I wish to play the Devil’s Advocate and start a discussion. I believe that the popularity of the V-Bombers are more due to the fact that they were a British achievment in aeronautics as opposed to actually being useful or sucessful in any way. I suggest that if they were to attempt to perform the functions they were intended for, they would have been a grand failure. In the end a bomber is created to hit their targets…and with Soviet advances at the time I doubt they would even lay one bomb in the even of a full scale war…agree or disagree???
V-Bombers: British Bombers created in the late 50s in order to be a nuclear deterrent…much like the funciton of the B-58. The call then V due to their names Vulcan, Valiant and Victor…if u havent seen them i suggest u look them up…I personally think they are really only interesting to the British due to the fact that they were functionally a failure…interesting albiet…
Oh! this one could run & run!
Thankfully we’ll never know now, and a very good job too, we came close a few times though.
Like much of Curtis LeMays empire, the V bombers were part of the mutually assured deterent (sp?) but were, nevertheless, (like the USAF bombers) manned by very brave men who knew they would be on a one way mission if it came to it.
If they could have gotten through the screen of fighters & missiles (as with the USAF aircraft) then yes, general English opinion was that they’d have made the target, though with the ‘dirty’ bombs in use back then, close enough would probably be good enough.
(Check out who kept winning the red flag bombing competions in the USA, by the way)
I think any country should be proud of it’s acheivements, and given how cashpoor the UK was back then, & the technology available, they were a success.
There are plans afoot to fly one of the Vulcans again. I saw one at an airshow years back, an amazing sight, sound, & set of vibrations as it came down the crowdline & then went vertical!
Here’s one to ponder, was the B-36 a success? discuss…
Pete
Were they effective? Of very much so. While some would certainly have not made it to thier target many would. I sincerly doubt Great Briton would be bombing russia alone and between the United States, Great Britton, and a number of other NATO countries a bomber need not be an aeronatical masterpeice to accomplish its mission, simply airworthy. Thats not to say that they were flops either. Remeber the Vulcan proved its worth during the Falklands campaing. Now when you consider that while they were designed to penetrate Russian air defense thier purpose was a “deterent” which they performed very well at I’d say.
I appreciate that you think this topic will run, as this makes it a great topic no?
I do appreciate your comparison of the USAF and the B-36, but if you wish to compare a bomber like the B-36 which was made for distance and to be challenged by at the time was relatively slower interceptors to those V-Bombers which were rolled out in the late 50s and meant to be active in the 60’s when speed of fighters were hitting mach 2 in order to intentionally intercept those bombers, then I do think the V- Bombers would have been completely decimated. I do think a B-52 as well as B-47 would have similar limitations, but if the American public and the English at the time thought that their bombers would make it through a soviet 1960s missile shield and mach 2 interceptors, then it was more likely due to the fact that the general public did not have the proper info at the time and would do anything to avoid feeling militarily inferior to the soviets. To say that the US is just as bad as us, well, in the end it doesnt save any pilot’s lives as brave as they are. As well, I do undertand that the UK was cash strapped at the time, but if that is the case why make 3 V-Bombers…the R+D costs alone for each one would unwarrant the spending complelely. The soviets also lost 20-30 million people and was almost completely destroyed, but they could put up some Mig 21’s and really give a V-bomber a bad day…
So in the end…I love the V-bombers, but like my ex-girlfriend, they were a very pretty mistake… : )
Aircraft, and the V bombers were no exception, are built in response to a perceived requirement, based upon an understanding of the situation prevailing at project inception. Therefore when the V-bombers were first proposed, at much the same time as that venerable giant of the air the B 52, mach 1 capable fighters were the exception, let alone those able to hit mach 2.
We should therefore view the V bombers as being in the same mold as the B 52, a response to a threat, that by the time of their appearance in frontline units had already been overtaken by the ermergence of mach 2 capable fighters, and more tellingly new missile systems capable of downing aircraft flying at high altitude, if not speed, as happened to Garry Powers.
I would thus argue that the fate that would have befallen the V bombers would have been shared with SAC’s B 52s. Both the B 52, and the V bombers went onto serve with distinction in roles somewhat different to that originally intended for them, testimony to the soundness of the original design, if not always the foresight of those who issued the specification in the first place.
History is replete with those aircraft, which, for one reason or another, failed to excel in their intended role, yet still went on to shine in new, never envisiaged roles.
Actually, they were all far more successful AFTER their primary role had passed on to other systems; The Valiant was very successful during the Suez crisis, dropping conventional boms - it was only the fact that their airframe couldn’t take the increaded loading that prevented their use as low-level bombers.
The Victors became very useful as tanker aircraft; their high speed meant that thir ‘customers’ did not need to throttle back
It was only the fact that they reached the end of their fatigue life that finally grounded them
The Vulcans proved to be very good as conventional bombers; their fighter-like handling ment that they were able to cope, not only with their original high-level strike role but low-level. They last saw combat during the Falklands when a Vulcan flew from England to Port Stanley (refueling once en-route) to bomb the airfield there. Althogh the airfiueld was not damaged as effectively as had been hoped, the mission sent a strong message to the Argentineans; if we can hit Stanley, we can hit Buenos Aires.
XH 558 will fly again; Funds have been released to restore it to airworthiness
Like all hardware the V Bombers were conceived for the moment - yes they became obselete but only after things had moved on a pace. The Lanc and Lincoln for example became obselete with the development of the jet fighter - look at the fighter bomber of today can move and carry far beyond what at one time woul d have been inconceivable - no they were - like everything, sooner or later, victims of advancing technology!
The Vulcan flew from RAF Wideawake on Assension Island to the Falklands - the then longest bombing raid in history. I believe a B-52 now holds this distinction - but hey ! it wasn’t lugging 21 x 1000lb gp bombs.
Then a Vulcan beat a F-86 to 40,000ft for a bet once.
RE : cmtaylor, the Vulcan re-fueled many times , as for not damaging much of the airfield - a neighbour of mine who helped in the planing told me that this was deliberate as we needed the airfield for our planes to use.
As everyone seems to have already grasped, the V-bombers were conceived to meet a threat apparent at the time, and used high altitude & maneuverability as their defence, along with sophisticated (for their time) Electronic Counter Measures, which made it difficult, if not impossible to obtain a missile lock on them using the weapons available at the time. They were designed originally to drop a nuclear weapon free-fall on a target, and later at a 100-200 mile stand off (depending on altitude) when Blue Steel was brought into service as the delivery mechanism.
When the Soviet defences rose to meet the challenge, the Victor & Vulcan switched roles to fly low level bombing missions instead. Only the Valiant B1 with it’s less over-engineered airframe wasn’t capable of meeting the requirements of low level flight, because the powers that be had cancelled the B2 project that would have provided the Valiant with the additional stregthening to take the rigours of low level flight, and the more turbulent air found there. It was this flaw that led to them being re-drafted as tankers for a while, and their early retirement.
The V-bombers performed their task admirably as Nuclear deterrants, then went on to perform other roles with equal aplomb. Comparing them with the B-36 and B-52 is easy. Ask a B-52 to do a barrell roll… a maneuver that the Vulcan is fully able to do, and I think you have your answer. They also don’t call the Vulcan by any derogatory nicknames such as the BUFF, and we all know what that stands for.
XH558 is a fascinating aircraft, and I have been privileged enough to have been on her flightdeck & in her bomb bay earlier this year, at the start of her renovation to flight readiness. When she rejoins the airshow circuit in 2007, I will be there… They’re still beautiful to behold… Who can say that about a B-52?
what make anything a sucess or failure, timing , the actual article,or just humanities mindset at the time, well all of those reasons and yet sometimes none of them
I gotta disagree with ya mike on the B-52… Shes every bit as beautifull as the Vulcan. Just in a different class catogory. Like woman - some are a thing of style and grace, whilst others are so ugly you have to love em [:d] And the B-52 may not be able to do a barrel roll the Vulcan cant flap its wings like a bird so there[:P]
definetly not a failure. they were a product of their time and in their time they performed their duty, to deter a war that could end life as we know it. god bless the men that manned and flew them as they knew that most of them would not return from a soviet mission. the men and the machines of that era will never be seen again. and boy were they beautiful birds.
steve