Vickers VC-7 in RAF service

[Archibald]

(Spin-off from a falklands thread)

Ok, so I tried to crunch some numbers - with perfect hindsight of course.
This suppose the VC-7 was not derailed and cancelled in 1954, got small orders from the RAF, then went on for a successful commercial career, let's say 400 build at the expense of 707 and DC-8 OTL numbers. I'm not interested in that commercial carrer, just the RAF alone. I want to get an idea about how many VC-7 airframes could they have put into military service, all the way from 1954 to say, 2014 (last VC-10 OTL).

How many aircrafts did the RAF used OTL, for what missions ?

For example, VC-7 can't replace a Short Belfast nor a C-130, all specialized military cargo aircrafts.

So I checked first, Transport Command, then, Nimrods, plus some other aircrafts here and there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Military_service 14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet 21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Britannia#Military_operators 23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod 49

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Shackleton (AEW) 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF) 9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor#Aerial_refuelling_conversion 44

If the VC-7 replace, first, the VC-10, Britannia, and Comet 4 for RAF Transport Command, then that's 58 aircrafts.

Then if the VC-7 morphes into the Nimrod, add 49 aircrafts: 107 aircrafts.

Then the next two logical steps are
- the tanker force (either the 23 VC-10 / Tristar, or the 44 Victors, or both ?)
- the AEW (Shackletons, then the AEW3 debacle: 12 aircrafts)

With Transport Command + Nimrod, that's either 58 or 107 aircrafts at the very minimum. While no 800*KC-135s, still that's more than enough to kickstart the VC-7 career through the RAF.

Then, after 1960, 44 Valiants ver converted into tankers, got wing cracks, and were replaced with an equal number of Victors. The 23 VC-10 and Tristar tankers come later.
Let's take some kind of middle number and say, the RAF needs 30 tankers, average.
That's 30 more VC-7s, say, 137. Then the AEW, let's say 13 of them including prototypes. That's 150.

Feel free to correct these numbers.

 

[pdf27]

Money is the big issue here - the VC-7 is about at the same time as the UK was running out of money (leading to Sandystorm) and dealing with the Comet disasters. Ultimately that's why they used the Valiants as tankers, even as new builds - they were effectively free, being paid for US MDAP money from memory. Getting VC-7s paid for by the same money will be very much harder if not impossible.

I think the best POD to get the VC-7 in service is to kill off the Comet very early on. That frees up some money and makes the VC-7 the UK's main commercial jet - with later derivatives probably having underwing podded engines as was planned. With the VC-7 being rather more capable than the Comet, you may also have an impact on the Sandystorm review - essentially the RN did very well out of it because they offered a cheap way to police the Empire since amphibious shipping offered a way to avoid the need for big garrisons in peacetime. The VC-7 offers the Army and RAF a way to take this money back from the RN, since it permits a central reserve to deploy very rapidly from the UK to troublespots (something that also potentially helps to justify a large aerial refuelling fleet). Unfortunately I don't think Montgomery had the wit to do this - unlike Mountbatten, he told Sandys exactly what he would be given and demanded far more resources than were available.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

(Spin-off from a falklands thread)

Ok, so I tried to crunch some numbers - with perfect hindsight of course.
This suppose the VC-7 was not derailed and cancelled in 1954, got small orders from the RAF, then went on for a successful commercial career, let's say 400 build at the expense of 707 and DC-8 OTL numbers. I'm not interested in that commercial carrer, just the RAF alone. I want to get an idea about how many VC-7 airframes could they have put into military service, all the way from 1954 to say, 2014 (last VC-10 OTL).

How many aircrafts did the RAF used OTL, for what missions ?

For example, VC-7 can't replace a Short Belfast nor a C-130, all specialized military cargo aircrafts.

So I checked first, Transport Command, then, Nimrods, plus some other aircrafts here and there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Military_service 14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet 21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Britannia#Military_operators 23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod 49

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Shackleton (AEW) 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_TriStar_(RAF) 9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor#Aerial_refuelling_conversion 44

If the VC-7 replace, first, the VC-10, Britannia, and Comet 4 for RAF Transport Command, then that's 58 aircrafts.

Then if the VC-7 morphes into the Nimrod, add 49 aircrafts: 107 aircrafts.

