Would the Vulcan still work today?

[Max Shutterspeed]

Would the Vulcan still provide an effective tool today?

I look at the USA still operating the B52 and think back to when I was a kid looking up at the flash white triangles flying up the north east coast and wonder if it would still be effective if it had been upgraded in the same way, or had it's time come and was it the right thing to do?

As a kid, I have very fond memories of a multiple Vulcan scramble at RAF Finningley airshow in the late 70's.

I'm not a pilot, or a techie, just looking at the comparisons between two old birds designed at the same time. One still working over Afghanistan, the other castrated in museums.

Sorry if it's a dumb question, but it's been nagging away.

NW

[AlphaMale]

I'd like to think it would. Concorde (same Olympus turbines and Delta in design) was still in flight up until not so long ago and that was doing fine.

Avro Vulcan
Max Speed: 625 mph
Cruise Speed: 610 mph
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft
Armament: 21 x 1,000 lb bombs
Range: 4,600 miles

B52
Max Speed: 640 mph
Cruise Speed: 525 mph
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft
Armament: 60,000 lb
Range: 4,480 miles @ 10,000 lb of bombs

I guess it comes down to how many bombs your looking to drop :p

[Max Shutterspeed]

Thanks, AM.

Thanks for the stats. That's the train of thought I was on. EG. Could it carry a cruise misslile, look at the footage of B52's running non-stop from Alabama etc etc.

If so, why was it retired? Was it due to the cost of upgrade / funds not on a par with USA ?

Or just the usual political crap.

[Archimedes]

There is some evidence (in, I think, Andrew Dorman's book on defence policy under Mrs Thatcher) that there were rumblings amongst certain parts of the Air Staff about upgrading part of the Vulcan fleet to carry something like AGM-86 or ASMP rather than retiring it, but the idea fell apart on the grounds that the funding simply wasn't there.

[BEagle]

Unfortunately the Harrier-mafia and their ilk wouldn't stand for a proper strategic bomber being upgraded from the 1960s level of self-protection to something fit for the 21st Century - not an expensive maintenance programme.

But the bridge-plinking job of GW1 could have been achieved with 1 Vulcan, 9 x LGB plus TIALD per sortie, rather than 2 VC10s, 3 Tornados and I Buccaneer to do the same thing.....

[Pontius Navigator]

Avro Vulcan
Max Speed: 625 mph
Cruise Speed: 610 mph
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft
Armament: 21 x 1,000 lb bombs
Range: 4,600 miles


It has always been assumed by the public that a Mark 2 must be better in all respects than a Mark 1 (anything) whereas in reality any improvement from optimum may well compromise the whole. In the case of the Vulcan 2 more power meant greater lifting capacity and ability to fly higher. These came at a cost.

More realistic performance figures are:

Max Speed:0.92 or 0.93M roughly 525k or 600mph
Cruise Speed:0.84M roughly 480k or 550mph but higher equals slower
Service ceiling: 56,000 ft later reduced by oxygen equipment to 50,000 ft and then 45,000 ft for aerodynamic/aeromedical safety.
Armament: 21x 1000lb Bombs (nominal) = 22,000lb
Range: High Level out and return 3000nm 3450st m.

I have based range on a 6 hr cruise at 0.84M. The longest high-level training sorties I know of where Waddington-El Adem-Akrotiri and the reverse route the following day. The homebound leg was about 6hr 45min but they were butting into a headwind and almost had to divert to Manston. It might be possible to push the range up nearer 3500nm but that would be pushing the reserves.

Could it do it? Yes.
Could it, in the Dale Brown mode, carry AAMs? Yes. Had it had the F14 style kit it could probably have been an effective interceptor. It would certainly have forced enemy bombers to go supersonic further out from UK.

[ORAC]

The B-52 survived as part of the nuclear triad because the USA had a requirement to maintain all three capabilities. It later survived as a high level conventional bomber because the USAF can achieve and maintain the air superiority/supremacy needed to provide an environment it can survive in.

Now look at the UK. We never had a triad and dropped the air nuclear role because we considered Polaris adequate for our needs. Similarly when looking at long range cruise missiles we considered sub launched Tomahawk sufficient for our needs.

In the absence of an organic force of sufficient SEAD/AD etc to provide air superiority, let alone supremacy, the high level conventional bomber role would not be a credible option. Which only leaves the low level penetration role, which needs a target list outside tactical bomber range to justify the cost of running a Vulcan wing - and eats fatigue life at an incredible rate.

