PC/WI. Rockwell B1B's in RAF service?

With a pod, post 1980, get the Rockwell B1 B aircraft into service with the RAF with between 4 or 5 Sqns (48 to 60 aircraft).

Bonus points if they get built in the UK (BAe).

Regards filers.

Perhaps an alternate time line where bombers and air launched strategic weapons are seen as more viable than IOTL ?

How about:
The US proceeds with Skybolt and the the UK equips that Vulcan bomber force with Skybolt. (Instead of the IOTL Polaris SSBN force..)

Later the the US builds the B1A and the original shorter range version of the AGM86 ALCM, and they both enter USAF service in the late 70's. The UK replaces the Vulcan / Skybolt combination with locally produced B1A's and US provided AGM86's (with UK produced nuclear warheads.) The UK buys 60 B1A's to equip 4 squadrons with 12 aircraft each, plus reserves and a maintenance float. Later the US produces the longer range version of the AGM86 and the UK acquires these in due course.

In peace time each squadron keeps two B1A's on alert, in war time or periods of heightened tension each squadron would keep 6 aircraft on alert.

The UK operates their B1A's with a typical load out of 8 ALCM's and 2* high yield (multi megaton) gravity bombs. Each B1A on alert needs 10 nuclear warheads. An alert force of 24 B1A's would need a total of 240 nuclear warheads. This is probably within the ability of the UK to produce.

The extra range of the B1A allows the UK to periodically fly a portion of the B1A force on airborne alert to alleviate concerns about them being destroyed on the ground. The combination of bombers able to fire ALCM's outside of the range of most air defenses and then drop high yield bombs is seen as being more flexible than an SSBN force.

I don't see this alternate time line as being very likely for a variety of reasons, but it's conceivable in my view.

Best

*When the longer range ALCM entered service one of the high yield gravity bombs might need to be omitted to compensate for the extra size and and weight of the longer range ALCM ?
 
Last edited:
Could a b52 have done the kind of violent manoeuvring that the vulcan did in the bomb run in black buck 1? Given the vulcan's reputation for manoeuvrability, I have my doubts. If b52 doesn't it has a good chance of being shot down.
 
Could a b52 have done the kind of violent manoeuvring that the vulcan did in the bomb run in black buck 1? Given the vulcan's reputation for manoeuvrability, I have my doubts. If b52 doesn't it has a good chance of being shot down.

Well if the pilot is good see, I mean really sharp. He could barrel that baby in so low, you should see it it's a sight. A big plane like a 52, wings back, jet exhaust, vrooooooooooooooooooooooooom, fryin' chickens in a barnyard.

ss2252367_-_photograph_of_george_c_scott_as_gen_buck_turgidson_from_dr_strangelove_or__how_i_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_the_bomb_available_in_4_sizes_framed_or_unframed_buy_now_at_starstills__07704_zoom.jpg
 
Seriously, the Argentine air defences were pretty good. At low level, you are a sitting duck to aa and radar controlled oerlikons on the airfield (somehow the raf forgot that by 1991), and high level gives the argentines to much warning and allows their sam missiles to be used. Tiger cat is a potential danger, plus they had type 42s with sea dart that would be a game changer danger if the argentines had thought to park one in stanley.

The vulcan's bomb run was a low level approach, fast pop up bomb run (oerlikon was effective to 10k feet), including a couple of fast turns. Don't forget a vulcan can out manoeuvre most fighters.
 
Could a b52 have done the kind of violent manoeuvring that the vulcan did in the bomb run in black buck 1? Given the vulcan's reputation for manoeuvrability, I have my doubts. If b52 doesn't it has a good chance of being shot down.
Probably; the B-52 isn't exactly a slouch itself, and BLACK BUCK wasn't all that demanding in the grand scheme of things. Just a conventional low level penetration with pop-up for weapons delivery.
I like the Vulcan, but what fighters are you suggesting? Perhaps the Javelin, Vixen or Lockheed YF-12?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8rVwhnjBr4
At 50,000 feet, where the Vulcan belongs, it can outturn almost anything.

At 500 feet, where it would be likely to operate, it can be outturned by almost anything.
 
A well flown Vulcan ie (with a good experienced pilot) could be a match for a F-15 around and above 50,000ft.

Regards filers

Why would an F15 get into a dogfight with a Vulcan at all, let alone at 50,000'? Surely it would just blast it with Sparrows at visual id range of 10 miles, assuming of course that Vietnam ROE are in place, which hasn't occurred since Vietnam.
 
A well flown Vulcan ie (with a good experienced pilot) could be a match for a F-15 around and above 50,000ft.

Regards filers

You do know don't you that an A-7 attack plane used by both the U.S. Navy and Air Force was fully capable of outmaneuvering and out flying an F-15 in any kind of dogfight?
 
Could a b52 have done the kind of violent manoeuvring that the vulcan did in the bomb run in black buck 1? Given the vulcan's reputation for manoeuvrability, I have my doubts. If b52 doesn't it has a good chance of being shot down.

I have seen a B-52G perform a violent maneuverer straight after take-off at an air display at an air show televised at an air display here in Britain in the early 90's.

The aircraft conducted its normal nose down take-off and then rolled sharply to the left exposing the upper surfaces and then rolled sharply to the left. Very impressive! So the BUFF can maneuverer hard when it has to.

That said, air show conditions are very different to real combat with full combat loads and a gut load of fuel.
 
I have seen a B-52G perform a violent maneuverer straight after take-off at an air display at an air show televised at an air display here in Britain in the early 90's.

The aircraft conducted its normal nose down take-off and then rolled sharply to the left exposing the upper surfaces and then rolled sharply to the left. Very impressive! So the BUFF can maneuverer hard when it has to.

That said, air show conditions are very different to real combat with full combat loads and a gut load of fuel.

And in 1994 during air show preps at Fairchild AFB, some idiot colonel pushed things just a little too far. The squadron commander (lieutenant colonel) who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat always flew with this moron because he refused to risk the lives of any of the pilots under his command:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFIB1L3BPU
 
And in 1994 during air show preps at Fairchild AFB, some idiot colonel pushed things just a little too far. The squadron commander (lieutenant colonel) who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat always flew with this moron because he refused to risk the lives of any of the pilots under his command:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFIB1L3BPU

Yes. The colonel was trying to fulfill his dream of doing a barrel roll in a B-52 reportedly.

He was half successful.

Ironically, the colonel was the squadron safety officer. It was reported that he had a fanatical obsession with the capabilities of the B-52.
 
If Britain's going to have a long range bomber to replace the Vulcan then it's going to be a Nimrod variant assuming the tooling's still available to build some. 1980 is probably too late though. They could possibly re-task a few existing airframes if they wanted. They would likely carry Tomahawks with either conventional or nuclear warheads. Freefall bombs against the Soviet level defences would be suicide.
 
Could the Vulcan be outfitted for long range ops? Replace half the internal weapons space with additional fuel, plus put fuel into the outer wing and into the tail.

c87402ef7edb353289120e10f90ad71e.gif
 
Ow, the format...shrink that picture or replace with link, please. It's enormous.

Vulcan phase six, which would have been B.3 in service, would have been much larger- 358,000lb MTOW, when the B.2 was 204,000lb, they would be so different that you have to wonder why the name wouldn't change as well, with an actually thinner wing, larger fuel load mostly carried in spinal tanks, low supersonic, designed with reinforced wing hardpoints for up to six Skybolt missiles, a 66,000lb weapons payload.

The failure of Skybolt, the bomber response time issue, and the fact that Polaris did work and was much more likely to survive long enough to retaliate killed it.

The Victor also had a radically upgraded version designed, HP.110, which didn't grow by quite as much- 320,000lb- but did rake the wings back and update the engines- moving to Olympus actually- which would have been low to mid supersonic in service, M1.4 to 1.6.

The ideas were there, the designs were there; the requirement and the money were not.
 
Much as I love the Vulcan,firstly that's one HUGE image, anyway, Victor would have been better, option to develop, be it supersonic or any of the other proposals. Other than that you would have been more likely to get VC10 variants. But B1B would look so good wearing 617 Sqdn commemoration colours, can you imagine what it would have looked like in 2014 doing the celebratory flyover?
 
Last edited:
With the Black Buck mission Britain still needed a long ranger bomber. Consequent wars also proves this point. What if, due to the success of the Sea Harrier, increased co-operation between GB/US V/STOL technology for Bae built B1's. Even a token force of 9 aircraft, would be enough to deter a minor power for getting any big ideas again. We can bomb you from the UK before a naval task force gets there.
 
Sorry folks for the big image. I can't figure out how to shrink it without downloading it, shrinking it manually on my pc, opening a Photobucket or other online photo library, posting it there, and then pasting that URL here on ALTH. Surely there's a better way?

Other forums I belong long automatically resize any posted image to fit the forum's photo spec.
 
Sorry folks for the big image. I can't figure out how to shrink it without downloading it, shrinking it manually on my pc, opening a Photobucket or other online photo library, posting it there, and then pasting that URL here on ALTH. Surely there's a better way?

Other forums I belong long automatically resize any posted image to fit the forum's photo spec.

No worries, I've had similar problems on this one...
 
Top