How worthwhile were the V Bombers from 1964 on?

[uk 75]

It is pretty clear that by the mid 60s the V bombers would have had a tough time reaching targets in the Soviet bloc.
Yet for another decade after Polaris entered service, 40 odd Vulcans soldiered on as WE177 bomb carriers assigned to SACEUR. Apart from the F111 it was the only aircraft in NATO Europe with the range to fly to targets.
Presumably these would have been less well protected than the ones like Moscow assigned to Blue Steel and Polaris.
Was this a sensible use of the RAF's meagre resources?

 

[Dilandu]

Hard to say. In late 1960s, Soviet air defenses became rather tough even at secondary objects. With the S-125/S-75/S-200 systems, almost all altitude echelons were covered efficiently, and Mig-21 interceptors represented far too great threat to subsonic bombers.

On the other hands, used in theater-scale support, V-bombers would surely attack only after the initial missile exchange. So, assuming that they would survive the barrage of MRBM's and SRBM's in first hours of conflict, they would have to dealt with seriously weakened air defenses.

 

[Foo Fighter]

What makes you think the soviet air defences were infallible? I can recall some light aircraft that were not even detected and one flew to red square. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20609795. Honestly........

 

[RanulfC]

It is pretty clear that by the mid 60s the V bombers would have had a tough time reaching targets in the Soviet bloc.
Yet for another decade after Polaris entered service, 40 odd Vulcans soldiered on as WE177 bomb carriers assigned to SACEUR. Apart from the F111 it was the only aircraft in NATO Europe with the range to fly to targets.
Presumably these would have been less well protected than the ones like Moscow assigned to Blue Steel and Polaris.
Was this a sensible use of the RAF's meagre resources?

Blue Steel, (and later Skybolt) were supposed to address these issues as it was clear from the begining that defenses would continue to improve. The problem was Britian needed 'something now' rather than 'something better later' and the V-bombers were what they had. I've got notes on some ideas for "what-if's" for the V-bombers and Blue Steel which I'd like explore someday. I'm probably all wrong but I just love the idea of the Brits 'stumbling' their way into being the 'trend' setter for the late 60s aerospace technology

You know, making perfectly logical and rational choices, (arguably as they did OTL) but with some bits that turn out far better than they (or anyone else) had anticipated.

Tossing off, (forgive that please ) some examples:
-The Valiant B2 was actually a supurb low-level penatration bomber just no one realized that was a 'thing' at the time
- The Victor was actually capable of supersonic dash as it was, (albeit in a dive and running away but... ) with some engine upgrades and a few more months of CORRECT calcuations, (avoid the weak tail assembly) the British could have had the worlds first 'supersonic' (again albeit of limited endurance) bomber
-The Vulcan was 'stealthy' before anyone really understood the concept. Both US and USSR radars had issues tracking it under a lot of common conditons which while considered 'annoying' by folks at NORAD was simply chalked up to balky radar technology.
- Blue Steel was originally going to be ramjet rather than rocket powered but the rocket was felt to be more 'compact' and operationally effective. What it did was strictly limit the range of the missile and with the primitive guidance avaiable at the time the 'stand-off' distance wasn't enough to keep the launcher from having to run the gauntlet of Soviet/WP defenses to reach a launching point. So Blue Steel II was going back to the ramjets to fix the problem. What if they had switched back on the Mk 1?

Oh and I could go on, a 'better' Black Arrow, a 'manned Blue Steel', pioneering recoverable rocket stages, (to save money, no really, just that we swear ) and other things.

Randy

 

[Dilandu]

What makes you think the soviet air defences were infallible?

They weren't infallible, but they were capable & alert. And in wartime conditions they would shoot first, doubt later.

 

[uk 75]

It is pretty clear that by the mid 60s the V bombers would have had a tough time reaching targets in the Soviet bloc.
Yet for another decade after Polaris entered service, 40 odd Vulcans soldiered on as WE177 bomb carriers assigned to SACEUR. Apart from the F111 it was the only aircraft in NATO Europe with the range to fly to targets.
Presumably these would have been less well protected than the ones like Moscow assigned to Blue Steel and Polaris.
Was this a sensible use of the RAF's meagre resources?

Blue Steel, (and later Skybolt) were supposed to address these issues as it was clear from the begining that defenses would continue to improve. The problem was Britian needed 'something now' rather than 'something better later' and the V-bombers were what they had. I've got notes on some ideas for "what-if's" for the V-bombers and Blue Steel which I'd like explore someday. I'm probably all wrong but I just love the idea of the Brits 'stumbling' their way into being the 'trend' setter for the late 60s aerospace technology

You know, making perfectly logical and rational choices, (arguably as they did OTL) but with some bits that turn out far better than they (or anyone else) had anticipated.

Tossing off, (forgive that please ) some examples:
-The Valiant B2 was actually a supurb low-level penatration bomber just no one realized that was a 'thing' at the time
- The Victor was actually capable of supersonic dash as it was, (albeit in a dive and running away but... ) with some engine upgrades and a few more months of CORRECT calcuations, (avoid the weak tail assembly) the British could have had the worlds first 'supersonic' (again albeit of limited endurance) bomber
-The Vulcan was 'stealthy' before anyone really understood the concept. Both US and USSR radars had issues tracking it under a lot of common conditons which while considered 'annoying' by folks at NORAD was simply chalked up to balky radar technology.
- Blue Steel was originally going to be ramjet rather than rocket powered but the rocket was felt to be more 'compact' and operationally effective. What it did was strictly limit the range of the missile and with the primitive guidance avaiable at the time the 'stand-off' distance wasn't enough to keep the launcher from having to run the gauntlet of Soviet/WP defenses to reach a launching point. So Blue Steel II was going back to the ramjets to fix the problem. What if they had switched back on the Mk 1?

Oh and I could go on, a 'better' Black Arrow, a 'manned Blue Steel', pioneering recoverable rocket stages, (to save money, no really, just that we swear ) and other things.

Randy

You should get this book which is excellent account of attempts to extend the life of airborne nuclear deterrent.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/skybolt-at-arms-length.32430/

My interest is specifically on whether the Vulcan force was credible after1965 until its demise in1982

 

[RanulfC]

You should get this book which is excellent account of attempts to extend the life of airborne nuclear deterrent.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/skybolt-at-arms-length.32430/

It's on "the list"

Randy

 

[kaiserd]

Highly recommended on this topic:
Vulcan's Hammer: V-Force Aircraft and Weapons Projects Since 1945 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1902109171/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_sr-mEbPA4SB18

 

[kaiserd]

It is pretty clear that by the mid 60s the V bombers would have had a tough time reaching targets in the Soviet bloc.
Yet for another decade after Polaris entered service, 40 odd Vulcans soldiered on as WE177 bomb carriers assigned to SACEUR. Apart from the F111 it was the only aircraft in NATO Europe with the range to fly to targets.
Presumably these would have been less well protected than the ones like Moscow assigned to Blue Steel and Polaris.
Was this a sensible use of the RAF's meagre resources?

Blue Steel, (and later Skybolt) were supposed to address these issues as it was clear from the begining that defenses would continue to improve. The problem was Britian needed 'something now' rather than 'something better later' and the V-bombers were what they had. I've got notes on some ideas for "what-if's" for the V-bombers and Blue Steel which I'd like explore someday. I'm probably all wrong but I just love the idea of the Brits 'stumbling' their way into being the 'trend' setter for the late 60s aerospace technology

You know, making perfectly logical and rational choices, (arguably as they did OTL) but with some bits that turn out far better than they (or anyone else) had anticipated.

Tossing off, (forgive that please ) some examples:
-The Valiant B2 was actually a supurb low-level penatration bomber just no one realized that was a 'thing' at the time
- The Victor was actually capable of supersonic dash as it was, (albeit in a dive and running away but... ) with some engine upgrades and a few more months of CORRECT calcuations, (avoid the weak tail assembly) the British could have had the worlds first 'supersonic' (again albeit of limited endurance) bomber
-The Vulcan was 'stealthy' before anyone really understood the concept. Both US and USSR radars had issues tracking it under a lot of common conditons which while considered 'annoying' by folks at NORAD was simply chalked up to balky radar technology.
- Blue Steel was originally going to be ramjet rather than rocket powered but the rocket was felt to be more 'compact' and operationally effective. What it did was strictly limit the range of the missile and with the primitive guidance avaiable at the time the 'stand-off' distance wasn't enough to keep the launcher from having to run the gauntlet of Soviet/WP defenses to reach a launching point. So Blue Steel II was going back to the ramjets to fix the problem. What if they had switched back on the Mk 1?

Oh and I could go on, a 'better' Black Arrow, a 'manned Blue Steel', pioneering recoverable rocket stages, (to save money, no really, just that we swear ) and other things.

Randy

Unfortunately most of that isn’t really accurate.
- the Valiant B.2 prototype only so not actually applicable to the actual V-bomber force.
- Your significantly overstating the Victors supersonic capability - it really wasn’t supersonic. There were supersonic variants studied but they would have been essentially radically different airframes that even then had quite margin supersonic performance.
- Your significantly overstating any “stealth“ nature of the Vulcan - it really wasn’t that stealthy at all.
- Your history of Blue Steel really isn’t very accurate - a tale of delays while the UK authorities HATED mark II as they saw it as an unrealistic long term project that distracted from the massively urgently required Mark I, then realised with the delays that Mark I probably flawed and ended up “tuning” it for a low-level role.

I’d greatly recommend the following books for the insight into the realities of these aircraft/ weapons etc.
Vulcan's Hammer: V-Force Aircraft and Weapons Projects Since 1945 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1902109171/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_sr-mEbPA4SB18
British Secret Projects 2: Jet Bombers since 1949 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1910809101/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_EG-mEbVSR30JK

 

[Hood]

I must admit I have always been curious why the Vulcan lasted until 1982.
Even allowing for the nuclear role declared to NATO, use as improvised maritime recon platforms (replacing the Victors) and nuclear particle 'sniffers', they don't seem to have had a credible role once Polaris came in.
They seem to have been zombies, the lived on in limbo, after the early 1960s they never received any radar, or system updates, never had new navigation devices fitted, never received improved ECM, never cleared for new weapons (until the 1982 panic). By the late 1970s they were basically nearly 20 years obsolete, especially when you compare the work done on the B-52 etc. It seems that with the R&D emphasis on TSR, Phantom, Jaguar and MRCA that the Vulcan was relegated to being a figurehead with actually quite limited combat capability. Even the inflight refuelling probes were largely inoperable by then. The Falklands raids really were a lash up job to get a few of them remotely combat worthy (but still reliant on mark 1 eyeball bomb-aiming).
Of course waiting for MRCA to come along was one reason why the Vulcan had to solider on, but in retrospect it might have been wiser to have removed them in the 1975 defence cuts rather than the transport cuts.

 

[CNH]

If the UK wanted an 'independent deterrent' in 1964-1969, it was either V bombers or nowt.

 

[uk 75]

CNH I think it was just about tenable to run the Victors and Vulcans on until 1969. I remember being childishly proud as 24 of them flew over Abingdon in 1968, but I was only 11!
My question, which only Hood so far has addressed is why did the Vulcans survive from 1968 to 1982. One answer I got from a retired civil servant was that it was the only non US NATO aircraft that could deliver a nuke on Murmansk, which was seen as a level of response in nuclear escalation

 

[CNH]

After Polaris came into service, the V bombers were adapted as part of NATO to deliver 'tactical' nukes [WE 177B]. The Valiants had gone; the Victors became tankers, and the Vulcan was employed in the low level role.

 

[kaiserd]

CNH I think it was just about tenable to run the Victors and Vulcans on until 1969. I remember being childishly proud as 24 of them flew over Abingdon in 1968, but I was only 11!
My question, which only Hood so far has addressed is why did the Vulcans survive from 1968 to 1982. One answer I got from a retired civil servant was that it was the only non US NATO aircraft that could deliver a nuke on Murmansk, which was seen as a level of response in nuclear escalation

I think it’s important to remember the general limited range of other NATO strike aircraft of this time, especially in the thick air at low altitude (which many of them weren’t really designed for). Hence to even reach target airfields deep in East German or a bit further east there was a need for the extra reach (the UK based USAFE F-111s and RAF Germany Tornadoes incrementally replaced that “reach” that would otherwise not been available), especially when you factor in the move to “flexible response” (requiring a clutch of conventional bombs, not just the one tactical nuke).

 

[uk 75]

After Polaris came into service, the V bombers were adapted as part of NATO to deliver 'tactical' nukes [WE 177B]. The Valiants had gone; the Victors became tankers, and the Vulcan was employed in the low level role.

Ironically this is the role TSR2 and later F111K were, according to Peter Hennessy in Secret State, to be allocated to SACEUR for. 50 or so Vulcan B2s took on this role. Their replacement Tornados could not take over until the early 80s

 

[Dilandu]

They seem to have been zombies, the lived on in limbo, after the early 1960s they never received any radar, or system updates, never had new navigation devices fitted, never received improved ECM, never cleared for new weapons (until the 1982 panic). By the late 1970s they were basically nearly 20 years obsolete, especially when you compare the work done on the B-52 etc. It seems that with the R&D emphasis on TSR, Phantom, Jaguar and MRCA that the Vulcan was relegated to being a figurehead with actually quite limited combat capability. Even the inflight refuelling probes were largely inoperable by then. The Falklands raids really were a lash up job to get a few of them remotely combat worthy (but still reliant on mark 1 eyeball bomb-aiming).

I always assumed that their role was essentially symbolic - RAF clinged to them as to the last shard of their strategic capabilities. Their retirement would basically means the end of any RAF significance outside the battlefield function.

 

[RanulfC]

Unfortunately most of that isn’t really accurate.
- the Valiant B.2 prototype only so not actually applicable to the actual V-bomber force.

It was prototyped as the B.1 force was being stood up and while it would have been expensive to do, a full run of the B.2 version would have been doable. As I said the 'advantage' wasn't really noted until after the B.2 was cancled at which point the B.1 was re-tasked but unable to carry out the mission.

- Your significantly overstating the Victors supersonic capability - it really wasn’t supersonic. There were supersonic variants studied but they would have been essentially radically different airframes that even then had quite margin supersonic performance.

I'd noted it could do supersonic in a dive which it could. The company stated that with re-heat engines it could maintain supersonic speed for a short (some 2-6 minutes) period so it could be used to 'dash' either into or away from the target. A BETTER design with optimized wings and fuselage was calculated to be able to sustain supersonic speed without reheat but was arguably less efficient for the required role which would normally spend most of its time 'cruising' as subsonic speeds. (A similar issue with both the B-58 and XB-70 design of the Americans)

- Your significantly overstating any “stealth“ nature of the Vulcan - it really wasn’t that stealthy at all.

For the time is was quiet 'stealthy' due to the buried engines and curved surfaces. That big slab tail wasn't but overall until the mid-70s both NATO and Soviet radar had trouble 'fixing' a Vulcan in low level flight and required them to have an active transponder to ensure traffic control. For the planned missino profile it was in fact a VERY 'stealthy' platform if the Skybolt had actually been deployed with it.

- Your history of Blue Steel really isn’t very accurate - a tale of delays while the UK authorities HATED mark II as they saw it as an unrealistic long term project that distracted from the massively urgently required Mark I, then realised with the delays that Mark I probably flawed and ended up “tuning” it for a low-level role.

The Mk1 was delayed because of numerous reasons mostly dealing with the steep but slow learning curve for fabrication of the Stainless Stell airframe and the needed electronics and guidance systems were primitive, bulky and taking forever to get right. Actually having the shorter range with a rocket motor helped but really it needed to have retained the ramjets as the stand-off distance was far to low. But it was essentially an equivilent of the American RASCAL, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-63_RASCAL) but with more utility and at least at first a more practical range. One of the reasons to suggest a 'manned' Blue Steel having been tested was the same reason it was brought up during development of the actual missile; It got an adequate guidance and control "system" into the vehicle early for flight testing and developemnt

The UK government wasn't exactly wrong about the effect of the MkII in that it was somewhat 'distrcting' from the MkI but there was a rather good reason for that; the Mk1 wasn't going to live up to all its initial requirements and this was pretty clear. Despite this the government wasn't willing to allow propsoed 'fixes' to be inserted into the Mk1 program for the same reason in that trying to do so would cause even more delays in the deployment of the Mk1. This was argued from early on because while the swtich to a rocket had made sense at the time, circumstances were changing and there was pressure to change the Mk1 to meet them. Switching to low level flight (for the carrier btw not the missile) only helped a little bit which is why the range of the Skybolt was so much more attractive.

The UK government was concerned with getting 'something' in to service as soon as possible hence the way the V-bomber force was deployed, but they also had large financial issues to deal with thus the way the V-bomber force was operated. They could not afford, either finaincially or really politically to field the force in an effective manner but they and NATO still had to make a try at appearing as a credible threat and it essentially worked despite everything.

I’d greatly recommend the following books for the insight into the realities of these aircraft/ weapons etc.
Vulcan's Hammer: V-Force Aircraft and Weapons Projects Since 1945 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1902109171/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_sr-mEbPA4SB18
British Secret Projects 2: Jet Bombers since 1949 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1910809101/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_EG-mEbVSR30JK

Both of those, (among SO many others ) are no my 'wishlist' but they have to be put on the back-burner till later due to RL issues.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

My interest is specifically on whether the Vulcan force was credible after1965 until its demise in1982

The Soviet's considered it a 'credible' threat so the answer would be yes. But in context they considered the whole of the British Isles a 'major' threat as a staging base for NATO so...

Something to keep in mind is that despite the assumption that the UK V-bombers would be aimed at the USSR it was not quite that cut and dried under NATO and allied planning. Yes if it's going to be mushrooms for everyone then the V-Bombers head for targets in Russia, pretty much like every other NATO aircraft that can carry nuclear weapons. Anything below that and they are aimed at differeent targets as means of delivering a heavier (conventional) bomb load than strike aircraft as needed.

I must admit I have always been curious why the Vulcan lasted until 1982.
Even allowing for the nuclear role declared to NATO, use as improvised maritime recon platforms (replacing the Victors) and nuclear particle 'sniffers', they don't seem to have had a credible role once Polaris came in.
They seem to have been zombies, the lived on in limbo, after the early 1960s they never received any radar, or system updates, never had new navigation devices fitted, never received improved ECM, never cleared for new weapons (until the 1982 panic). By the late 1970s they were basically nearly 20 years obsolete, especially when you compare the work done on the B-52 etc. It seems that with the R&D emphasis on TSR, Phantom, Jaguar and MRCA that the Vulcan was relegated to being a figurehead with actually quite limited combat capability. Even the inflight refuelling probes were largely inoperable by then. The Falklands raids really were a lash up job to get a few of them remotely combat worthy (but still reliant on mark 1 eyeball bomb-aiming).
Of course waiting for MRCA to come along was one reason why the Vulcan had to solider on, but in retrospect it might have been wiser to have removed them in the 1975 defence cuts rather than the transport cuts.

As I noted they had a VERY credible role... As long as the USSR viewed them as a potential threat they had a purpose. And they still retained capability to fullfill some roles that could either free-up tactical aircraft for more rigersous missions or as I note with enough work deliver large conventional loads to nearby targets without having to deploy B-52 to the area.

Again the idea was to keep the USSR guessing and having the Vulcan's in England always meant they had to keep an extra eye out there. Deterrent isn't always actual or even 'viable' systems but what an adversary CAN have and MAY use you have to worry about as well.

I always assumed that their role was essentially symbolic - RAF clinged to them as to the last shard of their strategic capabilities. Their retirement would basically means the end of any RAF significance outside the battlefield function.

Close Rather than "RAF" more like "RAF Bomber Command" really. And as I said even as old as they were they still represented a 'threat' axis that had to be considered and defended against. Pretty much by the early 80s OTHER than the nuclear attack role 'bombers' had been regulated to a secondary battlefield role since the tactical aircraft had a more utlity role in combat planning. You'd only bring in bombers in a conventional war as missile trucks or once you had absolute air superiority and a high confidence of suppresing any possible air defense systems. (This was how the Gulf War was planned and executed you'll note)

And this applies to all 'bombers' not just those of the RAF. The US retains its bomber force because they have a secondary role in a conventional conflict and the US can still afford to 'carry' them for those missions. The UK could not so retired them.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

If the UK wanted an 'independent deterrent' in 1964-1969, it was either V bombers or nothing

Sort of but a little out of context. More accuratly the UK DID want an 'independent deterrent' and since they HAD the V-bombers, (remember they were started during WWII) then that 'deterrent' had to start with them. It was not that the UK didn't WANT a more 'credible' deterrent because after all they jumped into development on the Blue Streak, it was just that quite obviously the V-bomber force was what they were going to HAVE to work with until something else came along.

In the end both political and financial issues killed Blue Streak, the US pulled Skybolt and offered Polaris and the Vulcan's were retained to offer a 'second leg' to the UK deterrent system.

Randy

 

[Dilandu]

For the time is was quiet 'stealthy' due to the buried engines and curved surfaces.

Er, sorry to disappoint you, but curved surfaces tend to scatter the beam, i.e. making target more detectable, not less. Flat planes are better, they limit the scattering of the beam & send the majority of energy away from radar itself.

As far as I knew, Vulcan have exactly the same radar signature as any other object of the same size. All reduction was due to the lack of natural corner reflectors. I.e. it gave only it "average" signature, not amplified much by corners or tail surfaces.

 

[CNH]

the Vulcan's were retained to offer a 'second leg' to the UK deterrent system.
Randy

Well, no. Until 1969 there was no other UK deterrent than the V force. Once Polaris came on station, the Victors were converted to tankers and the Vulcans given to SACEUR.

 

[kaiserd]

For the time is was quiet 'stealthy' due to the buried engines and curved surfaces.

Er, sorry to disappoint you, but curved surfaces tend to scatter the beam, i.e. making target more detectable, not less. Flat planes are better, they limit the scattering of the beam & send the majority of energy away from radar itself.

As far as I knew, Vulcan have exactly the same radar signature as any other object of the same size. All reduction was due to the lack of natural corner reflectors. I.e. it gave only it "average" signature, not amplified much by corners or tail surfaces.

A number of RanulfC’s comments above are more on the “enthusiastic”, rather than actually accurate, side.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

For the time is was quiet 'stealthy' due to the buried engines and curved surfaces.

"Er, sorry to disappoint you, but curved surfaces tend to scatter the beam, i.e. making target more detectable, not less. Flat planes are better, they limit the scattering of the beam & send the majority of energy away from radar itself."

Don't tell the B-2 Spirit guys that!

 

[Dilandu]

Don't tell the B-2 Spirit guys that!

Actually, B-2 is also mostly a flat surfaces) The curves are much less prominent)

 

[RanulfC]

For the time is was quiet 'stealthy' due to the buried engines and curved surfaces.

Er, sorry to disappoint you, but curved surfaces tend to scatter the beam, i.e. making target more detectable, not less. Flat planes are better, they limit the scattering of the beam & send the majority of energy away from radar itself.

As far as I knew, Vulcan have exactly the same radar signature as any other object of the same size. All reduction was due to the lack of natural corner reflectors. I.e. it gave only it "average" signature, not amplified much by corners or tail surfaces.

No dissapointment, I fully undestand how radar works after all

Just so we're clear 'flat' planes do the opposite of what you're saying, they directly reflect the radar waves back to the transmitter making them HIGHLY visible. For example the B-52 has a huge 'signature' due to all the flat sides hence the reason the even MORE slab sided Quail was so effective Curves scatter the signal therefore reducing the return, but since it is harder to make curved radar absorbant panels, (bit less today but that's not applicable here) than 'flat' ones the flat ones were used BUT angled so as to reflect what they couldn't absorb AWAY from the source. You're also correct about the nature of 'corner reflectors' which was an issue with the B-47, and B-58 for example. The Vulcan's more 'organic' blending helped greatly with this. The ONE aspect where it was a horrible radar target was directly head on where the buried engines tended to enhance the reflection off the faces of of the engines

Note the 'for its time' part because it was less about actual reflection than processing power of at the reciver end. The curves DID scatter the return which confused early processing systems.

The Vulcan read as a much smaller return and since it didn't move like a 'fighter' it was often mistaken for a medium sized civilian aircraft and ignored. Not that it would happen in an actual conflict but the signature was 'off' enough operators who were unfamilar with the Vulcan would often ignore it as an 'artifact' of the signal until it was much closer. Once they went low and fast the problem became seperating it out of the clutter which the smaller signature made harder till processing and experiance caught up.

Don't tell the B-2 Spirit guys that!

Actually, B-2 is also mostly a flat surfaces) The curves are much less prominent)

"Technically" it's ALL 'flat' surface from below and above The key factor is that most of the radar energy is hitting the 'flat' at an angle where the surface scatters the return AWAY from the reciever. The coating is designed to absorb as many waves that would be reflected back towards thier source but the majority of the 'stealth' is scattering the energy in any direct EXCEPT back to the source. So as far as the radar is concerned there is nothing to 'reflect' the wave back to the radar so there's nothing there

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

A number of RanulfC’s comments above are more on the “enthusiastic”, rather than actually accurate, side.

Oh I'll admit to being 'enthusiastic' but at the same time I'm going off articles, reports and such on many of the aspects. I'm not saying the Vulcan was a true 'stealth' aircraft but it was much more so than say the B-52 or the Victor. The form and factors were not generally understood at the time, (the YB-49 for example was known to be hard to track and this was simply attributed to it's lack of 'corner reflection' points but it was not at the time fully understood what an advantage that was) but as the planned flight profile of bombers at the time was 'high-and-fast' this was less of a factor for the radars of the time. (A "flying wing" for example at high altitude is presenting a mostly 'flat' but angled plane to the radar beam so there is somewhat more reflection but not as much as something like a B-47 which has those nice pylon and wing/body interface reflectors to bounce back signals)

US NORAD radars reported they could pickup B-36's, and B-52s at altitude at greater ranges than they could a Vulcan. Once the form changed from 'high-and-fast' to 'low-and-fast' it was more about how well the radar signal processing system worked in cleaning up the return and again, it was found that Vulcan's tended to closer than say a B-52 to rise about the background noise. This changed rapidly as processing power increased but remained a relative rate due to shaping which was of course totally an accident.

Randy

 

[CJGibson]

KaiserD - Your history of Blue Steel really isn’t very accurate - a tale of delays while the UK authorities HATED mark II as they saw it as an unrealistic long term project that distracted from the massively urgently required Mark I, then realised with the delays that Mark I probably flawed and ended up “tuning” it for a low-level role.


Errrrrr.....what are you calling Blue Steel Mk.II?

Chris

 

[kaiserd]

A number of RanulfC’s comments above are more on the “enthusiastic”, rather than actually accurate, side.

Oh I'll admit to being 'enthusiastic' but at the same time I'm going off articles, reports and such on many of the aspects. I'm not saying the Vulcan was a true 'stealth' aircraft but it was much more so than say the B-52 or the Victor. The form and factors were not generally understood at the time, (the YB-49 for example was known to be hard to track and this was simply attributed to it's lack of 'corner reflection' points but it was not at the time fully understood what an advantage that was) but as the planned flight profile of bombers at the time was 'high-and-fast' this was less of a factor for the radars of the time. (A "flying wing" for example at high altitude is presenting a mostly 'flat' but angled plane to the radar beam so there is somewhat more reflection but not as much as something like a B-47 which has those nice pylon and wing/body interface reflectors to bounce back signals)

US NORAD radars reported they could pickup B-36's, and B-52s at altitude at greater ranges than they could a Vulcan. Once the form changed from 'high-and-fast' to 'low-and-fast' it was more about how well the radar signal processing system worked in cleaning up the return and again, it was found that Vulcan's tended to closer than say a B-52 to rise about the background noise. This changed rapidly as processing power increased but remained a relative rate due to shaping which was of course totally an accident.

Randy

I’d like to know your sources for above because from my own reading I’m not aware of such quasi-stealth status.
The Vulcan probably did have a smaller radar cross section than the B-52. But not to any significant extent and almost certainly not to any extent that would made any real different re: tracking and engagement by adversary system.
For example you made an earlier reference to the Vulcan having buried engines and that contributing to a stealthy nature - the Vulcans engine faces were not hidden (no s-bend or inlet blockers) so little to no radar reduction would actually accrue.
And more generally your comments (like intimating a real-world supersonic capability for the Victor) suggests your enthusiasms can exceed your factual reach.

 

[CNH]

The Vulcan wasn't that stealthy - the Argentinians had no problem spotting as it approached the Falklands.

 

[kaiserd]

KaiserD - Your history of Blue Steel really isn’t very accurate - a tale of delays while the UK authorities HATED mark II as they saw it as an unrealistic long term project that distracted from the massively urgently required Mark I, then realised with the delays that Mark I probably flawed and ended up “tuning” it for a low-level role.


Errrrrr.....what are you calling Blue Steel Mk.II?

Chris

I’m not being precise enough, I was referencing “Mk.II” as a catch-all for the various developments of Blue Steel that UK officialdom saw as distracting Avro from getting the Mark.1 into service ASAP.
As my main reference for this is your work I welcome correction if I’ve very much gotten the wrong end of the proverbial Blue Steel stick.

 

[CJGibson]

Not surprising, everyone had the wrong end of the Blue Steel stick. See page 108 of Vulcan's Hammer.

Blue Steel Mk.II - to the Air Staff - was the 4 x ramjet-powered Blue Steel W.114
Blue Steel Mk.II - to Avro - was the hydrazine/HTP rocket-powered Blue Steel Mk.I with a lighter warhead.

The W.114 was known as Blue Steel Phase 2 to Avro.

I had to have a lie down after reading the file.

CNH - did you discover anything further on this confusion?

Chris

 

[CNH]

Oh, gosh, that opens a can of worms – or perhaps a desk covered with vapourware.

As far as I can see, the Air Staff never signed up to any one particular version of Blue Steel Mark II. Money was given to Avro to work on the development of a Blue Steel Mark II, and the resemblance of any of these projects to the original Blue Steel is fairly minimal.

The Ministry of Supply/Aviation became increasingly disenchanted with Avro's development of Blue Steel. Yes, they felt that further work on developing Blue Steel Mark II would impact on the development of the original Blue Steel. If only Avro had put as much effort into sorting out the problems of Blue Steel as they did into producing a variety of fanciful designs for improved versions, then Blue Steel might have entered service earlier with greater reliability. However, the failure of Avro to get Blue Steel into service on time meant that the Air Staff had very little confidence in their ability to produce an improved version.

Blue Steel Mark II was kept going with some funding simply because, in the words of another Prime Minister, There Is No Alternative. And then – along comes Skybolt. The UK was involved in the original planning for Skybolt very early on, and realised that the missile, if it came to fruition, would far outclass Blue Steel Mark II.

Hence the BND (SG), otherwise known as the Powell Committee, recommended the cancellation of Blue Steel Mark II in favour of Skybolt.

But that is another story in itself.

 

[Dilandu]

Just so we're clear 'flat' planes do the opposite of what you're saying, they directly reflect the radar waves back to the transmitter making them HIGHLY visible.

Er, no. The corner reflectors return the signal directly to the sender. The flat planes "bounce" in sideways. The whole idea is, that from flat plane there would be minimal scattering, and the majority of the energy would be reflected as (more or less) tight beam - but not in the direction of receiver. Like flashlight beam hitting the flat mirror at some angle and the same beam hitting the convex one (I knew, I knew, this model is not exactly relevant...)

 

[Hood]

One aspect is the ability to sneak up, I can attest the Vulcan can sneak up behind you without a sound with those buried engines at very low level. Of course as it goes past you feel the power as much as you hear it, but for ground-based AAA it might have been a tricky beast in contoured countryside.

How stealthy it is is largely irrelevant to the topic of post-1964 usefulness.

I have some sacrilegious thoughts, scrap the Vulcans in the early 70s and instead modernise some Canberras B(I)s to do the same job for SACEUR. Of course fatigue life probably prevented this but it might have been more useful and enough kit was tested on Canberras and some Jaguar/Phantom avionics could have been added.

 

[uk 75]

Polaris submarines based in Europe took over the role in SACEUR's nuclear response plan taken by RAF Thors and US Jupiters until 1963. I assume that Polaris and later Poseidons were assigned targets which helped the RAF and SAC penetrate Soviet airspace.
Whatever McNamara or other US politicians thought about British deterrents, the working relationship between the RAF and RN and their US analogues was close.

 

[shedofdread]

Without wishing to further clutter this thread with +ve / -ve aspects of Vulcan, a late friend of mine who was on same told me that whilst they were in no way 'stealthy', they were very aware of how to present the aircraft so as to minimise returns.