Then the next two logical steps are
- the tanker force (either the 23 VC-10 / Tristar, or the 44 Victors, or both ?)
- the AEW (Shackletons, then the AEW3 debacle: 12 aircrafts)

With Transport Command + Nimrod, that's either 58 or 107 aircrafts at the very minimum. While no 800*KC-135s, still that's more than enough to kickstart the VC-7 career through the RAF.

Then, after 1960, 44 Valiants ver converted into tankers, got wing cracks, and were replaced with an equal number of Victors. The 23 VC-10 and Tristar tankers come later.
Let's take some kind of middle number and say, the RAF needs 30 tankers, average.
That's 30 more VC-7s, say, 137. Then the AEW, let's say 13 of them including prototypes. That's 150.

Feel free to correct these numbers.

When I have done this before I came to a minimum of 150 VC.7s, but that includes civil versions. That is:

60 BOAC vice 29 VC.10 and 31 Boeing 707
42 TCA vice 42 DC-8
11 other civil aircraft vice the 11 other civil VC.10s
37 RAF vice 23 Britannias and 14 VC.10s.
​

However, there was also the cancelled VC.7 prototype and the 6 RAF VC.7s that were ordered, but then cancelled IOTL. That would increase the minimum built to 157. The RCAF bought 12 CL-44s which were Britannias with Tyne engines instead of the Proteus so ITTL the RCAF could buy 12 VC.7s, which might stop them buying half-a-dozen Boeing 707s in the early 1970s. That brings the total up to 169. However, Canadian participation might require some sort of co-production or an offset package. I don't see the RAF buying more VC.7s instead of the Comet Mk 2 because they were Comet 2 airliners rejected by BOAC. 30 VC.7 tankers to replace the Valiants would be ideal, but the winding down of the V-Force means surplus Victor Mk 1s and then Victor Mk 2s are available so I don't see any change there unless a new VC.10 tanker does not cost significantly more than a converted Victor.

I think an ASW VC.7 would be overkill. Furthermore in a TL where BOAC and the RAF buy the VC.7 it's very likely that BEA buys the Big Trident with 3 Medway engines and the RAF buys 46 LRMP and 3 Elint versions of that instead of the OTL Nimrod based on the Comet. Hopefully they would make a big dent in Boeing 727 and Lockheed Orion sales. In this TL it's also likely that the BAC-111 would have Medways instead of Speys and make a bigger dent in the sales of the Boeing 737 and DC-8.

I doubt that there would be an AEW VC.7 instead of the Shackleton AEW Mk 2, but I do think that an AEW VC.7 instead of the Nimrod AEW would be more likely. The larger airframe might mean more space for the computers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

However, instead of 43 VC.7s (vice the 6 cancelled VC.7s, 23 Britannias and 14 VC.10s) and the 10 Belfasts what RAF Transport Command really needs is 53 equivalents to the C-141 or an earlier version of the Short proposal to ASR 364. Say the VC.7 wings married to a new fuselage powered by Conway engines instead of the later Belfast fuselage married to the C-141 wings and tail powered by RB.178 engines. The RCAF might buy it instead of the 12 CL-44s of OTL.

This needs to be complimented by a tactical transport in the same class as the Hercules and powered by Proteus or Tyne engines. 103 would initially be built instead of the 47 Beverleys and 56 Argossies of OTL. A second generation aircraft with Tyne engines would be built to OR.351 instead of the HS.681 and C-130K. One prototype and 72 production aircraft would be built. That's a grand total of 175 aircraft excluding the prototypes, any export sales and any civil sales it might pick up.

In 1974 No. 46 (Transport) Group, RAF Strike Command would have 12 transport squadrons as OTL, but there would be 4 squadrons of the Starlifter equivalent (Nos. 10, 53, 99 and 511) and 8 squadrons of the Hercules equivalent (Nos. 24, 30, 36, 46, 47, 48, 70 and 216). The 5 Big Tridents bought instead of the Comet C Mk 4 had been transferred to No. 51 squadron and were serving alongside the 3 Big Tridents built instead of the Nimrod R Mk 1.

That would be instead of one VC.10 squadron (No.10), 2 Britannia squadrons (Nos. 99 and 511), one Belfast squadron (No. 53), one Comet C Mk 4 squadron (No. 216), 6 Hercules squadrons (Nos. 24, 30, 36, 47, 48 and 70) and one Andover squadron (No. 46).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Unless this is a mega-RAF wank where the UK is rich enough to pay for 320 V-Bombers in 40 squadrons by 1958 and that force is maintained until Polaris takes over the nuclear deterrent role in 1969 then I don't see any VC.7s purchased in the early 1960s instead of the Valiants that transferred from the Medium Bomber Force (MBF) in the early 1960s or instead of the Victor B Mk 1s that were converted to tankers in the late 1960s.

According to my Putmans, Aircraft of the Royal Air Force Since 1918 there were 30 Victor B Mk1 conversions consisting of 6 B(K) Mk 1A, 10 K Mk 1 and 14 K Mk 1A. According to the same book 24 Victor K Mk 2 were converted from the B Mk 2 and SR Mk 2 out of 29 planned.

Though instead of buying VC.7s instead of the Victor K Mk 2 and Nimrod AEW my preferred solution is this: The British Government forces BEA to buy 23 BAC-311s instead of the Lockheed Tristar. To ensure a decent production run and spread the R&D costs over a larger number of aircraft 30 transport-tanker versions are bought for the RAF to replace the Victor tankers and 12 AEW versions are bought instead of the Nimrod AEW.

 

[andys]

...and 12 AEW versions are bought instead of the Nimrod AEW.

That presupposes the radar system can be made to work. Just saying.

 

[Riain]

.........instead of 43 VC.7s (vice the 6 cancelled VC.7s, 23 Britannias and 14 VC.10s) and the 10 Belfasts what RAF Transport Command really needs is 53 equivalents to the C-141 or an earlier version of the Short proposal to ASR 364. Say the VC.7 wings married to a new fuselage powered by Conway engines instead of the later Belfast fuselage married to the C-141 wings and tail powered by RB.178 engines.

Is the improvement in performance over the Belfast worth the extra development and purchase costs? I doubt it, Britain needs to build what it has rather than chasing the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow. Ideally the RAF would get ~40 Belfasts and replace the Argosy with ~15 C160 Transall paid for with an export batch of Belfasts to France and perhaps others such as South Africa, Canada, Australia and other large countries who could make use of a long range heavy hauler.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That presupposes the radar system can be made to work. Just saying.

I think the 12 airframes would have been built if the programme still failed and was cancelled in December 1986 as OTL.

AFAIK one of the problems with the Nimrod AEW was the fuselage wasn't big enough for the computers and the cooling system. The BAC-311 was bigger so there might have been enough space for the computers and cooling system.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Is the improvement in performance over the Belfast worth the extra development and purchase costs? I doubt it, Britain needs to build what it has rather than chasing the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow. Ideally the RAF would get ~40 Belfasts and replace the Argosy with ~15 C160 Transall paid for with an export batch of Belfasts to France and perhaps others such as South Africa, Canada, Australia and other large countries who could make use of a long range heavy hauler.

But in my TL 29 C-141 analogues would have already been built for the RAF instead of the 23 Britannias and 6 cancelled VC.7s plus 12 for the RCAF instead of their Yukons hopefully. Then another 24 would be built instead of the 10 Belfasts and 14 RAF VC.10s. The C-141 analogues would be more expensive than the Belfast and VC.10s but ITTL we don't have the HS.681 and the money spent on that IOTL is available to pay for the extra cost of the C-141 analogues.

The real question in my TL is whether the UK could afford the R&D costs of the C-141 analogue in the 1950s so that it is ready in time for 29 to be built instead of the 23 Britannias and the 6 cancelled VC.7s.

 

[Riain]

The real question in my TL is whether the UK could afford the R&D costs of the C-141 analogue in the 1950s so that it is ready in time for 29 to be built instead of the 23 Britannias and the 6 cancelled VC.7s.

Yes, this is the question. It's all well and good to bundle up a bunch of different decisions/order made at widely separate times and circumstances, but the real challenge is to bundle up the decisions in a way that gets a more homogenous fleet.

 

[Riain]

Although it's not my preferred solution Shorts did expect an order for 30 Belfasts and tooled up its production line accordingly, but due to the East of Suez withdrawal it was cut back to 10 aircraft. In your TL the full order of 30 aircraft could have been built and the Britannias prematurely disposed of.

