Bomber role - why was Vulcan picked over Victor?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
4Greens, remember we were at the fore front of aviation where the only way to prove a design was to build and test. The USA is still able to afford fly-off competitions.
In UK the Canberra, IIRC, was unique but the Sperrin and Valiant were insurance policies against failure to meet the full OR for the Victor and Vulcan. The 3 Vs were really therefore intended to be 2 however Vickers tried to stay in the game with the Mark 2.
Other multiple buys were the Swift and Hunter. Sea Vixen and Javelin; argueable de haviland got it right and Gloucester, after 9 attempts was still trying. I doubt you could have got a Javelin off a carrier (more than once).
By the time we got to the Tornado it was our second attempt at a one-size fits all.
In UK the Canberra, IIRC, was unique but the Sperrin and Valiant were insurance policies against failure to meet the full OR for the Victor and Vulcan. The 3 Vs were really therefore intended to be 2 however Vickers tried to stay in the game with the Mark 2.
Other multiple buys were the Swift and Hunter. Sea Vixen and Javelin; argueable de haviland got it right and Gloucester, after 9 attempts was still trying. I doubt you could have got a Javelin off a carrier (more than once).
By the time we got to the Tornado it was our second attempt at a one-size fits all.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems odd to me that anyone would think that Vulcan, Victor and Valiant are names inferior to their american counterparts. What could be more appropriate than the Roman god of fire and thunderbolts (which he thoughtfully tended to use in a defensive/retribution manner rather than an aggressive one), or victory and valour? There's nothing very get-up and go or valiant about hiding behind the walls of a fortress, is there? Mitchell - some personality cult or other, Liberator - er - liberate? Its a bomber fer chrissakes! Superfortress, bigger thicker walls. Peacemaker. Hmm, arguable, but hardly aggressive or macho is it.
Personally never saw anything soft or fluffy in the lines of the V force either, they all looked pretty muscular to me.
And aren't the more modern Russian aircraft all curves - and to my eye they're far more aggressive and menacing looking than anything else.
Personally never saw anything soft or fluffy in the lines of the V force either, they all looked pretty muscular to me.
And aren't the more modern Russian aircraft all curves - and to my eye they're far more aggressive and menacing looking than anything else.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I assume that stealth wasn't a consideration at the time, but is the curvacious Vulcan more difficult to spot on radar than the rather pointy (but agressive looking) Victor or did the huge wing area make it stand out more?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4G: why 3: UK actually flew 7 wing shapes. Avro+HP as insurance (UK SOP: see Halifax+(Manchester) Lancaster; Hurricane+Spitfire). So strenuous was the Spec. (high and far) that insurance on the insurance was sought; simple Short Sperrin (2 built) and a jet variant of Lincoln (6 Ashtons built) were funded. We also flew wing-concept vehicles for 2 more: the AWA all-wing, and Short's aero-isoclinic wing. Vickers' simpleton was rejected, but in April,1948 won a design contract by committing to get (to be Valiant) in Service before (to be Vulcan/Victor Mks.1). Attlee in 1951 ordered 25, intended as pathfinders. The uplift to 104 was 50% US MDAP-funded to get rid of Lincoln NOW! When Mks.1 Victor/Vulcan were deployed, 24 Valiants were assigned from 1960 to Saceur as his Tactical Bomber Force, with US weapons.
cc: #1: why more/longer Vulcan Bs. Both were funded into design in November,1947; 25 of both Mks.1 were ordered 25 July,1952; both Mks.2 funded 31 May,1956. Production orders were placed on 5 March,1957 for 120 and on 30 May,1957 for 42 more, split equally. They were to carry, initially the UK gravity H-Bomb (to be Yellow Sun Mk.1), to be supplemented by "stand-off bomb" Blue Steel (Mk.1, longer range versions intended. HP schemed such a thing). Defence Policy was then re-jigged somewhat, military and industrial. 2 factors caused more Vulcan 2s to be deployed than Victor 2s:
- In September,1957 industry was invited to tender for (to be TSR.2). MoS required Teams. Sir Fred.HP confused "team" with "lead", so was deemed to be "difficult".
- January,1959: UK joined US to procure (to be GAM-87A Skybolt ALBM), Douglas Prime Contractor, Avro Weapons Research Division 29 March,1960 appointed Sister Firm. MoA accepted their input, that low-slung Victor could not carry Skybolt. Victor Mk.2 order was reduced to three Squadrons, Blue Steel, then changed to two, plus one as SR.2: total U/E of 24. Skybolt Vulcan 2 would equip 2 Wings each of 24, at Coningsby and Scampton.
