The fourth V Bomber

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,635
As we all know the 1957 Defence White Paper ensured that TSR2 was replacing Canberras in the RAF.
However, the RAF also provided SACEUR with a Valiant wing until 1965 as a theatre nuclear asset.
Like the Valiants the TSR2 was designed to carry two nuclear weapons.
As the UK is forced in 1962 to abandon Skybolt it is not just the RAF that is concerned by the demise of the V force.
The US and NATO regard the V force as a key means of hitting nuclear targets in support of SAC.
Behind the scenes they have lobbied the UK to provide TSR2s based in the UK and Cyprus for this role.
Parliament and Press are unaware of this so when the Defence Secretary produces first pictures of the aircraft in 1963 and gives it a name: Vindicator, there is some surprise.
The opposition Labour Party pledges to cancel both Polaris and Vindicator if they win the forthcoming election.
In 1964 Denis Healey the new Defence Secretary succeeds in saving Polaris with the loss of the fifth boat.
Vindicator is less fortunate. BAC are unable to give a price for 50 production aircraft. Healey is told by the US and NATO that the FB111 will meet the requirement with some changes of equipment like new inflight refueling and recce packages.
The UK agrees to take 50 FB111s In a somewhat tongue in cheek moment perhaps motivated by its long nose the new aircraft are called the Vulture.
After some delays all 50 Vultures are delivered by 1970 allowing the Vulcans to leave RAF service.
Meanwhile the RAF back in 1962 had accepted that the new Buccaneer S2 would be its Canberra replacement. By 1970 nine Buccaneer squadrons are in RAF service.
That leaves the RAF with Hunters and Lightnings to replace.
The Conservative government had supported the P1154 and AW681 as a vstol ground attack solution. Healey suggests that the Kestrel is much closer to the Hunter in complexity and already flying. The RAF had its own doubts about P1154/AW681 and readily agrees to the P1127RAF taking on the P1154 Harrier role and name. The C130 will replace ageing Beverley and Hastings transporters much sooner than AW681 could have.
The sorry saga of UK carrier aviation solves the problem of replacing the Lightning. Healey is unwilling to accept an RN carrier force for the 70s composed of the complicated CVA01, an ageing Audacious class carrier, and Hermes which cannot operate F4. He tells the RN to give him alternatives. One thing emerges quickly, the UK cannot use the F4 at sea, so they will go to the RAF.
By 1970 the incoming Conservative government inherits an RAF with FB111s based in UK and Cyprus. Lightnings Buccaneers and Harriers in UK and F4Ks entering service.
The Tories have two problems to solve:
what aircraft will make up the RAF in the 1980s?
Whether and how to retain fixed wing naval aviation?
But that, as they say, is another story
 
How about a Supersized Buccaneer?

Maybe they see a more conventional flying-wing follow on to Vulcan, with optimization for low level and high subsonic speeds using RB199s.

Good idea. Build it around a pair of Concorde engines. 18 tons thrust each (from memory).
 
Nice to see you entering into the spirit of the thread.

Supersonic Buccaneers were proposed.

I chose the FB111 as the replacement for SACEUR's strike force (Valiants until 65 Vulcans from 1970 to 82) because they were the easiest off the shelf option.

Mirage IV would also have been a suitable airframe but could not have been off the shelf.

Concorde itself has featured (Bombcorde) as a V bomber replacement.

The idea of a UK(or Anglo French) delta powered by Olympus jets as a kind of Euro B2 in the deep strike role is a fun one too.
 
For those who think TSR2 is beautiful even if the actual hardware required left and right versions of the same engine and more maintenance crew than a Vulcan this is how it might have been.
 
For those who think TSR2 is beautiful even if the actual hardware required left and right versions of the same engine and more maintenance crew than a Vulcan this is how it might have been.
As opposed to P-38s that required left and right versions of the same engine?
 
As opposed to P-38s that required left and right versions of the same engine?
I would think that handing the Olympus -- or any other turbojet or turbofan -- would be done by rearranging accessories, which would be its own form of nightmare. Propeller engines can be handed by minor changes in the gearbox, especially if it's not a planetary gear set
 
I would think that handing the Olympus -- or any other turbojet or turbofan -- would be done by rearranging accessories, which would be its own form of nightmare. Propeller engines can be handed by minor changes in the gearbox, especially if it's not a planetary gear set
They actually did the P-38 engines the hardest way possible: They reversed the crankshaft rotation. Which I believe mostly means a new camshaft(s) and possibly different gears in the back if the gears are unequally hardened (not sure about the gears in a V-1710, but the gears in an automotive differential are harder on the normal drive face than they are on the reverse face).

If you're carving the accessory case out of billet, making a reversed accessory drive case is just a little bit over trivial (today, with 3d printed parts, you tell the printer "Mirror Image Y" and print it. Not sure about CNC machines. I'm sure the newer ones can flip a part that way, but I'm equally sure the older ones cannot flip parts like that.)

If you're casting the a-case, then you'd need to make molds for left and right drives.
 
Could have been possible to incorporate the best parts of the first three into one final V bomber.

1. Nose, curved intakes, and T-tail of the Victor
2. Crescent leading edge, wing tanks, and ECM package of Valiant
3. Integrated wing body, internal fuel loads in the wings, and bombbay machanisms of Vulcan
 
It's sometime in the 80s but how about the FB 111 H . Later you can buy as many discarded F111 airframes at discounted prices from the Americans.
 
It's sometime in the 80s but how about the FB 111 H . Later you can buy as many discarded F111 airframes at discounted prices from the Americans.
IIRC, the original F-111 that the USAF wanted was more like the -H. The TFX program forced the USAF into a much smaller airframe to be common with the Navy.
 
With FB-111 in service, there's no need for Tornado. Without Tornado, whither the UK aircraft industry? Without the history of the co-operative effort that Tornado brings about, does Eurofighter even go ahead or does everyone buy some combination of the F-15 and/or F-16?
 
The incredible success of the Polaris programme (all four subs operational within a decade) allows the UK to focus on two key NATO commitments:
The British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany
Working with the US to counter the growing Soviet nuclear submarine fleet.
Both of these are very expensive and do not leave much left for "optional" forces like aircraft carriers and theatre nuclear forces which the US were better placed to provide.
After the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 68 and Afghanistan in 1979 the UK has to focus even more on its forces in Germany and the ASW ops in the Atlantic.
The much maligned Nott review in 1981 has to be seen in this context. The successful replacement of Polaris by Trident confirms the choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom