# Should the Vulcan have been replaced



## Seawitch (Dec 1, 2009)

When the Vulcan bomber was suddenly, and unexpectedly called to active service in 1982 it was only just there.
In spite of that rude shock it was still gotten rid off a couple of years later (as an air tanker by then) without a replacement.
I'm mindful the Vulcan was meant primarily for the obsolete Nuclear role, but I think thats besides the point. 
The Gulf wars depended on one nation within an alliance to provide a heavy bomber.
I personally think we should have a heavy bomber in the RAF, but what, B52's?
There seemed to be plenty laid up in 1982, so why not? I hope this isn't deemed political it isn't meant to be.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 1, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> When the Vulcan bomber was suddenly and unexpectedly called to active service in 1982 it was only just there.
> In spite of that rude shock it was still gotten rid off a couple of years later (as an air tanker by then) without a replacement.
> I'm mindful the Vulcan was meant primarily for the obsolete nuclear role, but I think that's beside the point.
> The Gulf War depended on one nation within an alliance to provide a heavy bomber.
> ...


Replacement to what end? In the confrontation they were primarily designed for, the V-bombers were an expensive method of getting aircrew to commit suicide - I'd have been shocked if any had made it to their Soviet targets.

One nation within NATO already does, the USAF still maintain a fleet of B-52s and its expensive, even for them. You might also note that they are not used without guaranteed air superiority over the target. I don't think the USAF_ really need _a B-52 force either, they just come in useful now and again.

So, I personally DON'T think we should have a heavy bomber because outside of the most strictly governed conditions for it's deployment, the heavy bomber has had its day, there are better tools available now.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 1, 2009)

Yea, guided missiles would probably be cheaper in the long run.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 1, 2009)

> In the confrontation they were primarily designed for, the V-bombers were an expensive method of getting aircrew to commit suicide - I'd have been shocked if any had made it to their Soviet targets.



That is slightly harsh. They were able to operate above the level of period fighters (and had pretty good maneuverability for the ones that eventually made it there). It's only later when SAMs started to be introduced that vulnerability rose. How much by is difficult to judge given the poor performance of period SAMs. At the same time, the RAF didn't do nothing, it developed Blue Steel to give a standoff capability and reduce vulnerability. Then when more capable SAMs were introduced, the standoff capability required increased resulting in a number of advanced missiles, the longest ranged amongst them was an air launched version of Polaris. In the end, it was cheaper and better to go for the submarine launched ballistic missile approach.

Currently there isn't much need for a bomber. What is needed is a fast, flexible, precision response and putting lots of bombs on one aircraft doesn't get that. Instead you've got fast jets with Paveway IV and JDAM.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 1, 2009)

Jeepers....I thought I took the trouble to discount the Nuclear role, thats finished.
I opened my post pointing out it was suddenly, at the very end of it's presence...needed for a conventional task, which a Vulcan could also do.
Given the shock the British government got and shouldn't have allowed itself to have, one might have thought they would have replaced the remaining Vulcan's so they remained ready for any repeated need for them.
As for the Vulcan being a suicide plane Colin....your beginning to sound like Norman Tebbits article 'Bomber of no return' in the Sunday Mail newspaper(anybody remember that one?) 
The Vulcan, as most on here will know was unarmed and unescorted because it entered service as an _untouchable_ ..that ended with the shooting down of Gary Powers and compromises began until replacement by Polaris.
Rant over...my point is do we need a heavy bomber in a conventional role, in case we a sa nation are caught with our pants down again, only this time without a heavy bomber?


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 1, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> my point is do we need a heavy bomber in a conventional role, in case we a sa nation are caught with our pants down again, only this time without a heavy bomber?


Why do _you_ think we need one?
What threat do you see that would justify the existence of the program and what would it carry to where?


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 1, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Why do _you_ think we need one?
> What threat do you see that would justify the existence of the program and what would it carry to where?


I should know? When the defense establishment can't?
I'm in the wrong job! (then again, Witches can and do see things coming that others don't!) 
It's about being ready for anything, foreseeable or not.
That doesn't come cheap.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 1, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> I should know? When the Defence establishment can't?
> It's about being ready for anything, foreseeable or not. That doesn't come cheap


Who says the MoD can't?
The absence of a heavy bomber means that they can't? Or that they actually can and realise that they almost certainly don't need one?

You can gun up for the wrong kind of war, a costly mistake in potentially more ways than one.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 1, 2009)

IMHO, the age of the heavy bomber is passing - much like the dive bomber. Still useful at times, but not has much as it's been in the past.

The Vulcan could carry 21k lbs of ordnance. The F-35 can carry something like 15-18k lbs. Unrefueled range is perhaps the only advantage the Vulcan has nowadays. With a limited budget and the price of aircraft today, which would you really prefer to haver?


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Who says the MoD can't?
> The absence of a heavy bomber means that they can't? Or that they actually can and realise that they almost certainly don't need one?
> 
> You can gun up for the wrong kind of war, a costly mistake in potentially more ways than one.


My mind simply go's back to 1982...vulcan nearly gone and an aircraft carrier frantically saved from the breakers..no, I don't think they can.
BTW....they didn't see the gulf war coming either...
America has plans for the B52 that is decades into the future, we could have some B52's in the RAF inventory, it's less dedicated than Vulcan to one role, it carries a payload to reckon on and it has great range.
The need for heavy bombers is very reduced....but it's not gone or going to vanish.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2009)

In todays modern age, guided missiles can do the job of the Heavy Bomber. A guided missile does not have be nuclear.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In todays modern age, guided missiles can do the job of the Heavy Bomber. A guided missile does not have be nuclear.


Adler, I agree there is great power in accuracy, thats what was sought in the Stuka, the lack of accuracy caused a lot of the bombing of cities instead by allied Air Forces.
The cruise missile will find it's mark just about every time, even if you hit the Chinese Embassy, that you thought someone else was there is besides the point.
However, the stock of these missiles is limited...there was only 140 world wide at the time they zuncked the Chinese Embassy. 
No amount of accuracy can carpet bomb miles apon square miles of Desert or what ever.
At it's extreme the _Big belly_ version of the B52 could carry this ordnance... a total of 60,000 pounds (27,215 kg) in 108 bombs.
That can't be replaced by Cruise missiles, nor can less extreme applications of the B.52...thats why they still have a future.
I still think the RAF should have a small force of heavy bombers.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 2, 2009)

Why is there a need to carpet bomb anything?

Increased targeting ability means that know exactly where the enemy is. Then, a laser or gps guided bomb will destroy the target. You don't need masses of bombs if they all hit the target. If you look at usage in Afghanistan you see examples of Paveways being used to hit single vehicles and sometime single people.

Operating a B-52 is a ridiculously expensive way of getting the same ability. By carrying more weapons you don't have to end the sortie after weapons release but you are still limited by crew (assuming lots of air to air refueling). At the same time, weapons release isn't a common event so you're spending most of the time burning masses of fuel and doing the same job as a single Harrier or F-16.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 2, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Why is there a need to carpet bomb anything?


My thoughts exactly

On the off-chance there 'might be something down there'? That's a trifle extravagant in this day and age with munitions that cost money, even dumb ordnance. If however we know there's a target down there then we don't need to carpet-bomb it, a precision strike will take it out without endangering anyone unlucky enough to be in the wrong place.

'No amount of accuracy can carpet-bomb miles upon miles of... ' what a curious contradiction of terms. Carpet-bombing belonged in the middle of the last century because that was the limit of the technological application of bombing. We live in the age of the precision strike, good riddance to the indiscriminate nature of carpet-bombing and I understand any point you might make about the occasional collateral damage to innocent civilians from precision strikes; compared to carpet-bombing, they're utterly liveable-with.

The point concerning the Chinese Embassy is not a resounding one, the incident was owing to poor intel, the three missiles on the other hand, went exactly where they were told to go.

A tactical Ju87 strike in support of the army is a little difficult to compare with a strategic B-17 strike trying to knock out industrial capacity.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2009)

Ditto, we are talking modern times. Wars are no longer fought like they were in the time you are comparing. There is no need for thousand bomber missions. Smaller striker fighters and attack aircraft combined with cruise missiles can do the job just fine. That has been proven over and over again in the last 2 decades.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The point concerning the Chinese Embassy is not a resounding one, the incident was owing to poor intel, the three missiles on the other hand, went exactly where they were told to go.


Was I saying any different? Point is this time al that accuracy didn't help, blow the wrong person of his bog seat and your in the sh*t!
OK...nobody agrees there will ever be a need to deliver a large amount of ordnance again.
Meanwhile 1,00,00,000,000.5 chinese are preparing to charge....


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 2, 2009)

Pardon me but wasn't the Vulcans forte in its latter years lo level strike or at least thats what they trained for ? Cruise missle is cheaper


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 2, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> Was I saying any different? Point is this time all that accuracy didn't help, blow the wrong person off his bog seat and you're in the sh*t!


I'm struggling with your sentiments as a justification for a heavy bomber program. 
Or replacement, if you still want the B-52.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 2, 2009)

Well you can still deliver a large amount of ordinance - you just don't need the extremely large airplane to do it. The A-10 can carry 16k lbs of ordinance, I believe the same for the F-15. With the price of aircraft and a limited budget to spend, you need to get the biggest bang for your buck - no pun intended.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 3, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> Meanwhile 1,00,00,000,000.5 chinese are preparing to charge....[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]




Only economically. If they want to invade the Falklands they're welcome, before 1982 no one in England had ever heard of it.

That whole conflict was described brilliantly as "Two bald men fighting over a comb."

So do we need a V-Bomber? No, not really.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 3, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> So do we need a V-Bomber? No, not really.


I know we don't, I said replaced, not renewed.
I wonder if you read the first post here?
This thread has been pushed off topic from the word go, I'm wishing I never bothered starting it.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 3, 2009)

I think I know what your saying seawitch. You are wondering if England needs a long range heavy bomber after the fact that they retired the Vulcan. Does England need one, probably not. They have the Tornado which is a good little low level penatrator aircraft, and with the precision of todays weapons, there really is no need for a heavy bomber.

The U.S. has 3 heavy bombers the B-1, B-2, and B-52. The B-1 has been hit and miss (more like miss) ever since the program has been started. The B-2 is a great platform, but is very expensive (although it does have the heavest bomb load of the 3). The B-52 is a proven aircraft that has completed the mission time and time again. Yeah she is old, but with upgrades she is keeping pace with the B-1 and B-2. They are using parts off the B-52's at Davis-Monthan AMARC center. 

Again, I think England doesnt need a heavy bomber. I dont know much about the aircraft that are in service there (other than the tornado). Eventually, we will fase out all our heavy bombers, as drones will take the place of them. Its just a matter of time.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 3, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> This thread has been pushed off topic from the word go
> 
> I wonder if you read the first post here?


Rhubarb
the thread consists solely of points for and against a new heavy bomber for the RAF.

I wonder if you've read the posts subsequent to the first one?


----------



## red admiral (Dec 3, 2009)

There isn't the same need for a long range aircraft any more. Last month, four Typhoons deployed to the Falklands from the UK non-stop with tanker support. Just one of those aircraft has greater capability than the Black Buck Vulcan because the weapons _will_ hit the target. There's no need to drop lots of weapons when you can actually hit accurately.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> Was I saying any different? Point is this time al that accuracy didn't help, blow the wrong person of his bog seat and your in the sh*t!
> OK...nobody agrees there will ever be a need to deliver a large amount of ordnance again.



You do not need a large bomber to deliver a large amount of ordinance. Have you been reading anything anyone has said? We are not in 1944 anymore. You do not need a thousand bomber formation to destroy your enemy. Precision weapons and modern attack aircraft and weapons have negated that.



Seawitch said:


> I know we don't, I said replaced, not renewed.
> I wonder if you read the first post here?
> This thread has been pushed off topic from the word go, I'm wishing I never bothered starting it.



1. There is no need to get your panties into a bunch here. You obviously do not like the fact that people do not agree with you. I have news for you....

That is life! This is a forum where people will discuss things, not everyone is going to have the same views. That is what people do in forums, discuss there different ideas and views on different topics. If you do not like that, then maybe a forum is not the right thing for you.

Again don't get bent out of shape and rude because others have a different view than you.

On a side note however, everyone is correct about the fact that there is no need for a large bomber force any more. Just look at how the major wars have been fought in the last 20 years and you will.

2. This thread is not off topic. It is just not what you wanted to hear. Tough, that is life! Every post here in this thread has been discussing the topic that you started. Have you actually been reading the posts?



red admiral said:


> There isn't the same need for a long range aircraft any more. Last month, four Typhoons deployed to the Falklands from the UK non-stop with tanker support. Just one of those aircraft has greater capability than the Black Buck Vulcan because the weapons _will_ hit the target. There's no need to drop lots of weapons when you can actually hit accurately.



There it is again. That is the main reason and the whole reason why.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 3, 2009)

Thanks for your answer Beaupower, it made good reading and got to the point, without trying to wreck someones day!


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 3, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> ...without trying to wreck someones day



Have you considered the possibility that you might be a little fragile for normal forum activity?

Everyone who posted in this thread 'knew what you were thinking' - they just didn't agree with you.
Get over yourself


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 4, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> Thanks for your answer Beaupower, it made good reading and got to the point, without trying to wreck someones day!




No problem, but what you have to realize is that in todays age and time, the heavy bomber final days are comming to a end. You can send in a small force of F-15's, A-10's, Tornado's and do the same amount of damage one heavy bomber can do just dropping tons of ord. The precision of todays weapons is increadable. They can go through a window, give the guy a hair cut, then blow his ass out the window it came through. But like I said before, drones will most likey take the place of alot of military aircraft (especially heavy bombers), its just a matter of time.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 4, 2009)

I think that the B-52 is useful in the COIN role. The ability to endure over the target in long slow circles as very high altitude is valuable when most of our aircraft have very short endurance. It could be used to drop cheap GPS guided bombs to provide fire support to pinned down troops or strike predetermined targets prior to an assault with no need to turn around and leave as soon as they were dropped off.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 4, 2009)

The B-52's persistence is definitely useful, but given the large tanker support available, similar possibilities exist even for short range aircraft like Harrier. The B-52 basically carries the same armament (well actually less) as a Harrier. The typical strike is for 2xPWIV to hit the target from altitude whilst the wingman is at lower level ready with CRV rockets in case the target survives. All the B-52 can do is drop bombs from high altitude, I'm not sure whether it currently carries Sniper or Litening pods. 

At the same time, most missions (about 90%) do not have weapons release so the B-52 becomes a really expensive rec platform. The large crew costs, fuel costs, maintenance and basing costs pretty much rule out the B-52. If persistence is needed, use Reaper.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2009)

red admiral said:


> The B-52's persistence is definitely useful, but given the large tanker support available, similar possibilities exist even for short range aircraft like Harrier. The B-52 basically carries the same armament (well actually less) as a Harrier.



I think you better check your sources......


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 4, 2009)

I thought the B52 is capable carrying almost any armament used in US arsenal, through continuous upgrades and additions. Which is the primary reason it has outlasted every other bomber in history for service length, because it has responded so well to upgrades over the years. I think it is scheduled to be in service until the middle part of this century. Definitely helps keep the cost down when you use the same airframe for 50,60, or 70 years.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you better check your sources......



My point is that a standard strike is 2xPWIV or JDAM (even which is overkill in most situations). The other bombs the B-52 can carry basically act as deadweight given the paucity of targets.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 4, 2009)

Uh, the B-52 can carry a huge variety of weapons:

*NUCLEAR*
20 ALCM
12 SRAM [ext]
12 ACM [ext]
2 B53 [int]
8 B-61 Mod11 [int]
8 B-83 [int]


*CONVENTIONAL*
51 CBU-52 (27 int, 18 ext)
51 CBU-58 (27 int, 18 ext)
51 CBU-71 (27 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 87 (6 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 89 (6 int, 18 ext)
30 CBU 97 (6 int, 18 ext)
51 M117
18 Mk 20 (ext)
51 Mk 36
8 Mk 41
12 Mk 52
8 Mk 55
8 Mk 56
51 Mk 59
8 Mk 60 (CapTor)
51 Mk. 62
8 Mk. 64
8 Mk 65
51 MK 82
18 MK 84 (ext)


*PRECISION*
18 JDAM (12 ext)
30 WCMD (16 ext)
8 AGM-84 Harpoon
20 AGM-86C CALCM
8 AGM-142 Popeye [3 ext]
18 AGM-154 JSOW (12 ext)
12 AGM-158 JASSSM [ext]
12 TSSAM


----------



## evangilder (Dec 4, 2009)

Also:
Additional capabilities
· AN/ALQ-117 PAVE MINT active countermeasures set
· AN/ALQ-122 false target generator [Motorola]
· AN/ALQ-153 tail warning set [Northrop Grumman]
· AN/ALQ-155 jammer Power Management System [Northrop Grumman]
· AN/ALQ-172(V)2 electronic countermeasures system [ITT]
· AN/ALR-20A Panoramic countermeasures radar warning receiver
· AN/ALR-46 digital warning receiver [Litton]
· AN/ALT-32 noise jammer
· 12 AN/ALE-20 infra-red flare dispensers
· 6 AN/ALE-24 chaff dispensers

Systems
· AN/ANS-136 Inertial Navigation Set
· AN/APN-224 Radar Altimeter
· AN/ASN-134 Heading Reference
· AN/APQ-156 Strategic Radar
· AN/ASQ-175 Control Display Set
· AN/AYK-17 Digital Data Display
· AN/AYQ-10 Ballistics Computer
· AN/AAQ-6 FLIR Electro-optical viewing system
· AN/AVQ-22 Low-light TV Electro-optical viewing system
· AN/ARC-210 VHF/UHF communications
· AN/ARC-310 HF radio communications


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2009)

red admiral said:


> The B-52 basically carries the same armament (well actually less) as a Harrier. .



It is my solemn duty to ensure that will go down in the Forum Archives.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 4, 2009)

Impressive picture.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 4, 2009)

> It is my solemn duty to ensure that will go down in the Forum Archives.



I think it's fairly obvious I didn't mean that a Harrier and a B-52 can literally carry the same load. It's simply that the B-52's ability to carry a greater load is irrelevant. Is that difficult to understand?

Standard operating procedure is to drop two guided bombs from high altitude, which will destroy pretty much any target. For targets in a built up area just one weapon is used. Given the paucity of targets it is unusual for weapons to actually be expended. Hence it makes no sense to carry lots of bombs as they're just deadweight.

The B-52 would be great if you needed to indiscriminately carpet bomb large swathes of Iraq and Afghanistan but that isn't going to happen when you've got point targets and a need to avoid collateral damage.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 4, 2009)

B-52 for COIN missions ?, god damn...that would be expensive.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2009)

How did we get strategic assets cornerned into anti-IED operations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Standard operating procedure is to drop two guided bombs from high altitude, which will destroy pretty much any target.



And can you provide that "SOP?"



red admiral said:


> My point is that a standard strike is 2xPWIV or JDAM (even which is overkill in most situations). The other bombs the B-52 can carry basically act as deadweight given the paucity of targets.



Again, I think you better check your sources, unless you're now trying to compare a B-52 to an F-117? Do you realize the different roles and missions you're talking about?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 5, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> B-52 for COIN missions ?, god damn...that would be expensive.


when you have a fully active brush/guerilla war going on like the early phases of the Iraq insurgency, it's worth suppressing a large region with a single plane.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 5, 2009)

> And can you provide that "SOP?"



Given that it's only been a few days since I was briefed by a GR9 pilot on operations in Afghanistan, yes. Seems fairly standard in the USAF as well.



> Do you realize the different roles and missions you're talking about?



The COIN mission is the only one available at the moment. There aren't that many targets available. You could dream up some scenario with lots of targets that the B-52 would be more useful to bomb but chances are there will be some IADS present and survivability goes way down.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 5, 2009)

It's worth mentioning that heavy firepower like the B-52 is part of the REASON for the scarcity of targets. People keep their heads down when they know moving openly invites oblivion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Given that it's only been a few days since I was briefed by a GR9 pilot on operations in Afghanistan, yes. Seems fairly standard in the USAF as well.


GR9? I could tell you that no such "SOP" exists in the USAF and I'll stick my neck out and say the same for the Navy and Marines. I work with the USAF and sometimes have acess to generic operational directives and if you could tell me a specific signed and delivered "SOP" coming from a specific MAJCOM regarding this, I'll eat my shoes.



red admiral said:


> The COIN mission is the only one available at the moment. There aren't that many targets available. You could dream up some scenario with lots of targets that the B-52 would be more useful to bomb but chances are there will be some IADS present and survivability goes way down.


You don't use a B-52 for COIN operations. With that said your assertion that COIN missions are the only ones available is kind of far fetched as I doubt you're currently in Afghanistan to make that determination. You claim you've had this brief with a GR9 pilot, well if true I bet that same pilot has little or no insight into where and when the USAF will decide when to use a B-52 in the region. With that said there have been missions that only a B-52 could accomplish and it will take more than "two bombs" to complete such missions....

B52 carpet bombing 'can oust Taliban' - Telegraph

CNN.com - B-52 backs U.S. forces in Afghanistan - Dec. 2, 2002

And admittedly there are times when a B-52 isn't effective...

B-52 attacks 'lack vital element of surprise' - Telegraph

Bottom line, when you have an enemy hiding out in a concealed area where no JDAM could find them, you send in a B-52. When you have a known target that requires pinpoint accuracy, you won't use a B-52, its that simple. To diminish the B-52's role in the current conflict in Afghanistan is nonsense unless you grasp an understanding of their targets and how they are deployed and to compare the mission of any of the heavy bombers deployed to Afghanistan and their missions flown to some of the other strike aircraft that can carry out as you put it "a two bomb raid" is like comparing a pair of socks to a tractor.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 5, 2009)

...and the B-52 is a strategic asset. Certainly the argument can be made that the B-52 is not the most effective weapon to keep on station 24/7 in Afghanistan where we have protected bases for UCAVs/strike airplanes. But unique missions in the area and strategic deterence with Asia are still the name of the game in overall world affairs. The B-52 is old. But not obsolete yet.

And it's use with high energy non-lethal payloads makes it a weapon platform that is not fully publicized nor utilized at a fully operatonal level. And the ECM platform keeps getting deferred, but continually rises from the ashes. You can bet those capabilities are fielded at a squadron level, even without fully operational funding.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2009)

Great points Matt - like I heard a Buff driver once say - "deploying a B-52 is like building a highway overpass over your enemy's head then lobbing bombs on top of them."


----------



## krieghund (Dec 6, 2009)

This subject is like keeping battleships in mothballs...tricked the other nations into smelting theirs into kitchen appliances...then roll them back out when needed.

Anyway the RAF would have to have in their Operating procedures the requirements for Strategic Aircraft

Some of these missions include:
1. COIN
2. Sea Lane Interdiction ( This is great with a B52 and harpoons)
3. Eliminating those dang carpet problems (remember the scene on TV during Desert Storm when thousands of Iraqis surrendered to a handful of soldiers? Well, the nite before we expend a crap load of ordinance which was approaching its shelf life from Vietnam and carpet bombed an area near the bunkered soldiers....the rubble bounced!!)


There is also something to be said of being able to launch from within your country, knock the snot out of a target half way around the world and then recover from whence ye launched.

Yes I agree that the RAF should have a strategic air arm. Problem is can the UK afford it and is it's foreign policy going to support it?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2009)

The RAAF is having a similar debate with our F-111 fleet. For thirty years they have provide great security for Australia in the maritime strike role, and nothing in the region was capable of intercepting the,. Remains the case today, and the ordinance carried by the aardvarks is truly awesome (at least in the regional sense). But they are to be retired ( if not already retired, to be replaced by a similar number of "Super Hornets". Now I dont know jack about the new F-18s, but I will bet my last dollar that they are not as capable in the strike role as the old F-111. 

The F-18s are a temporay expedient, to be replaced by the F-35, if and when it flies properly..... Maybe that bird will fill the gap, but I have my doubts.

In the context of a large country like Australia, with limited resources, ther is no question that aircraft are more cost effective than missiles. In fact I doubt that missile can undertake the long range maritime strike role that the F-111s were able to do


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 6, 2009)

I think your logistics tail on the F-111 is huge compared to the F-18. But one does have to wonder what RAAF is giving up with respect to range and payload.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2009)

I like the idea of a heavy subsonic bomber for the RAF.

But...the Vulcan was obsolete by the 1960s as soon as SAMs and Mach 2 fighters came out.

Even the B-52 would be a bad place to be with S-300 and modern MiGs and Sukhois about.

I would rather spend the extra on body armour and more helicopters....this is what the British military needs...right now.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 6, 2009)

Well said. Especially with respect to the body armour and helicopters. Especially the helicopters. You guys are in real need there.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2009)

what helos are the poms using at the moment?


----------



## Butters (Dec 6, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The RAAF is having a similar debate with our F-111 fleet. For thirty years they have provide great security for Australia in the maritime strike role, and nothing in the region was capable of intercepting the,. Remains the case today, and the ordinance carried by the aardvarks is truly awesome (at least in the regional sense). But they are to be retired ( if not already retired, to be replaced by a similar number of "Super Hornets". Now I dont know jack about the new F-18s, but I will bet my last dollar that they are not as capable in the strike role as the old F-111.
> 
> The F-18s are a temporay expedient, to be replaced by the F-35, if and when it flies properly..... Maybe that bird will fill the gap, but I have my doubts.
> 
> In the context of a large country like Australia, with limited resources, ther is no question that aircraft are more cost effective than missiles. In fact I doubt that missile can undertake the long range maritime strike role that the F-111s were able to do



You're right to have doubts concerning the short-ranged, marginally stealthy F-35's actual ability to efficiently perform all the tasks expected of it. You might find this interesting:

Assessing JSF Air Combat Capabilities

BTW, didn't your govt. just order 14 of them for the low, low price of $3.2 billion? I wonder how many F-15E's you could get for that much...

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2009)

Butters said:


> BTW, didn't your govt. just order 14 of them for the low, low price of $3.2 billion? I wonder how many F-15E's you could get for that much...
> 
> JL



F-15Es that could be around for say the next 20 years.....

Where the F-35s could be around for the next 50 years....And have more capabilities.

How's that saying go - penny wise, dollar foolish?!?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 6, 2009)

It's interesting to see how the Cold War fighter-on-fighter attrition debate compares with the modern day narrow penetration mantra.


----------



## Butters (Dec 6, 2009)

The only F-35's that are gonna be around fifty years from now will be in museums. The continuing advances in computer, pattern recognition, sensor, and missile propulsion technology will see to that. 

BTW, anybody remember the economical, 'all things to all airmen' TFX? 

Thought not...

JL


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 6, 2009)

Really. TFX resulted in the F-111 from about 1969. Perhaps the RAAF might disagree on your time scale of obsolesence.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 7, 2009)

"The appearance of B52s cheered anti-Taliban commanders, who have spent the past week deriding American "pin pricks", and raised their hopes that the enemy positions might at last collapse. As a B52 barrelled across the sky, its four vapour trails clearly visible, the whole landscape appeared to shake.

It sent down one salvo of bombs, setting off a series of at least 15 explosions over a distance of half a mile, before returning for a second attack. *Previous air raids on the strategic sector of the Taliban front line guarding the approaches to Kabul have been carried out by smaller fighter-bombers which release one or two bombs at a time*."

Link provided by FlyboyJ
B52 carpet bombing 'can oust Taliban' - Telegraph

I like what they said here. Especially what is said in bold. I cant even beleve we have been compairing the Harrier weapons to the B-52. I would much rather have a B-52 on station than a Harrier anyday.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2009)

Butters said:


> *The only F-35's that are gonna be around fifty years from now will be in museums*. The continuing advances in computer, pattern recognition, sensor, and missile propulsion technology will see to that.
> 
> BTW, anybody remember the economical, 'all things to all airmen' TFX?
> 
> ...



And again, I'd like to know the source aside from your biased opinions where you come up with that statement? If anything, it would be very realistic that the F-35 would see a 50 year life span considering the F-15 has been around 35 years (and probably got at least another 10 years ahead of it) and the F-117A lasted 25 years, and the only reason why the 117 went away is because of the F-35....

The TFX? now THAT was waste of money.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 8, 2009)

red admiral said:


> The B-52 would be great if you needed to indiscriminately carpet bomb large swathes of Iraq and Afghanistan but that isn't going to happen when you've got point targets and a need to avoid collateral damage.


What if your target is a couple of Russian/whatever divisions spread over an area of many square miles, and MUST be neutralised?
You don't need accurate weapons anymore, just devastating ones that can equal the odds for your own, without resorting to the nuclear option.
BTW...just because Russia isn't communist, it doesn't mean it's friendly and we don't know what the future holds.
I'm satisfied theres still a need to maintain heavy bombers, if in less numbers than the past.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2009)

Butters said:


> The only F-35's that are gonna be around fifty years from now will be in museums. The continuing advances in computer, pattern recognition, sensor, and missile propulsion technology will see to that.
> 
> BTW, anybody remember the economical, 'all things to all airmen' TFX?
> 
> ...



The F-111s are pushing 40 years of age, and show no signs of obsolesence really. Its the cost of maintenance and airframe fatigue that is forcing them out of service really.

If the F-35 is a success it will be around in the inventories of small nations for decades. Part of successful modern design is the ability to to upgrade and update progressively.

The days of an aircraft having a service life of 10 or even 20 years are dissapearing. Unit costs are forcing that issue

If the F-35 is unable to complete its assigned roles, it will get dropped early....and there are going to be a lot of p*ssed off foreign customers


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2009)

F-111 was a real asset for a huge country with a big sea around, like Australia; something like jet-age Mosquito. The proper replacement should have at least equal range, speed and payload, with low-observability and avionics of 21st century. 
The F-22 could fill the F-111 shoes (eventually), but Aussies are going to get F-35 to cover a good part of globe.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 8, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> What if your target is a couple of Russian/whatever divisions spread over an area of many square miles, and MUST be neutralised?
> You don't need accurate weapons anymore, just devastating ones that can equal the odds for your own, without resorting to the nuclear option.




Sorry, but I think your wrong here. I would still take pin point accurcy over carpet bombing anyday. With carpet bombing, you dropping mass amounts of bombs, with no gaurentee that any will hit was your aiming at anyways. Now thats not to say it cant be done, especiall with the computers helping the aiming. But you take the Guided munitions, and you can take out the areas of the the biggest build up. If you carpet bomb a area (say 10 miles long by 5 miles wide) your not going to get everything. But using drones to pick out the most important targets, Send a heavy bomber in to drop GPS bombs, and take out the most important targets with the biggest threat to you. Once that is done send in your troops to clean up the rest, as it there would be most likely little resistance from the already confused and disordered enemy.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 8, 2009)

Dont know too much about the B-52, but I think they dont actually "carpet bomb.....they can deliver huge amount of ordinance with a very high degree of precision.

I know the B-52s flattened North Vietnam with a massive bombing campaign, but that is not really the way B-52s are used today. They dont blind bomb....they know exactly what they are after, but just deliver big packages


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The F-111s are pushing 40 years of age, and show no signs of obsolesence really. Its the cost of maintenance and airframe fatigue that is forcing them out of service really.
> 
> If the F-35 is a success it will be around in the inventories of small nations for decades. Part of successful modern design is the ability to to upgrade and update progressively.
> 
> ...



100% correct, and if the F-35 doesn't perform, you'll never see Lockheed produce a combt aircraft again IMO.



tomo pauk said:


> F-111 was a real asset for a huge country with a big sea around, like Australia; something like jet-age Mosquito. The proper replacement should have at least equal range, speed and payload, with low-observability and avionics of 21st century.
> The F-22 could fill the F-111 shoes (eventually), but Aussies are going to get F-35 to cover a good part of globe.



The F-111 and F-22 are two different aircraft designed for two different missions. Although the USAF has tried to place a strike capability into the F-22, its main purpose is air-to-air, and in that arena the F-111 doesn't come close.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2009)

I know that those two are widely different designs, yet out of all modern Western designs, F-22 could best continue where F-111 left. 

That F-111's abilities as an air-superiority interceptor fighter plane are completely as I stated in my previous post anyway, eg. non-existing


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> That F-111's abilities as an air-superiority interceptor fighter plane are completely as I stated in my previous post anyway, eg. non-existing



No argument there.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2009)

...and what has not entered into this discussion is if you have a Vulcan/B-52 asset, you must have lots of tanker assets. And if you have tanker assets... you must have control of the airspace (AWACS). And if you have AWACS... you must have uncontested airspace protection (SAMS /or fighters).

So in a nutshell, strategic bombers have a HUGE support infrastructure. And that = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 8, 2009)

A-fricken-men!


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 8, 2009)

With the exception of the Falklands in the latter years they were simply a lo level strike weapon and in that role the Vulcan was surpassed by the Tornado ....it had speed was far more stealthy and didn't smoke


----------



## parsifal (Dec 9, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> ...and what has not entered into this discussion is if you have a Vulcan/B-52 asset, you must have lots of tanker assets. And if you have tanker assets... you must have control of the airspace (AWACS). And if you have AWACS... you must have uncontested airspace protection (SAMS /or fighters).
> 
> So in a nutshell, strategic bombers have a HUGE support infrastructure. And that = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




Isnt that looking at the issue from a long range force projection point of view? 

I agree about the AWACS and ADA requirements, but tankers are not entirely necessary if you simply projecting at a regional level.

I am thinking specifically of our own forces really. For most of the service life of our F-111 "heavies" (well, they were the heaviest bombers in the region for a long time....) they did not have proper tanker support, and very limited AWACS. Definately degraded their effectiveness, and we did eventually acquire some capability in both areas, but our force remained very potent nevertheless, able to strike out to a considerable distance from the home bases.

I will concede that our force was handicapped by these omissions, and even without themj the F-111 force soaked up a hell of a lot of money


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 9, 2009)

... and you guys are just now getting Wedgetails and A330 tankers to correct that liability.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 15, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Replacement to what end? In the confrontation they were primarily designed for, the V-bombers were an expensive method of getting aircrew to commit suicide - I'd have been shocked if any had made it to their Soviet targets.


Sorry, but I just could not resist this....
The Notorious Flight of Mathias Rust | History of Flight | Air Space Magazine


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 15, 2009)

Thats a pretty intresting story, thanks for sharing. I could imagine the looks on the Soviet's faces when a West German Cessna landed right in the middle of their capital.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 15, 2009)

Seawitch said:


> Sorry, but I just could not resist this....


I remember it well
but you'll need to explain the parallels that I suspect you're trying to draw between V-bombers ingressing under a declaration of war and a light aircraft that buzzed in at light aircraft speeds under no such declaration.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2009)

Yeah I too remember the flight. But I also don't understand the parallels that SeaWitch is attempting to make.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 17, 2009)

Glad im not the only one, I was curious how that tied in with the Vulcan.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 17, 2009)

Yea, I'm lost as well.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 21, 2009)

Oh yes a B-52 can carpet bomb imagine a box of B-52s pickling their 500 pounders over an area target (this was done during Desert Storm) The Buff pilot telling me "The war's not over till the rubble bounces!!"


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 23, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> Yea, I'm lost as well.


So get a map.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 23, 2010)

I suppose if the RAF needed to repeat a Black Buck type raid these days it might be possible to rig a C-17 (or one or two of the forthcoming A330's) to launch Tomahawks out of the back, which is an option that was studied in depth as part of the FOAS studies. I am speculating of course, but the sudden and unexplained demise of FOAS may have had something to do with discovering that this could be done as a field mod 'as required' rather than having to invest in a dedicated fleet.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 23, 2010)

Take it easy Seawitch. You don't have to explain yourself, but you do have to be civil. If you can't I can point you to a permanent vacation spot.


----------



## red admiral (Feb 25, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I suppose if the RAF needed to repeat a Black Buck type raid these days it might be possible to rig a C-17 (or one or two of the forthcoming A330's) to launch Tomahawks out of the back, which is an option that was studied in depth as part of the FOAS studies. I am speculating of course, but the sudden and unexplained demise of FOAS may have had something to do with discovering that this could be done as a field mod 'as required' rather than having to invest in a dedicated fleet.



Studied in depth...not really. The same capability is available in other means, such as TLAM from submarines. FOAS didn't demise, it just got a new name as Future Combat Air Concepts. The requirement is still there, only with more interesting solutions.

For aircraft, there's a much greater preponderence of tanker support today. A few months back a flight of Typhoons deployed non-stop from the UK to the Falklands. Given the increase in capability afforded by guided munitions it's possible to mount a much more effective strike with fewer resources.


----------



## Kosmos929 (Feb 28, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> IMHO, the age of the heavy bomber is passing - much like the dive bomber. Still useful at times, but not has much as it's been in the past.
> 
> The Vulcan could carry 21k lbs of ordnance. The F-35 can carry something like 15-18k lbs. Unrefueled range is perhaps the only advantage the Vulcan has nowadays. With a limited budget and the price of aircraft today, which would you really prefer to haver?



Better a real Vulcan than a vaporware F-35!

What you really needed was the TSR.2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 28, 2010)

Kosmos929 said:


> What you really needed was the TSR.2.





Could, have should have, would have, didn't...


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 28, 2010)

Kosmos929 said:


> Better a real Vulcan than a vaporware F-35!
> 
> What you really needed was the TSR.2.



Huh? Vaporware? And your comparison analyses are what exactly between a '50s bomber and a '90s fighter/attack airplane?

Your fifth post should be interesting.


----------

