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: