# TU-16 Badger vs B-47 Statojet vs Avro Vulcan?



## Lucky13 (Mar 3, 2008)

Which of these three was the better design?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 3, 2008)

I'd say the Avro Vulcan was the better aircraft, but the better design goes to the B-47 due to the fact that the essential look of the Stratojet became the B-52 - which has been the premier strategic bomber since 1959.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2008)

I think the Tu 16 has to be the winner with it's longevity in service of over 50years followed by the B47 for the reasons stated by Plan D with the Vulcan trailing as it was not in squadron service 5 years later then the Badger or 47


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2008)

I'd vote for the Vulcan if we are talking cold war nuclear delivery. Radar signature is lower, handling is supposedly better and modernization kept it as a front line bomber than the other two which were relegated to secondary reonnaissance and anti-shipping roles.

Again it boils down to what mission are you prescribing.


----------



## magnocain (Mar 3, 2008)

I vote for the Vulcan.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 4, 2008)

Well. That was convincing.


----------



## Glider (Mar 4, 2008)

My head says the Vulcan for a number of reasons, but as a lad I always liked the B47, probably the sleekest looking heavy bomber ever.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 11, 2010)

I say, the Vulcan is the best potential stealth bomber of its time. Probably could have done the other roles if available in enough numbers, and modified to perform them.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 15, 2010)

I'll go by date of introduction

The B-47 was the most historically significant since it led to the B-52 and KC-135/Boeing 707. Its design and performance was revolutionary and it was certainly a problem for the USSR. Their heroics buzzing Russian Mig bases and scooting off before the Migs could catch them is quite a story. Some came back with 20mm holes in them.

The Tu-16 was probably a typical under performing Russian jet bomber which was a success in the USSR but would probably never made it in a Western AF. It became a core for the Tu-104, a commercial jet.

The Vulcan was probably the most modern, flying five years after the B-47, capable, and effective of the three. I actually saw one of these at a airshow once. Amazing aircraft. And, made it into a Bond movie.8)


----------



## The Basket (Dec 16, 2010)

The Tu-16 was exported and is still flown and developed in China.

The B-47...when it made its incursions...flew against MiG-15 and 17. It would have been in trouble against a MiG-19. A Farmer did shoot down an Elint 47 killing some of the crew. The Soviets did not use 20mm cannon on early MiGs.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 16, 2010)

I'll go with the Vulcan, which I believe was the last of the 3 used in actual combat.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The Tu-16 was exported and is still flown and developed in China.



and still would not have been bought by a Western AF



> The B-47...when it made its incursions...flew against MiG-15 and 17. It would have been in trouble against a MiG-19. A Farmer did shoot down an Elint 47 killing some of the crew.



So, exactly what aircraft were the Russians flying when the B-47 entered service in 1951? When did the Mig-19 enter service, 1955? Can you imagine if they had tried that in 1959 against the Mig-21? Certainly from 1951 until the Mig-19 was deployed in force post 1955, the B-47 was a major headache for the Russians.



> The Soviets did not use 20mm cannon on early MiGs.



Sorry, I should have said 23 mm.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 16, 2010)

davparlr said:


> So, exactly what aircraft were the Russians flying when the B-47 entered service in 1951? .



MiG-15. And more than a few were shot down as RB-47s during the cold war. You want a fan-effing-tastic read about RB-47s, RB-29s, RB-50s, RC-130s, US subs doing covert ops tapping Russian comm cables, etc., buy Blind Man's Bluff. You will not be disappointed. And you will be shocked by the number of US air assets shot down that you never have heard about. It was a war. And many of our best lost their lives fighting it.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2010)

Ordered, one Blind Mans Bluff. Thanks for the tip


----------



## herman1rg (Dec 17, 2010)

Maybe someone could add a poll to this thread?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 17, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> MiG-15. And more than a few were shot down as RB-47s during the cold war. You want a fan-effing-tastic read about RB-47s, RB-29s, RB-50s, RC-130s, US subs doing covert ops tapping Russian comm cables, etc., buy Blind Man's Bluff. You will not be disappointed. And you will be shocked by the number of US air assets shot down that you never have heard about. It was a war. And many of our best lost their lives fighting it.



I heartily second this recommendation. It is absolutely fascinating! Better than any spy novel.

If we had those guys around, and I am not sure we don't, there would be a North Korean sub lying in pieces on the bottom somewhere in the Yellow Sea.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2010)

Here's a photo of my Uncle Bill I've posted on here before, I believe taken at Barksdale AFB just after the Korean War. The aircraft is a B-50. He told me that they were deploying to Japan when this was taken to replace a crew that was already deployed there. He later found out that crew and aircraft were lost over Vladivostok.

I had a long conversation about ferret missions with my uncle the last time I saw him alive. He revealed to me that he participated in such mission through out the 1950s. There was a secret and covert war going on at this time and many times there were "shootouts" on both sides.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 17, 2010)

Hello,

According to 'By Any Means Necessary' by William Burrows, two RB-47 aircraft were shot down by Soviet fighters. One on April 17, 1955 by a Mig 15 and another on July 1, 1960 by a Mig 19. The Mig 19 pilot is identified by name. Burrows lists 16 shoot downs of American aircraft between 1950 and 1969. It's a shame that the courage of these recon crews isn't better known.


