Discussion: Reasons for the Retirement of the V-Bombers

[DWG]

I'll throw in a different proposition, that the problem wasn't role-related, or political, or whatever, it was at heart procurement-related. Specifically the decision to buy three different V bombers (and prototype a fourth, Sperrin). That left us with three fleets to support. Then Valiant succumbed to fatigue and that was supportable, it was only a third of the V force. Then Victor couldn't hack low level, but it was only half of the fleet, and we could use it for other stuff. And that left Vulcan and by the mid 80s it was showing its age and we had the boomers and Tornado instead.

If at each of those decisions the whole of V Force had been up in the air, then money would have had to be found to fix them. Instead it suffered the death of xa thousandx three cuts. Incidentally the B-52 might have lasted longer, but it is suffering a similar diminution by the different marks, and we're now down to the last surviving mark.

 

[riggerrob]

Dear alertken,
The latest rumor has it that the latest plan to re-engine B-52s is that they are finally exhausting supplies of JT3D engines left over from earlier models of B-52 and KC-135 transports.
Up until now, they have had plenty of spare engines, ergo little incentive to up-date engines.

You also mentioned the higher cost of crewing B-52s ... personnel cost much more than fuel for western combat aircraft.

 

[Cerious]

Before I start my ramble, I would like to ask the moderators that if they feel this is in the wrong area of the forum, that they move this to an area deemed as the right place. I intend this thread to be a discussion mostly about the technical aspects of these aircraft and sources related to the discussion. I do not intend this to become a political discussion, and I ask that members to refrain from beginning a political discussion.

With that sorted, it is time to begin. Whenever the topic of 1950's strategic bombers is being discussed, there are always two common questions "What happened to the V-Bombers? and "Why were they retired?" It is a question that often crops up in online discussions between amateur historians, or even in YouTube comment sections. When discussed properly, it can lead to an interesting discussion. When it isn't, it would usually lead to the Internet equivalent of a bar brawl. I have been involved in both. These questions makes relative sense, especially to those who lack an in-depth understanding of the topic discussed. Bombers such as the B-52 and Tu-95 have been in service for over 60 years, pushing on to 70, and will remain in service until their hundredth anniversary in service. But Britain's V-Bombers had a relatively short stay, when compared to these aircraft. The Valiant was gone by 1965, the Vulcan by 1984 and the final Victor was retired in 1993, after serving in the First Gulf War. So what were the causes for for their retirement?

I have managed to nail it down to these points:

1. A change in the way operations were carried out (From High to Low; a new bomber (TSR.2) was needed)
2. A change in British defence policy (1957 Defence White Paper and subsequent reviews)
3.A change in role of the bomber (power projection weapon and cruise missile carrier)
4. The role of the Deterrent being handed over to the Royal Navy

Here are some reasons for my above statements:
1. The V-Bombers were designed as High Altitude strategic bombers, as most other bombers of this period were. The way they were designed and built, was tailored to this role. The downing of Francis Gary Powers by an SA-2 Guideline surface-to-air missile in 1960 brought about a major change in the methods used by Western bombers. No longer were high altitude penetrations possible, now bombers had to penetrate at low altitudes to evade detection by Soviet radar. This put a massive strain on the designs of these aircraft, and their crew, which were both operating outside of the environment they had been trained in. This would shorten the service lives of all the aircraft, especially the Valiant, which had to be retired in 1965 due to fatigue cracks (although it's retirement could be down to political reasons as well - let's not get into that). The entry into service of the TSR-2 and later the F-111K would have meant the removal of the V-Bombers from the low level role, and put them into roles more suited for their design. The cancellation of both of these types meant that V-Bombers, mainly the Vulcan, served in the low-level role until the entry into service of the Tornado, adding more strain on the fleet.

2. The 1957 Defence White Paper began the withdrawal of British forces from East of the Suez Canal, after the embarrassment of the 1956 Suez Crisis. Subsequent Defence Reviews continued this trend, and the need for a strategic bomber became less and less necessary. Britain's focus was on Europe and focused on defeating Soviet movements in the event of the Cold War turning hot. A tactical bomber was needed, a strategic bomber would be too large for such a task.

3. The role of the strategic bomber since the 1970's has been to mainly carry a large number of cruise missiles and act as a weapon of power projection. The latter was certainly put into practice when RAF Vulcans flew to Southeast Asia during standoffs between Indonesia and Malaysia in 1964, and during the Black Buck raids in 1982. The former however, was never really taken advantage of by the RAF. Blue Steel didn't really give the RAF the capability it wanted, and it's replacements never made is past the drawing board. Skybolt was cancelled in 1962, rendering the modifications the Vulcans received null and void until the Falklands War, when AGM-45 Shrikes were mounted on pylons under the wings, thanks to the strengthening of the wings for the Skybolt program. Cruise missiles began to appear in the Sixties, and eventually became more common by the mid to late Seventies, yet the RAF never jumped on the opportunity to develop or procure cruise missiles (to my knowledge at least, I think giving Vulcan's Hammer a read would help settle some doubts)

4. The role of the deterrent was handed over to the Royal Navy, with their Polaris-armed Resolution-class submarines. These provided a somewhat cheaper alternative to the V-bombers, and provided greater capability and a greater chance of reaching the target.

There is no single factor that lead to the retirement of these aircraft, all factors were responsible for retirement of these aircraft.

I hope my analysis isn't too flawed, this is the first time I've gone into much detail about such a topic. Constructive criticism is always accepted, and I would also like to hear your thoughts and opinions about this topic and my analysis.

Are there any sources, both online and in books that could help to either back-up or disprove my analysis? I have Vulcan's Hammer by Chris Gibson and Tim McLelland's Britain's Cold War Bombers, as a start.

I hope my ramble wasn't too long, and isn't completely wrong.

Wyvern

As you said, there is no "single factor", that led to their retirement, the V-bombers had problems with metal fatique of their wings, and needed a wing upgrade (valiant was retired after a main wing spar cracked 1964), as has been done to the last flying vulcan XH558. They have been used over 20 years for a job they weren't designed for, low level bombing. Only the vulcan was suitable and the far superior (in my opinion) victor was turned into a tanker. By the 80s the need for a big bomb plattform simply disappeared and the V-Bombers, a symbol of britains airpower, were replaced by the panavia tornado, which could do the job much better and its modifications gr4 and gr4a (raf) are still flying today.

 

[Hood]

By the 80s the need for a big bomb plattform simply disappeared and the V-Bombers, a symbol of britains airpower, were replaced by the panavia tornado, which could do the job much better and its modifications gr4 and gr4a (raf) are still flying today.

The RAF retired its last GR.4s in April 2019.
Other user nations are still going strong though (Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia).

 

[Cerious]

By the 80s the need for a big bomb plattform simply disappeared and the V-Bombers, a symbol of britains airpower, were replaced by the panavia tornado, which could do the job much better and its modifications gr4 and gr4a (raf) are still flying today.

The RAF retired its last GR.4s in April 2019.
Other user nations are still going strong though (Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia).

Oh, I thought they were still using it, they still fly in germany though, yesterday a few flew over my house.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

As you said, there is no "single factor", that led to their retirement, the V-bombers had problems with metal fatique of their wings, and needed a wing upgrade (valiant was retired after a main wing spar cracked 1964), as has been done to the last flying vulcan XH558. They have been used over 20 years for a job they weren't designed for, low level bombing. Only the vulcan was suitable and the far superior (in my opinion) victor was turned into a tanker. By the 80s the need for a big bomb plattform simply disappeared and the V-Bombers, a symbol of britains airpower, were replaced by the panavia tornado, which could do the job much better and its modifications gr4 and gr4a (raf) are still flying today.

Well said, and a good way to shorten what is a long discussion.

 

[uk 75]

The USAF used a pair of FB111A squadrons equiped with SRAM missiles from the late 60s. I think they were intended to clear the way for B52 strikes on Russia.
The RAF Vulcan was allocated a similar role with WE177 bombs. But if they had received SRAMs might they have been able to stay in service longer?

 

[publiusr]

As lovely as designs with engines in wing-roots are...nacelle-pods are just more easily serviced. That likely played a role.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I believe the change of role affected the airframe life quite heavily which increase running costs. They probably did not have a great deal of flying time left when they were retired.

 

[kaiserd]

There’s a degree of comparing apples and oranges here. The Vulcan B2 entered service in 1960. That is roughly contemporaneous with the B-52Hs still in service. But the B-52 had certain components that proved over-engined fit the intended much shorter service life and those components that weren’t have long since been swapped out and replaced decades ago.

Other strategic bombers in still in service are much younger (for example the surviving Tu-95 Bears are not remotely contemporaries in terms of age with the B-52s or Vulcans the Bears still around all date from the late 70s or the 80s (and haven’t exactly been overworked for most of their service lives).

The Vulcan B.2 still had a very respectable service life (1960 - 1984) and was never re-worked remotely to the level seen for the B-52; its likely it couldn’t have been done from a technical perspective and anyway the UK didn’t have the finances or requirements to do anything remotely equivalent; Polaris, Trident, Tornado and a list of other priorities saw to that.
As an ex-world power it didn’t have the means or motivation given what else needed to be paid for.

 

[JFC Fuller]

There’s a degree of comparing apples and oranges here. The Vulcan B2 entered service in 1960. That is roughly contemporaneous with the B-52Hs still in service. But the B-52 had certain components that proved over-engined fit the intended much shorter service life and those components that weren’t have long since been swapped out and replaced decades ago.

Other strategic bombers in still in service are much younger (for example the surviving Tu-95 Bears are not remotely contemporaries in terms of age with the B-52s or Vulcans the Bears still around all date from the late 70s or the 80s (and haven’t exactly been overworked for most of their service lives).

The Vulcan B.2 still had a very respectable service life (1960 - 1984) and was never re-worked remotely to the level seen for the B-52; its likely it couldn’t have been done from a technical perspective and anyway the UK didn’t have the finances or requirements to do anything remotely equivalent; Polaris, Trident, Tornado and a list of other priorities saw to that.
As an ex-world power it didn’t have the means or motivation given what else needed to be paid for.

Perhaps you could provide a specific breakdown "from a technical perspective" as to why a Vulcan could not be modernised the same way the B-52 has been? Especially as your first paragraph is directly contradicted by the first sentence of your third paragraph, not to mention a Vulcan was flying as late as 2015, albeit as an airshow exhibit.

It would also be interesting to know why the UK could afford all the things you listed (and a lot, lot more) but very specifically not a modernisation of the Vulcan?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

The Vietnam unpleasantness gave the B52 relevance in the 1960-70’s which the Vulcan didn’t have. A big portion of the Vulcan fleet ceased to exist in the 70’s, whereas the B52, although also shrinking, kept going. Then the ALCM/Tomahawk arrived and the B52 made sense again. By this time the Vulcan fleet size had passed the economic sense tipping point.

Really the Vulcan limped through the 70’s fulfilling a capability gap cheaply using spares cannibalised from a ever shrinking fleet.

 

[Archibald]

Fact is that Europe had no such thing as a Tomahawk for a veeeeeeeeeeery long time. If ever ? too late for Vulcans whatever happened. France barely saved a small portion of its Mirage IV fleet (19 out of 60+) by providing them with ASMPs.

 

[kaiserd]

There’s a degree of comparing apples and oranges here. The Vulcan B2 entered service in 1960. That is roughly contemporaneous with the B-52Hs still in service. But the B-52 had certain components that proved over-engined fit the intended much shorter service life and those components that weren’t have long since been swapped out and replaced decades ago.

Other strategic bombers in still in service are much younger (for example the surviving Tu-95 Bears are not remotely contemporaries in terms of age with the B-52s or Vulcans the Bears still around all date from the late 70s or the 80s (and haven’t exactly been overworked for most of their service lives).

The Vulcan B.2 still had a very respectable service life (1960 - 1984) and was never re-worked remotely to the level seen for the B-52; its likely it couldn’t have been done from a technical perspective and anyway the UK didn’t have the finances or requirements to do anything remotely equivalent; Polaris, Trident, Tornado and a list of other priorities saw to that.
As an ex-world power it didn’t have the means or motivation given what else needed to be paid for.

Perhaps you could provide a specific breakdown "from a technical perspective" as to why a Vulcan could not be modernised the same way the B-52 has been? Especially as your first paragraph is directly contradicted by the first sentence of your third paragraph, not to mention a Vulcan was flying as late as 2015, albeit as an airshow exhibit.

It would also be interesting to know why the UK could afford all the things you listed (and a lot, lot more) but very specifically not a modernisation of the Vulcan?

My understanding is that the Vulcan B2 structurally was the most robust of the V-bombers but was not intended for the low-level penetration role. That role inevitably took an toll on the airframe so they were rather tired/ worn-out by the end of 70’s/ early 80s. To my knowledge there were not serious consideration given to converting them to cruise missile carriers (as potential Trident alternatives or compliments) in that time scale given their condition. They gave excellent service in a more demanding operating environment than intended, they just weren’t as freakily long lived as the B-52 (not the same degree of unintended over engineering, plus the intended and implemented rebuilding) and there is no shame or disrespect re: the Vulcan B2 in that. Additionally (and critically) the B-52H had a continuing critical role for its country into the 80’s and beyond. The Vulcan B.2 did not.

If there had been additional resources available to the UK armed forces (specifically the RAF) in the relevant timescale they wouldn’t have spent them on the Vulcan anyway. Other higher priority projects would have got (and in reality actually received) the available funds instead. The Vulcan only survived for as long as it did to cover specific mission sets until the Tornado was in service, all in the context of the cancelation of various alternatives that didn’t reach service (magic new money, if available, may have been spent on them instead?). Otherwise the RAF didn’t really have a mission for it anymore; arguably the real anomaly was that it survived as long as it did, not that it didn’t somehow survive longer.

 

[JFC Fuller]

My understanding is that the Vulcan B2 structurally was the most robust of the V-bombers but was not intended for the low-level penetration role. That role inevitably took an toll on the airframe so they were rather tired/ worn-out by the end of 70’s/ early 80s. To my knowledge there were not serious consideration given to converting them to cruise missile carriers (as potential Trident alternatives or compliments) in that time scale given their condition. They gave excellent service in a more demanding operating environment than intended, they just weren’t as freakily long lived as the B-52 (not the same degree of unintended over engineering, plus the intended and implemented rebuilding) and there is no shame or disrespect re: the Vulcan B2 in that. Additionally (and critically) the B-52H had a continuing critical role for its country into the 80’s and beyond. The Vulcan B.2 did not.

If there had been additional resources available to the UK armed forces (specifically the RAF) in the relevant timescale they wouldn’t have spent them on the Vulcan anyway. Other higher priority projects would have got (and in reality actually received) the available funds instead. The Vulcan only survived for as long as it did to cover specific mission sets until the Tornado was in service, all in the context of the cancelation of various alternatives that didn’t reach service (magic new money, if available, may have been spent on them instead?). Otherwise the RAF didn’t really have a mission for it anymore; arguably the real anomaly was that it survived as long as it did, not that it didn’t somehow survive longer.

I asked you to provide a specific breakdown "from a technical perspective". Point 2 consists of non-specific, subjective, unsourced, generalisations that are best considered as an opinion.

The next point is close to reality though. The B-52H fleet was/is closely managed to sustain its lifespan - everything from holding down flight hours by using simulators for training to structural modifications. By contrast, whilst the Vulcan B.2 fleet received structural modifications to sustain it in the low level role it spent its entire operational life as an interim solution to something else, first Blue Streak, then Polaris, then AFVG and finally MRCA/Tornado. In the case of the latter two it was cosplaying as a light bomber. Therefore it was kept going with the minimum possible investment. That does not change the fact that you have not provided a fundamental reason why, had the RAF felt it had the requirement, it could not have been further life extended and capability enhanced as the B-52 has been. Various trials during the Falklands do give a tantalising glimpse of what such a modernisation might have offered.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

My understanding is that the Vulcan B2 structurally was the most robust of the V-bombers but was not intended for the low-level penetration role. That role inevitably took an toll on the airframe so they were rather tired/ worn-out by the end of 70’-80’s

Not sure I agree;- the Victor served much longer and were withdrawn with far higher flight hours/airframe. Although yes low level is demanding due to turbulence, so is aerial refuelling due to mass related load reversals ie fill up, burn off/off load, fill up again. burn off land at heavy weight/low Vz.

I briefly worked along side the Lady who was the Victor structural design authority (the MoD having taken it over when HP folded). She told me that the Victors still had Airframe life but there were no spares…. They were all gone and even small parts were being very expensively remade/reverse engineered at ridiculous costs.

By contrast, the last flying Vulcan required a lot of structural mods to be released for flight and even then had a extensive and demanding sets of regular inspections;- i.e the Main Landing Gears had to be removed, stripped to components, Ultra sonically inspected every 50 flights. To realistically keep a fleet at operational readiness new Main Landing Gears would be required for each aircraft on the order of battle….. remember that’s just one specific part amongst many others similarly suffering. It gets eye watering expensive.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Edited some posts.

Any more sniping at other posters will result in topic bans.

 

[BlackBat242]

My understanding is that the Vulcan B2 structurally was the most robust of the V-bombers but was not intended for the low-level penetration role. That role inevitably took an toll on the airframe so they were rather tired/ worn-out by the end of 70’-80’s

Not sure I agree;- the Victor served much longer and were withdrawn with far higher flight hours/airframe. Although yes low level is demanding due to turbulence, so is aerial refuelling due to mass related load reversals ie fill up, burn off/off load, fill up again. burn off land at heavy weight/low Vz.

I briefly worked along side the Lady who was the Victor structural design authority (the MoD having taken it over when HP folded). She told me that the Victors still had Airframe life but there were no spares…. They were all gone and even small parts were being very expensively remade/reverse engineered at ridiculous costs.

By contrast, the last flying Vulcan required a lot of structural mods to be released for flight and even then had a extensive and demanding sets of regular inspections;- i.e the Main Landing Gears had to be removed, stripped to components, Ultra sonically inspected every 50 flights. To realistically keep a fleet at operational readiness new Main Landing Gears would be required for each aircraft on the order of battle….. remember that’s just one specific part amongst many others similarly suffering. It gets eye watering expensive.

And remember... when that Vulcan was in the process of restoration, the team had publicly announced that there was a hard limit to how long she could fly.

The main wing spar, being the one with the most remaining flight-hour potential of all remaining Vulcans, was only good for a specific number of flight-hours (based on fatigue index) before the UK government would revoke its certificate of airworthiness permanently.

In 2012-2013 funding was found to allow major work to be done on the wing structure (leading edge skin reinforcement), which allowed for two more years of flying - which brought the wing fatigue index to the max allowable at the same time that the engines reached their "end-of-use" state.

It was technically possible to further extend the life of both wing and engines - but that would require a complete re-constitution of the engines from the best-condition parts of many engines and major work on the engine static structure (or manufacturing new engines using the stored jigs, machining equipment, etc) as well as a complete teardown of the entire wing and replacement of many of its parts (as tooling for the wing no longer existed, this would require examining all display Vulcans around the world [there are several in the US for example] and cannibalization of their wing parts to rebuild XH558's wing). All of this would have cost a staggering amount of money, and so was rejected.

And thus it came to pass... she made her last flight on 28 October 2015. At that time she had flown 10 percent more flight hours than any other Vulcan had ever racked up.

 

[Hood]

To extend the Vulcan, or Victor would be something akin to Nimrod MRA.4 - basically stripping everything out and having only the dataplate as the remaining original item (like 95% of all warbird restorations).

But you have to have a real need that only that airframe can provide for it to be feasible even if you take financial risks. Vulcan could never do anything the Tornado couldn't even with new engines and avionics unless the RAF could fit a rotary launcher for AGM-109s (not very likely). There were better and cheaper ways to do tanking than from a Victor.

The truth is, post 1969 the RAF had a bunch of medium-range bombers it had spent a packet on that it no longer really needed which had 1950s avionics, 1950s engines (thirsty) and nuclear weapons of questionable reliability (Blue Steel). Tanking saved the Victors, but the Vulcans were poor-man's tactical nuclear-bombers, even used for maritime reconnaissance or air 'sniffing' - in short airframes in search of a role until AFVG/Tornado bore fruit.

Arguably the RAF/Ministry of Aviation/MoD - whoever - were actually quite short-sighted from 1950-1980. They never really invested in upgrading anything only in new equipment or viewing any upgrade as a "Mk.2" new-build. All the R&D fund was spent on new toys and the Canberras, Lightnings, Vulcans, Victors and Hunters never got a penny spent on them. Harrier got modded up to GR.3 standard but Jaguar didn't get any shiny new bits until the 1990s. Jet Provosts and Hawks got new wings and structures to deal with fatigue but that's about all they ever got.
Now of course we know the Canberras, Lightnings, Vulcans, Victors and Hunters were all analogue kit way before databuses and digital 'plug and play' kit and were unlike post-1970s aircraft but its amazing how little was done to keep them updated even during their effective lifespans.

 

[zen]

Which all makes the case for the VC10

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Otherwise the RAF didn’t really have a mission for it anymore; arguably the real anomaly was that it survived as long as it did, not that it didn’t somehow survive longer.

Quite right indeed, and it is often forgotten that the RAF was already drawing up a requirement for an intended replacement just as they were entering service, in the form of the Avro 730. That got binned in '57, and when the V-Bombers were sent to low-level, the replacements in the form of the TSR-2, F-111K and AFVG never materialised, and it took until Tornado to finally find a replacement, as by now the strategic role had long since been dropped, with the Vulcans having served a large portion of their service lives as tactical bombers filling in the role of its intended replacements.