Mks.2 had been intended to replace all 3 Mks.1. The Tanker Force was funded in 1958 to support fighter detachments in the Rapid Deployment Force. MBF Valiants would be chopped when Vulcan/Victor Mks.2 arrived, so were acquisition "free" to tank. Valiant's November,1964 wing fatigue required a quick decision on which Mk.1 would take over Valiant's NATO Tactical Bomber Force Task, and which would tank. TBF was U/E 24, the tanker Force was then 16: it was logical to plan that when the Mks.2 were displaced by Polaris, they would in turn replace the Mks.1. We had more Vulcan 2s than Victor 2s, so Vulcans to B, Victors to K.
All 3 V-Bomber bays were designed around UK's memory of Fat Man (10 tonnes, 62 inch diameter). No intention of risking these assets to haul iron. Valiant was used at Suez, Vulcan in Black Buck because they were there. Staff had no operational feedback, in Nov.1964, on comparative low-level/fatigue issues.
(Mostly, this is from Wynn's Strategic Nuclear Force Official History)
cc: #1: why more/longer Vulcan Bs. Both were funded into design in November,1947; 25 of both Mks.1 were ordered 25 July,1952; both Mks.2 funded 31 May,1956. Production orders were placed on 5 March,1957 for 120 and on 30 May,1957 for 42 more, split equally. They were to carry, initially the UK gravity H-Bomb (to be Yellow Sun Mk.1), to be supplemented by "stand-off bomb" Blue Steel (Mk.1, longer range versions intended. HP schemed such a thing). Defence Policy was then re-jigged somewhat, military and industrial. 2 factors caused more Vulcan 2s to be deployed than Victor 2s:
- In September,1957 industry was invited to tender for (to be TSR.2). MoS required Teams. Sir Fred.HP confused "team" with "lead", so was deemed to be "difficult".
- January,1959: UK joined US to procure (to be GAM-87A Skybolt ALBM), Douglas Prime Contractor, Avro Weapons Research Division 29 March,1960 appointed Sister Firm. MoA accepted their input, that low-slung Victor could not carry Skybolt. Victor Mk.2 order was reduced to three Squadrons, Blue Steel, then changed to two, plus one as SR.2: total U/E of 24. Skybolt Vulcan 2 would equip 2 Wings each of 24, at Coningsby and Scampton.
Mks.2 had been intended to replace all 3 Mks.1. The Tanker Force was funded in 1958 to support fighter detachments in the Rapid Deployment Force. MBF Valiants would be chopped when Vulcan/Victor Mks.2 arrived, so were acquisition "free" to tank. Valiant's November,1964 wing fatigue required a quick decision on which Mk.1 would take over Valiant's NATO Tactical Bomber Force Task, and which would tank. TBF was U/E 24, the tanker Force was then 16: it was logical to plan that when the Mks.2 were displaced by Polaris, they would in turn replace the Mks.1. We had more Vulcan 2s than Victor 2s, so Vulcans to B, Victors to K.
All 3 V-Bomber bays were designed around UK's memory of Fat Man (10 tonnes, 62 inch diameter). No intention of risking these assets to haul iron. Valiant was used at Suez, Vulcan in Black Buck because they were there. Staff had no operational feedback, in Nov.1964, on comparative low-level/fatigue issues.
(Mostly, this is from Wynn's Strategic Nuclear Force Official History)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if it influenced the decision to choose the Vulcan - but I was impressed how quickly the armourers could load one. The low belly of the Victor must have made loading a pain.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
kiwi, Yellow Sun 7 minutes, WE177 35 minutes and these are the times from start load to aircrew accepted and signed off.
I don't have the time for 3x7x1000lb but it could be very slick. What would take the time here would be the checking and removal of all the safety pins.
I don't have the time for 3x7x1000lb but it could be very slick. What would take the time here would be the checking and removal of all the safety pins.
http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition...20K2/ew8_l.jpg
It did Fareastdriver - Pontius is talking about the tin triangle, which by the time it heaved its own not inconsiderable bulk into the air couldn't manage as big a conventional bombload as its sleeker, faster and prettier sister
(OK, I admit it - it was because of the size of its bomb-bay)
It did Fareastdriver - Pontius is talking about the tin triangle, which by the time it heaved its own not inconsiderable bulk into the air couldn't manage as big a conventional bombload as its sleeker, faster and prettier sister
(OK, I admit it - it was because of the size of its bomb-bay)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ah, but it could heave its own bulk into the air and with fuel as well
Out of Butterworth our Australian cousins failed to see us get airborne. We lifted off at around 4500 feet whereas the prettier sister left muddy tracks in the overshoot at the 8000 foot mark and with only 21000 on board and they were looking in the wrong place.
P-N - Yes can't argue that point, assuming we are talking about Mk 1's. One of our guys once reported passing 500' ten miles out of Dubai, and was mightily thankful that he had no high ground straight ahead as he certainly wasnt going to risk a turn! Turned out the fuel figures had been calculated assuming 40C when in fact the true temp was probably nearer 50C on the runway.
We were still prettier though
We were still prettier though
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TTN, I recall a Mk 1 tanker at Akrotiri lost a donk on take-off. Immediate actions included hitting the fuel dump, something a Vulcan never had, and the whole peninsular became an instant no-smoking zone. He was still jettisoning as he passed the fence.
Course by then they weren't pretty as their paint was very shabby.
Course by then they weren't pretty as their paint was very shabby.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember going to Marham after BrizeNorton - where, If a VC10 was taking off, you had no doubt it was going to get airborne. My first glimpse of a Victor 1 tanker moving on the runway was framed by a couple of hangars. The thing seemed to be moving at constant speed. So I went out of the airfield side. to watch a take off. Again the beast seemed to move without accearation down the runway - and I wondered if I was about to witness an accident. At the last momeet there was a bit of a lurch , and there was flight - of sorts. The tanker seemed to follow the curvature of the earth until, a long way out, it climbed away. It struck me that a Victor K1 with full fuel load was not a place to be if there were an engine failure on take off - but perhaps an ex K1 aircrew could advise on that. I guess a fully-loaded B1 would have been in the same situation. Fortunately by that time the Sapphire was pretty reliable.
Aha! Cross-posted with Pontius. Sorry - got interrupted, by Senior Management here, mid post composition
Aha! Cross-posted with Pontius. Sorry - got interrupted, by Senior Management here, mid post composition
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
kiwi,
NP.
The big difference between the Valiant and the Victor 1 was give away. I don't know the comparative fuel loads and giveaway in numbers but do know that a Valiant could 'take' a fighter to the Far East. It could fly to Malta or El Adem, Khormaksar, Gan, Tengah with a Javelin plugging in along the way. The Victor, OTOH, require route activation first.
Route activation was a question of prepositioning tankers at each staging post and tanking aircraft as they passed through. It was a non-starter with the Vulcan-Valiant as the Vulcans could reach the Far East in 2 days whereas it took at least that long to activate the route for even one aircraft.
For Javelins the Valiant was perfect. It could flow from Marham and also reach the Far East in 2 days, although 4 was the norm, with a Javelin in tow. If spares could be positioned down route they could increase the Valiant give-away.
The Victor, OTOH, require full route activation with the main refueller being topped up at TOC before it could take its fighter down the route.
NP.
The big difference between the Valiant and the Victor 1 was give away. I don't know the comparative fuel loads and giveaway in numbers but do know that a Valiant could 'take' a fighter to the Far East. It could fly to Malta or El Adem, Khormaksar, Gan, Tengah with a Javelin plugging in along the way. The Victor, OTOH, require route activation first.
Route activation was a question of prepositioning tankers at each staging post and tanking aircraft as they passed through. It was a non-starter with the Vulcan-Valiant as the Vulcans could reach the Far East in 2 days whereas it took at least that long to activate the route for even one aircraft.
For Javelins the Valiant was perfect. It could flow from Marham and also reach the Far East in 2 days, although 4 was the norm, with a Javelin in tow. If spares could be positioned down route they could increase the Valiant give-away.
The Victor, OTOH, require full route activation with the main refueller being topped up at TOC before it could take its fighter down the route.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Shark Zero Six. I was also in Oz in the early sixties, growing up mad on aeroplanes. Luckily My father was stationed at RAAF Pearce and we got a good selection of visitors from the Mother Country. All 3 V's, Comets and Britannias. Security was pretty relaxed as well, so it was possible to actually touch the beautiful birds. I ended up joining the RAF, but not to fly the sexy stuff; Wessex and Hercules were my lot. Not pretty, but fun.
My Valiant log book reminds me that it was about 5 hrs Honington-Akrotiri. Of that 4.30 would be in the cruise at 8,000 lbs/hr....36,000. 2,500 T/O and climb plus 10,000 overhead. Out of 74,000 capacity that allowed 25,500 for an accompanying aircraft. A Javelin at about 4,000lbs/hr was easy. IIRC 3 Valiants could take 4 Javelins to Cyprus with the No1 Valiant staging through Luqa. Once you got a fighter airborne and up to alltitude if you filled it up even the Lightning could get as far as the Mediterranean.
The Victors of 55 & 57 used to take up almost all of Honington's runway with just a 10 k inert on board. I watched a tanker version take off at Tengah once, never again.
The Victors of 55 & 57 used to take up almost all of Honington's runway with just a 10 k inert on board. I watched a tanker version take off at Tengah once, never again.