So, to be frank, in the last few years of it's life it was an airframe in search of a role. The Falklands notwithstanding.

[Pontius Navigator]

and eats fatigue life at an incredible rate.
So, to be frank, in the last few years of it's life it was an airframe in search of a role.

Orac, this is true as are your points about finance, superiority and supremacy.

Counter-factually however a stand-off missile carrier in the 70s would have made the AFVG and the Tornado obsolete. It could have carried cruise quicker to launch areas than a submarine. This is ignoring the political non-escalatory deployment of submarines, on the other hand the overt deployment of TALCM has a deterent value all of its own.

In the 70s though we were not really talking micro-miniature yet. Not sure what computor size the AWG 9 or 10/11/12 radar capacity was but the Nimrod was a whopping 16-bit 8k.

It would certainly have cost lots of money for modern electronics.

My favourite mod would have to been to rearrange the electrics to permit 2 engine cruise. Now that would have increased its endurance.

[Old Ned]

Interesting thoughts about the mighty "Tin Triangle". BUT, as a previous Eng Off (loved every minute) on the mighty Vulcan IMHO it would have taken a MASSIVE (and thus politically unlikely) investment to have completely re-worked the airframe. It would have been more cost effective to have started again. The electrics and mechanicals were first generation and what was so amazing about the aircraft was the expertise and often inginuity of the guys (no gels then) who flew it.

As was said above, what role is there for the aircraft? The matelots have the nuclear deterrent and we now have the splendid (but what is it for apart from swanking about at airshows?) Typhoon.

Probably get a sqn of Vulcan Mk 3s for 2 Typhoons!

Long Live XH558 - get back in the sky where you belong!

[ericferret]

The matelots have more than just the nuclear deterrent they also have conventional cruise on the modern subs.

If you want to shower an area with 1000lb bombs and the enemy does not have a sophisticated air defence then maybe.

Modern thinking seems to be all about precision and the subs are probably a better bet.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

ericferret. Re read what BEagle wrote at Srl 5. That's a big bomb bay and the Skybolt modded machines had the wing hard points.

[Max Shutterspeed]

Thanks for the replies and info everyone.

So basically, we're saying that:

1. It was every bit as good as a B52, but we didn't perceive the need in the same way as USA or have the budget.
2. It was a bit of a knacker by the time it was retired and would have cost a bloody fortune to re-engineer / upgrade and no politician wold sign that lot off.

Shame, I drove past the one at East Fortune last month, then the one at Sunderland a few hours later.

So much better looking than a B52........

[Double Zero]

Beagle,

where do the " Harrier mafia " fit in railing against a 1960's aircraft, when the Harrier / P1127 first flew in October 1960 ?

If counting the Harrier 2 GR5 etc & AV-8B, started in '85 long after the Vulcan was gone...

I suspect the Vulcan, re-engineered ( & rebuilt from the ground up ) for stand-off & precision weapons, would have been a nice thing to have - but it's not available for the same reason I don't have a customised new Aston Martin on my drive.

Might as well have taken Concorde, built some more modified versions & made a stategic bomber out of it instead of rebuilding Vulcans - the costs would be ...!

[moogless]

I think the B 52's are still in operation to provide th US public with a sense of security.In this day and age,sureley the job of the heavy bomber is long gone.Sad,for the aviation fan,but I think true.It still rankles that our government,against the wishes of a great many of it's electorate/servants refused to keep 558 as a flying museum to educate coming generations of the fear that many of us felt during the Cold War.I am 35 and lived my childhood next to the twin bases of Bentwaters and Woodbridge and remember well visits from the Vulcan,F 104,F 4,SR 71(Very occasionaly,in fact twice!That I saw,must have been more with Mildenhall just up the road.),Jaguars,Mirages,F 5's A 7's,TR 1's,F111's and so on.E 3 AWACS were everywhere,US and NATO/OTAN.It kept us on our toes.I even remeber a tale that the F 117 was sent here for a deployment,with Corsair II's as daytime cover,as the engine note was almost identical!!!Probably nonsense but who knows?Very little pride left in this country,I'm afraid.

[pr00ne]

moogless,

"Very little pride left in this country,I'm afraid"

Total Bo**ocks!!!!!!!!

Speak for yourself, defeatist negative nonsense!

[Double Zero]

pr00ne,

can only agree - the B-52's seemed to 'impress' the Iraqi's and a few others no end !