well: both B-57 and B-66 were stopgaps and never really satisfyied the Air Force (although they found interesting missions in the 60's: RB-57F and EB-66).

I think a good POD might be the end of the Korean War. The Vautour flew in October 1952.
At the end of the Korean war, both B-57 and B-66 programs are cancelled.

By the fall of 1952 Chuck Yeager and Richard Boyd (later the father of the F-16 LWF: the fighter mafia) are in France to flight test Dassault Mystères II and IV (it really happened OTL). In the process the two pilots stumble on the Vautour and phone the Air Force "I got your bomber to replace B-57 and B-66 !".

Also: France was a major user of A-26 Invaders in Indochina, and just like the Air Force, they want to replace them.

So by late 1953 SNCASO gets in touch with a US Company (pick your choice !) and sell them a licence to build a much improved Vautour.
First, the engine: America had plenty of excellent engines to replace the Atar. J52 might do the job. Or J65. Or J57 (all of them without afterburner).
Of the three, the closest from the Atar is the J52. It really fits like a glove. Plus A-4 and A-6.
Then the avionics. Gone is the Norden, all-weather avionics are fitted. Probably a LABS, too.
As for the missions, the US Vautour will have many of them: tactical and strategic reconnaissance, electronic warfare, low level bombing, aerial refueling... its career will span into the 70's and the Vietnam war.

And of course Israel as per OTL.

Note: India used Ouragan and Mystere IV.
South Africa used Canberras and Buccaneers: if the Vautour is good enough, no need for the latter. They will fought along Mirage IIIs and Mirage F1s.
As for Argentina in the Falklands: France and the United States will probably embargo any spares, still the Vautours could indeed be use as tankers.

Vietnam will be "fun" with Australian and U.S Vautours fighting all kind of missions. The pair of 30 mm guns will get a couple or trio of MiG kills. ECM Vautours, perhaps anti-radar strikes with Shrikes and Standards ARMs.

now if you are a little more ambitious... with its pair of J-52s and large internal volume... the Vautour may kill the A-6 Intruder...
I checked their respectives sizes, the Vautour is only a little smaller than an Intruder (51*51 ft versus 55*55 ft, their wing areas are quite similar).
How about that.

also if the F-100 youth is as troubled as OTL, Vautours may fill the gap.
 
Foreign sales: it will essentially eat OTL Canberra sales to....
What does OTL stand for?
Thanks,
Goldrex
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top