After Falklands War, the Brits get new Long-range Bomber

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
7,147
Reaction score
6,517
during the Falkland wars the RAF was barley manage to Bomb the Airstrip with four Avro Vulcans and eleven Victor tankers,
who had to refuelling Victors and Vulcans over range of 14000 km
See Operation Black Buck for more detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

So what if the british government comes to conclusion to get a new modern long-range Bomber ?
 
Hindsight is always 20:20 but in our timeline I would suggest that this capability would be a massive waste of money surpassed only by trident.
 
I have the topic running also here http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=278073

there, they suggest the Rockwell B-1B or cruise missiles for RAF.

the cruise missiles problem: it's range. the UGM-109 Tomahawk had range of 1600 km, means it needed to be carry or ship to launch point.
for fast reaction Black Buck missions it needed a long range bomber, while Warship or U-boat need a month until launch point...

so interesting the B-1b option, the VC10 bomber sound very good
much cheaper as the B-1b and "Made in UK"
 
Dam i forgot they produce the VC10 and Concorde until 1970s

so another Alternative, the BAe Nimrod is in production in 1980s. is a long range maritime patrol aircraft for anti-submarine warfare.
striped its sensors, reduce crew, replace torpedoes and Depth charges, the two US-owned B57 nuclear depth bombs. with Bombs or cruise-missiles
put Air-to-surface missile and Air Air missile under it wings and Refuel probe.

sound this as a low cost british Bomber ?
 
Best way: strapping cruise missile to maritime patrol aircrafts. They have the big range to reach any target. Bonus: it's the navy who pays the bombers (evil laugh)
 
Correct ! But at least at the very beginning of its carreer, the Nimrod still belonged to
the Coastal Command, in a way, the land based part of the British naval airforce. Just
using and servicing it was generously transferred to the Royal Airforce !
 
Michel Van said:
Dam i forgot they produce the VC10 and Concorde until 1970s

so another Alternative, the BAe Nimrod is in production in 1980s. is a long range maritime patrol aircraft for anti-submarine warfare.
striped its sensors, reduce crew, replace torpedoes and Depth charges, the two US-owned B57 nuclear depth bombs. with Bombs or cruise-missiles
put Air-to-surface missile and Air Air missile under it wings and Refuel probe.

sound this as a low cost british Bomber ?
Click to expand...

The Nimrod was cleared for Sidewinder, Martel and Harpoon. 1000 lb bomb carriage was planned for the MRA.4.
 
Well, and which camo scheme ? ;)
 

Attachments

  • Nimrod_B_Mk-1.gif
    Nimrod_B_Mk-1.gif
    45 KB · Views: 666
Jemiba said:
Well, and which camo scheme ? ;)
Click to expand...


some thing like that ?
RAF_Panavia_Tornado_GR1A.jpg
 
i got this reply on Alternate Hitory forum about same topic

Originally Posted by amphibulous
??? The Nimrod is in no way a viable bomber. It doesn't have the speed, or the agility, and the airframe is not designed to take the stresses or centre of gravity changes of dropping sane bomb loads. Plus the Cold War is still on and the Nimrods are one of NATO's key ASW platforms.
Click to expand...

If thats true, we can forget the Nimrod, so what about the remaining Vulcan fleet ?
 
This is covered in Vulcan's Hammer, see below, fitted with P4T cruise missiles. Drawing comes from Avro Heritage and is in Vulcan's Hammer. The FLA was also considered.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • Nimrod_ASM.jpg
    Nimrod_ASM.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 539
big THX for the Picture, chris


is a lethal beauty, sad they not build it.
 
If we are talking about a cruise missile carrier, with only a secondary capability for conventional bombs,
a modified Hercules could do the trick as well. Slower, but more capable for low flying, launching cruise
missiles out of the rear ramp, bombs maybe in pods under the wings. A stop-gap, but quickly available.
 
If you're going for a stopgap measure anyway, it'd be easier to adapt the Nimrod, after all it already has a bomb bay and at least some targeting capability. Apparently, the plans for the MRA.4 also included LGB and Storm Shadow.
 
A month late but what about the F-111? The F-111 could have carried out the Black Buck missions with far less tanker support and more ordnance on target. Years ago I wrote a “Back Roo” what if on some forum crunching the numbers for a fictional RAAF F-111C deployment to Ascension to support the Falklands campaign. The results would have been far more significant than what the Vulcans could have achieved and just as applicable to the RAF’s own F-111K plans.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
A month late but what about the F-111? The F-111 could have carried out the Black Buck missions with far less tanker support and more ordnance on target. Years ago I wrote a “Back Roo” what if on some forum crunching the numbers for a fictional RAAF F-111C deployment to Ascension to support the Falklands campaign. The results would have been far more significant than what the Vulcans could have achieved and just as applicable to the RAF’s own F-111K plans.
Click to expand...


the irony was that Labor party after killing TSR.2 oder F-111K planes and chancel the order while two F-111K were in production.
and now the Tory Government wand to to buy F-111 while the USAF in US say over that Bomber "Hey we need to replace that old bird soon"


but there alternative (in alternative history?) what about the Australian F-111 would the government "Lend" there fleet to British government in crisis ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom