sealordlawrence said:Daniel thank you,
You have actually confirmed my own feelings on this which is that the EW plans were probably shelved quite early on. Once EW systems started to be integrated into Victors and Vulcans there was likely little need for V.1000's to support them. They would therefore have likely been little more than tankers and logistics aircraft. I would still love to know where this reference comes from though!
sealordlawrence said:Ken, I agree entirely, I merely seek to establish the exact intended role for the type.
It is very apparent the immediate UK strategy was a typically expensive one, strategic nuclear deterrance, a Navy able to engage Soviet naval bases and massed armoured formations supported by army nuclear weapons. Simultaneous with the reduction in overseas commitments we see a withdrawal from the European ones too. The RN retreats to the GIUK line and the RAF slowly gives up its strategic role. Economic reality is a hard one.
sealordlawrence said:V.1000 and HP.111/Belfast are of different generations although the argument could be made that the latter was a product of the cancellation of the latter in that case one can not avoid the obvious observation that the latter was also effectively cancelled.
With the V-Force planning having already been reduced from 240 to 180 (also never achieved) the affordability argument is very obvious and it should be noted that the V.1000 was not really replaced as a programme, the Brittania simply being a low cost expediant.
What ever the arguments in favour of the aircraft technically the fact is that it lacked BOAC (commercial) support and MoD budget funding effectively making it unviable as a business product.
sealordlawrence said:I find it impossible to believe that the far more complicated V.1000 would work out cheaper than the already designed and built Brittania and the modded Valiants.
I agree that had the V.1000 survivied it is likely that it may have been evolved to carry the IRBM.
sealordlawrence said:There is another issue here regarding the wrting of history.
British post war naval history has been extremely well written by a number of exceptional authors, most notably Eric Grove in Vanguard to Trident but also by others who have successfully linked the political to the military and the industrial. In the case of aviation history this has not been the case to the same extent. There has been much focus on the technical aspects of aircraft and not enough on the environment that surrounded them and this has helped to fuel the 'stab in the back' consensus that stalks these forums.
alertken said:One reason HP died was Sir Fred's outlook on life: “The role of the State is to provide facilities for fattening the goose which will lay the golden eggs” Sir Fred., Flight,15/1/60. Nay, nay, thrice nay.
Remembering the general performance(s) of the government of the day...You dismiss as conspiracy or incompetence the stated causes for chop:
Do you mean the Vanguard?Vickers, very sensibly, chose to invest in a Major step-enhancement of their eminently successful Viscount