Did You Fly The Vulcan?? (Merged)

[Pontius Navigator]

In theory the OCUs did not have a war role but certainly 230 at Finningley would generate 4 aircraft and OCU crews would do the combat ready checks pre-load and the arrival of the operational crews by road from Waddington.

Although Waddington had the same AE as Scampton and Coningsby ie 24 aircraft they still only had 24 targets. The OCU aircraft however gave an additional 4 airframes.

On a good day therefore Waddington could generate more weapons systems than it had targets. One possibilty was for an airframe to be transfered to Coningsby/Cottesmore to make up for aircraft that could not be generated in time.

Also the OCU crew members could be used to back fill in the case of sickness. The 3 Sqn Wings had 33 crews or whom only 6 were allowed on leave at anyone time and in theory that left 3 spare crews.

On one occasion Waddington generated 27 aircraft with a further 4 at Finningley. This led to the interesting swap of crews as the OCU had to raise scratch crews to back fill the additional aircraft at Waddington. We also went through the procedure of getting additional ALN and putting the OCU crews through the mandatory 6 hours target study. They loved it

We were so short of aircrew that I was manning the Ops Desk while on QRA. If the exercise scramble had been called I would have broadcast the scramble. If a QRA practice had been called I would have broadcast that and then legged it.

[Treble one]

Thanks again for the info PN.

Its particularly interesting that you talk about the OCU crews 'back filling' in case of sickness in combat ready crews. Whilst the OCU staff were obviously experienced Vulcan crew, I find it slightly odd that they would be 'parachuted' into a crew, given the crew ethos in the V-force.

I was under the impression as well, correct me if I am wrong, that whole crews were declared 'combat ready'? Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I'm not sure how I'd feel in a V-bomber hurtling towards an eastern Bloc target to deliver a megaton range weapon, sitting next to a chap who I might not know, or have worked with before?

I am not wishing to denegrate any members of the V-force in saying that. Having met a couple of V bomber pilots in my capacity as a volunteer at an aviation museum, I can tell you I have nothing but the highest regard for them and by association, their colleagues.

Having said all that, was this 'back filling' just a question of being able to fulfill the V force targeting plans, by having the maximum number of airframes and hence full crews?

Apologies for being a bit thick if I've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Best regards
TO

[Pontius Navigator]

What would you prefer? A fully fuelled and serviceable aircraft, a bucket of sunshine in the bomb bay and the crew ineffective as the nav rad was ill, or a guest artiste from the OCU?

The OCU aircrew would be well known to most of the crews and well respected. While I agree the Bomber Command ethic was constituted crews with the whole crew (except the copilot) essentially together to train, operationally if needs must you would backfill.

One more than one occasion a QRA crew has dragged the crew chief onboard if the AEO didn't make it. The crew would not gave been able to receive or transmit on HF and possibly a bit limited using the ECM but the more airframes heading east the more chance of one getting through.

Having said all that, was this 'back filling' just a question of being able to fulfill the V force targeting plans, by having the maximum number of airframes and hence full crews?

So, yes. On the Falklands mission the designated Black Buck aircraft aborted with a pressurisation issue. In nuclear war it would have pressed on, maybe flown at a lower altitude in the cruise and unable to fly very high post strike but fly it would have done. Crews were trained to attack the target even if the nav kit was U/S. We had 'limited procedures' for everything.

[Treble one]

Yep, of course PN, as simple as you say. I guess at that stage of the game, the more airframes the merrier.

Thanks again.
TO

[alisoncc]

One more than one occasion a QRA crew has dragged the crew chief onboard if the AEO didn't make it. The crew would not gave been able to receive or transmit on HF and possibly a bit limited using the ECM but the more airframes heading east the more chance of one getting through.

As a 230 OCU B Sqdn radio liney at the time would have been only too happy to help out with the STR18B and the Eckmmm. Anything to get away from the caravans at the end of the runway. Damp, mouldy and bloody cold.

[Blacksheep]

Damp, mouldy and bloody cold.

Had the QRA aircraft needed to go flying, they wouldn't have stayed that way for long. About four minutes was the general forecast.

I always enjoyed my one month QRA stints. One became very good at snooker and table tennis and if the caravan was too cold, you could always kip on a sofa in the TV "lounge".

[Treble one]

PN, on the way back from RAF Fairford after yesterday's RIAT, I was chatting about our V-Force discussions on here with my father, a former ADO at RAF Boulmer. Much to my surprise, he told me that he was considered a bit of an expert in pinpointing the decoy ECM aircraft during simulated mass bombing attacks (you learn something new every day). Presumably, this would have been a Russian tactic in the event of war? I believe the USAF may have had a similar tactic as well.

I know that the Vulcan had a state of the art ECM system (for want of a better word) and am aware of its successful use (Operation Skyshield in 1960-61?) on exercise, but was the plan in the event of war to send V- bombers just as ECM aircraft (and no weapons) to disrupt Soviet Warsaw Pact AD?

Thanks in advance
Treble One.

[BEagle]

VULCAN ECM

I know that the Vulcan had a state of the art ECM system...

By the time I came to the V-force in 1977, the Vulcan's ECM was woefully inadequate and years out of date. It hadn't been updated for years and crew training was pretty minimal. For example, no-one had a clue about the vulnerability of the aircraft to head-sector or beam look-up threats and no-one knew much about semi-active AAMs. Neither did many people know that the I-band jammer was a Sparrow magnet (or Sovietski equivalent).

The underfunding of the Vulcan ECM suite was as a direct result of the "We'll never really use it in anger" mindset of the MoD. Come 1982, Buccaneer ECM was needed to give it even half a chance against effective Argentinean GBAD systems.

Was the plan in the event of war to send V- bombers just as ECM aircraft (and no weapons) to disrupt Soviet Warsaw Pact AD?

Not in 1977 and thereafter. By then, Vulcan ECM was little more than a bad joke - and totally ineffective against most contemporary WP systems. On our GIANT VOICE competition, the US had to find something from a museum for our AEO to react against.....

[Yellow Sun]

but was the plan in the event of war to send V- bombers just as ECM aircraft (and no weapons) to disrupt Soviet Warsaw Pact AD?

In a word, no. I once discussed offensive ECM with a SAC pilot, he opined that the best form of ECM was measured in Kilotons.

YS

[NRU74]

I know that the Vulcan had a state of the art ECM

It wasn't very secret though, Chief Tech Nick Prager who worked in the ECM Bay at Scampton around 1959-61 took all the manuals home and, together with his wife Jana, photographed them and passed them on to the Czech Intelligence Service [STB?]
He received a sentence of 12 years when he was found out.

[Treble one]

Thanks for your reply Beagle. Interesting to know that we wouldn't have had specific jamming aircraft, as other sides in any exchange may have had.

Its an interesting thought that the politicians of the day underfunded upgrades to the Vulcan, because we'd never use it in anger (heaven forbid). I read somewhere that this was one of the major reasons that the AEO and Navs never got the Martin Baker option afforded to the pilots. I understand that a system for rear crew ejection was developed, but never implimented because of cost/life of the airframes?

Interestingly enough, the proposed Vulcan B3 DID have the ejection option for the rear crew. Now that would have been some aircraft, from what I've seen and read.

As you say, YS, ECM in kilotons would have been a very effective supressor of AD. Thanks for your reply too.

NRU74-I wasn't aware of that story-many thanks for passing it on.

Best regards
TO

[Wander00]

Never heard of the Vulcan B3 - anyone have any more info on the proposal?

[Treble one]

Vulcan B3

Wander

The Vulcan B3 (Vulcan Phase 6 I believe) was designed as a Skybolt carrying Airborne Alert ('Patrol Missile Carrier') development of the Vulcan B2.

It was designed to carry either 2, 4 or 6 Skybolts on underwing pylons (as the B2 was intended to ) and its time on station was dependent on the numbers of Skybolts it carried.

The following succinct description is from Wiki.

In 1960, the Air Staff approached Avro with a request into a study for a Patrol Missile Carrier armed with up to six Skybolt missiles capable of a mission length of 12 hours. Avro's submission in May 1960 was the Phase 6 Vulcan, which if built would have been the Vulcan B.3. The aircraft was fitted with an enlarged wing of 121 ft (37 m) span with increased fuel capacity; additional fuel tanks in a dorsal spine; a new main undercarriage to carry an all-up-weight of 339,000 lb (154,000 kg); and reheated Olympus 301s of 30,000 lbf (130 kN) thrust. An amended proposal of October 1960 inserted a 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m) plug into the forward fuselage with capacity for six crew members including a relief pilot, all facing forwards on ejection seats, and aft-fan versions of the Olympus 301

Further details can be found in Chris Gibsons book 'Vulcan's Hammer-V-Force Projects and Weapons since 1945', in Chapter 6 'Pofflers;The V-Force and Skybolt', p109.



Hope that helps
TO

[Pontius Navigator]

111, BEagle and YS are correct as far as they go and for the dates that they mention. I shall reply by PM as much of what I shall say is informed speculation but there was a dedicated ECM sqn.

[sisemen]

We had 'limited procedures' for everything.

That seemed to me to be the majority of the work on the GSU - throwing in spanners and seeing how good the crews were at 'limited procedures'.

It generally went off OK except for the time that a certain nav plotter was being checked and eventually the procedures became so limited that the nav radar banged the desk, cancelled his part of the bombing run and threatened to pan the checker once they were on the ground!

[Pontius Navigator]

Siseman, true true. One particular trapper, bet you know who it was, had me doing a shiftless basic. I had anticipated this and chosen Dunkeswell and a planned track over Start Point. Bl**dy plotter was so far off track that we missed the peninsular completely. But the RBSU staff were always so pleased to get trade that they always gave good scores, especially on GSU runs. (I wonder how they knew ).

We then did a PD to St Mawgan and the plotter went into sleep mode - most unusually as he was a very conscientious sqn ldr. He missed all the height checks so as a good nav rad (being checked) I backed him up and we didn't miss one. I got slatted in MY report.

Same trapper, a few years earlier, checking my colleague on a Mark 1 check ride "If you hadn't been as experienced as you are you wouldn't have seen that offset." Doh!

[Wander00]

TO - many thanks for that. One learns something new every day. Much appreciated

W

[Pontius Navigator]

six crew members including a relief pilot

Isn't it interesting that 50 years ago we considered the need for 3 pilots whereas 30 years ago we made do with two. How many pilots in a B2?

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Treble one

was the plan in the event of war to send V- bombers just as ECM aircraft (and no weapons) to disrupt Soviet Warsaw Pact AD?

To correct an error in a PM and to answer the question about dedicated ECM aircraft.

In 1957 No 199 Sqn was a dedicated ECM sqn at Honington. The sqn relocated to Finningley the following year and was renumbered No 18 Sqn still in the ECM role before disbanding in 1963.

A dedicated ECM sqn was obviously necessary in the late 50s and early 60s as main force Victors and Valiants did not have an ECM fit. 83, 101 and 617 sqns also formed in 1957/58 with the Vulcan Mk 1 without ECM.

The later 44, 50 and 101 Sqns from the early 60s fielded a mix of Mk 1 and Mk 1a Vulcan Mk 1s of 44, 50 and 101 Sqns. Similarly 10, 15, 55 and 57 sqn Victors were Mk 1 aircraft with 55 and 57 later receiving Mk 1a.

As 199/18 had only 6 aircraft they might have been used on a broad front covering the ingress of the main force. Later as the number of Mk 1a aircraft increased the number of ECM aircraft in the main force would augment the dedicated sqn until the majority of the main force was equipped with self-protection ECM and 18 Sqn was disbanded.

I know the Mk 1 Vulcans were not included in the war plans from 1964.

[Treble one]

Wander-no problem, glad this was of some interest.

Likewise, many thanks for that PN, some more very interesting information from you.

Cheers
TO