Then instead of the HS.681 and C-160K buy 66 BAC222s (licence built Hercules with Tyne engines) it might be more expensive than the C-130K but the money spent on the HS.681 to cancellation IOTL might be enough to make up the difference and the Treasury might like it because it saves Dollars. With hindsight it might also have been better to buy about 15 BAC222s instead of the 31 Andover C Mk 1 of OTL.

Then in 1974 No. 46 (Transport) Group, RAF Strike Command still has 12 squadrons, but there are 3 Belfast, one VC.10 and 8 BAC.222 squadrons instead of the one VC.10, one Belfast, 2 Britannia, 6 Hercules, one Andover and one Comet squadron of OTL.

I dragged this quote from the lethal Falklands thread to here, I think it's more appropriate.

Anyway, no Hercules! The Herc replaced 2 sqns of Beverly, 3 sqns of Hastings and 1 sqn of Argosy served alongside the Andover and Belfast; a handful of Argosy stayed in 70sqn until 1975 and 1978. 5 1/2 squadrons of Argosy, built from 1961, were disbanded at the same times as the Hercs were built, even though these aircraft were less than 10 years old.

In my mind the 2 Beverly squadrons that were converted to Hercs should have converted to Belfasts, like 53sqn was. The Hastings should have been withdrawn and the Argosys should have been retained after 1967-8, I don't know about the Andover, there must have been a requirement for it.

When 1974 rolls around RAF has 3 sqns of Belfasts, 5 sqns of Argosys or their replacement in the works plus the cats and dogs of old and small orphan fleets ripe for the chopping block.

 

[Wimble Toot]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor#Aerial_refuelling_conversion 44
Then the next two logical steps are
- the tanker force (either the 23 VC-10 / Tristar, or the 44 Victors, or both ?)

The Victor K1 and K2 would already have been built as Victor B1s and B2s so the VC-7 would be as well as

It's (nearly) always cheaper to convert an aeroplane you've already paid for than buy new.

 

[Wimble Toot]

That presupposes the radar system can be made to work. Just saying.

I'm sure it could if HMG threw ££££££££££££ more at it. Those ££££££££££££ could be spent buying the E-3 Sentry in 1980

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes, this is the question. It's all well and good to bundle up a bunch of different decisions/order made at widely separate times and circumstances, but the real challenge is to bundle up the decisions in a way that gets a more homogenous fleet.

I got the notes I made from Humphrey Winn's Forged in War out.

According to them the Vickers V.1000 was designed to fill Air Staff Operation Requirement Number 315 (OR.315 for short) for a pure jet passenger/freighter.

A force of 24 V.1000s and 32 Beverleys was proposed to fly out one Army division to the Far East in one month. The book didn't say so but the 24 V.1000s and 32 Beverleys were probably in 7 squadrons of 8 aircraft as that was the usual Unit Equipment (UE) of the RAF's transport squadrons at the time.

I would expect that more aircraft would be required for second-line formations (like training units), maintenance and attrition. E.g. 89 Vulcan B Mk 2s were bought to maintain a front-line of 72 aircraft (9 squadrons of 8) and 59 Victor B Mk 2 were ordered to maintain a first line of 48 aircraft (6 squadrons of 8) before it was cut back to 34 aircraft which were used to form 2 bomber squadrons and one long-range PR squadron. Therefore I think 30 V.1000s and 40 Beverleys would be needed to maintain a first line of 24 V.1000s and 32 Beverleys.

However, he also writes that the Radical Review cut the planned force to 12 V.1000s and 24 Beverleys. At that time the IOC of the V.1000 was expected in late 1958. An initial order for 6 V.1000s was placed. However, by the middle of 1955 the IOC of the V.1000 had slipped to 1960. When the V.1000 was cancelled the first Beverley squadron (8 UE) was due to be formed on 1st July 1956.

I've also got my copy of Putnam's Vickers Aircraft Since 1908 out. According to that the V.1000 prototype (662) was ordered on 2nd October 1952 to contract 6/Air/8630/CB.6(c) and Specification C.132D was issued under OR.315, with the following preface, "The Royal Air Force requires a fast long-range jet transport, capable of carrying large loads of men and equipment quickly to any part of the world. The aircraft will also be wanted for Radio Counter Measures." Actual construction of the aircraft began in February 1953 and in June 1954 the first flight date was quoted as December 1955.

The Putnams says that the 6 Type 1001s (XH255 to XH260) were ordered to contract 6/Air/11190/C.B.6(c). The exact date is not given, but from other dates in the text it seems to be between January and March 1955. However, the type was cancelled on 29th November 1955 when the prototype was 80% complete.

According to the book, the Air Staff was involved in a cost cutting exercise at the end of 1955 and the V.1000 was one of the costliest items in its budget. Also the Government wanted the RAF to have the slower Britannia, BOAC having already ordered the Britannia in 1949. Also Shorts at Belfast needed work because of the cancellation of the Swift (140 were ordered from Shorts in April 1951 and a further 6 were altered later) and the abandonment of the Comet 2 and a Britannia order would help.

These various factors made cancellation of the V.1000 inevitable.

In earlier posts I was suggesting an initial purchase of 29 V.1000s for the RAF by not cancelling the 6 aircraft ordered IOTL and 23 in place of the Britannias that would be enough to maintain the front-line force of 24 aircraft required to transport an Army division to the Far East in a month.

Can we have Vickers subcontract production of the Vanguard to Shorts which would be built instead of the Britannias Shorts built for the RAF or make BEA buy Britannias built by Shorts (possibly with Tyne engines instead of the Proteus) instead of the Vanguard? IOTL 20 Vanguards were built by BEA and 23 for TCA, which would be more work for Shorts than the 23 Britannias they built IOTL.

Meanwhile the V.1000 wouldn't be cancelled and 23 additional RAF V.1000s ordered in place of the OTL RAF Britannias and BOAC would be forced to buy an initial batch of 15 civil V.1000s instead of its initial order for 15 Boeing 707-420s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

With transport aircraft it shed a lot of orphan fleets, if the RAF had bought a bunch of Belfasts instead of Hercules then the Mason review could still shed a bunch of transport squadrons but retain a core strategic airlift fleet of 3 or 4 Belfast squadrons.

Although it's not my preferred solution Shorts did expect an order for 30 Belfasts and tooled up its production line accordingly, but due to the East of Suez withdrawal it was cut back to 10 aircraft. In your TL the full order of 30 aircraft could have been built and the Britannias prematurely disposed of.

Then instead of the HS.681 and C-160K buy 66 BAC222s (licence built Hercules with Tyne engines) it might be more expensive than the C-130K but the money spent on the HS.681 to cancellation IOTL might be enough to make up the difference and the Treasury might like it because it saves Dollars. With hindsight it might also have been better to buy about 15 BAC222s instead of the 31 Andover C Mk 1 of OTL.

Then in 1974 No. 46 (Transport) Group, RAF Strike Command still has 12 squadrons, but there are 3 Belfast, one VC.10 and 8 BAC.222 squadrons instead of the one VC.10, one Belfast, 2 Britannia, 6 Hercules, one Andover and one Comet squadron of OTL.

I dragged this quote from the lethal Falklands thread to here, I think it's more appropriate.

Anyway, no Hercules! The Herc replaced 2 sqns of Beverly, 3 sqns of Hastings and 1 sqn of Argosy served alongside the Andover and Belfast; a handful of Argosy stayed in 70sqn until 1975 and 1978. 5 1/2 squadrons of Argosy, built from 1961, were disbanded at the same times as the Hercs were built, even though these aircraft were less than 10 years old.

In my mind the 2 Beverly squadrons that were converted to Hercs should have converted to Belfasts, like 53sqn was. The Hastings should have been withdrawn and the Argosys should have been retained after 1967-8, I don't know about the Andover, there must have been a requirement for it.

When 1974 rolls around RAF has 3 sqns of Belfasts, 5 sqns of Argosys or their replacement in the works plus the cats and dogs of old and small orphan fleets ripe for the chopping block.

I was trying to find a way of getting your 3 or 4 Belfast squadrons. I thought 20 extra Belfasts for an early replacement of the Britannia and about 80 Tyne powered Hercules built at Filton instead of the C-130K and Andover C Mk 1 was rather elegant.

 

[Riain]

I was trying to find a way of getting your 3 or 4 Belfast squadrons.

A noble goal given that the 2 major wars Britain would fight in the life of the Hercules would have been far more suited to the Belfast's performance envelope.

I thought 20 extra Belfasts for an early replacement of the Britannia and about 80 Tyne powered Hercules built at Filton instead of the C-130K and Andover C Mk 1 was rather elegant

I don't see the point of retiring the Britannia in 1966 when it could quite usefully fly until the mid 70s and when Beverlys, Hastings' and Argosys were leaving service in the same period in favour of the Herc.

I suspect the Andover can't be readily replaced by the Herc, it was bought at a time when Britain had over 60 virtually new Argosy and was planning to buy 30 Belfasts and had a number of other modern aircraft on strength. Despite all this the RAF bought 31 of these general purpose dogsbody aircraft.

The real mystery to me is the as I look more into this is the Argosy. It appears to be about 2/3 of a Herc in capability and only entered squadron service in 1962, but after 5-8 years service the bulk of the fleet was retired in favour of the Herc. Did the Argosy have some sort of crippling problem that isn't immediately apparent that meant it couldn't fly until the mid 70s like the slightly earlier Britannia? I can't see the point of retiring an almost new aircraft to be replaced by a new aircraft, despite Labour's hatred of the British aviation industry it seems like a needless waste of money.

 

[Archibald]

I'm a die hard fan of the Belfast. A mixed fleet of VC-7, lots of Belfast and a handful of C-130 (or a British alternative) would be pretty good.
I'm more interested in aircrafts that existed OTL. With all the money flushed into the TRS-2 and CVA-01 sagas, new transport aircrafts are no-go. So let's stick with existing designs (sorry, @NOMISYRRUC)

(now checking the Wikipedia page about the Argosy)

The real mystery to me is the as I look more into this is the Argosy. It appears to be about 2/3 of a Herc in capability and only entered squadron service in 1962, but after 5-8 years service the bulk of the fleet was retired in favour of the Herc. Did the Argosy have some sort of crippling problem that isn't immediately apparent that meant it couldn't fly until the mid 70s like the slightly earlier Britannia? I can't see the point of retiring an almost new aircraft to be replaced by a new aircraft, despite Labour's hatred of the British aviation industry it seems like a needless waste of money.

I think a mixed fleet of Argosy and Belfast would be more flexible than OTL 100% Hercules. Scrap all the older transports, including the Andovers, Beverleys and others.

I give up on the converted V-bombers tankers. Let's stick with them. Still a small fleet of VC-7 tankers could be introduced along the Victors somewhere between 1966 and 1980, earlier than the OTL VC-10s and perhaps in larger numbers. This should help Black Buck raids no ? Or keep more Victors as bombers or for maritime patrol. It is my favorite V-bomber, although this is out this thread scope.

 

[Riain]

I think a mixed fleet of Argosy and Belfast would be more flexible than OTL 100% Hercules. Scrap all the older transports, including the Andovers, Beverleys and others.

The Argosys were bought and paid for and a reasonably modern aircraft, with Belfasts to do the heavy lifting they'd fit nicely underneath, assuming of course that they don't have some sort of massive problem.

I give up on the converted V-bombers tankers. Let's stick with them.

They're also bought and paid for, they have a fair bit of life in them, the HDUs are probably recycled from the Valiants and can tote a reasonable bit of fuel so it makes sense to convert them on the cheap.

 

[Archibald]

Well a quick check of Wikipedia page on the Argosy show many different variants, civilian and military.
Looks like the civilian had an old Shackleton wing, itself a legacy of Lancaster / Lincoln and Manchester bombers ! The military had a more modern, safer, and efficient wing. Overall, the Argosy looks like a sane, useful aircraft. No lethal flaw. It remained in service until 1991.

Considering the never ending saga of Buccaneer, TSR-2, F-111K, AFVG, Buccaneer again, and Tornado (finally) keeping a large fleet of Vulcans and Victors wouldn't be bad.

 

[adenmarcher]

The Military Argosies (56 built) & Civilian 100 Series Argosies (10 built) had the Shackleton wing. The 200 Series Civilian Argosies (7 built) had the new lighter wing. The Shackleton wing was used as cost saving measure.
For more info look at Warpaint 71 Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 650/660 Argosy by Charles Stafrace also On Atlas' Shoulders:RAF Transport Projects since 1945 by Chris Gibson (Hikoki Publications ISBN 9781902109510) is great source for RAF policy & projects.