----------



## herman1rg (Dec 18, 2010)

Thanks to whoever added the poll, I've voted


----------



## Wingspanner (Sep 16, 2011)

I once had the pleasure of meeting Walter Boyne - he was a mine of info on the B47 which he insisted was one of the most consistently under-rated aircraft of the period. I've voted Vulcan on the poll based on overall performance and adaptability - but its a close run thing, given that the '47 was in service earlier.


----------



## woljags (Sep 16, 2011)

i've a frog test shot kit of the B47,i might sort it out for a start to finish build to go with this interesting post


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 27, 2011)

Avro Vulcan out of these three, but the Handley Page Victor could do what the Vulcan could, but with a bigger bomb load (35,000 lbs in the Victor as opposed to 21,000 lbs in the Vulcan), although it was slightly slower. The Vulcan remained in service for much longer than anticipated because proposed replacements in RAF service were not completed. Both the Tu-16 and B-47 were replaced by bigger and heavier bombers.

I agree with wingspanner about the B-47; it looked real futuristic when it first appeared next to the likes of the B-45 Tornado. I remember reading a book about covert flights by the USAF over Communist territory, something like "Spy flights of the Cold War". Fascinating stuff. The USAF lost a large number of aircraft and crews from virtually the end of the war in intelligence gathering Privateers and other types.


----------



## Tangopilot89 (Dec 2, 2011)

I'm another one that's gone with the Vulcan. Magnificent looking aircraft, plus after reading _Vulcan 607_ I'm impressed an aircraft nearly out of service was still able to do the job, yes thanks to a load of Victor AAR tankers. There used to be one on display not far from where I live, but it was chopped up, mainly because the entire airframe had rotted right through. What a sad ending for such a great plane.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 20, 2011)

I always thought the B-47 was a fine looking aircraft, the TU-16 wasn't bad either but for me it has to be the Vulcan, a huge heavy bomber with close to fighter like handling at high altitudes.
Plus my dad was Vulcan aircrew back in the day.



davparlr said:


> The B-47 was the most historically significant since it led to the B-52 and KC-135/Boeing 707. Its design and performance was revolutionary and it was certainly a problem for the USSR. Their heroics buzzing Russian Mig bases and scooting off before the Migs could catch them is quite a story. Some came back with 20mm holes in them.



Yeah but with the Vulcan they couldn't get anywhere near their altitude to stand a chance of putting holes in them.
My dad used to tell me stories about how they would try and flame out long before they got near the big deltas.

The big thing with Vulcan over the Victor was power.
Vulcan always had tremendous power from those Olympus engines, the Victor, sadly, never got the big engines she was crying out for.....and when the penny finally dropped that high altitude was no way to penetrate enemy airspace and hope to survive then it was pretty obvious that the Vulcan's huge delta was the one more suited to fast low level flying.

Mind you, the Victor was probably the more futuristic looking of the 2......but hindsight is a wonderful thing and if they'd only realised about the low-level mission a little earlier there'd have been no need to spend the then large sums on Vulcan or Victor.
Valiant B2 would have been perfect.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 24, 2011)

I've always liked the Vulcan myself.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 27, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> I've always liked the Vulcan myself.



All gone now (save for XH558......a fantastic sight sound if you've not had the pleasure) but I have to agree Vulcan is a spectacular sight in the sky (and on the ground).

I was just too young to remember it but my older brothers reckoned QRA practice flights (4 Vulcans started up racing off to get airborne away in under 4 minutes as if a sneak attack was being made on the UK) were simply awesome.......and you can imagine the disruption to class (they were in school at the time near the base) as teachers made futile attempts to stop the inevitable (and completely irresistable) flow of young boys to the windows to get a look.
This was a regular occurrence back in the day and it never got old.

Heady days pretty tense times. Not sorry to see the back of them but I'm glad not every one of the planes from then are gone completely.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> I was just too young to remember it but my older brothers reckoned QRA practice flights (4 Vulcans started up racing off to get airborne away in under 4 minutes as if a sneak attack was being made on the UK) were simply awesome.


4 Minutes is beyond belief for me , unless they were sitting in cockpit with all the ground crew around , I believe 5 minutes was the goal for fighters and they are far less complex


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 27, 2011)

pbfoot

I believe it is totally accurate.
The crew on QRA had quarters which were very close to the aircraft.
I've even read of times even less than that, 4 cold Vulcans in well under 4 minutes (1 minute 40 seconds is quoted on the net)......don't forget everything was ready geared for those 4 planes to be up away incredibly quickly.
I know there was a push button for the ground crew to start the 4 engines simulataneously, everything would have been hooked up to enable a fast start designed to release quickly once they were started.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> pbfoot
> 
> I believe it is totally accurate.
> The crew on QRA had quarters which were very close to the aircraft.
> ...


I had control of the Q button for 4 years and 4 minutes is too quick, drop your pool cue or cards put helmet on run the 25yds to aircraft climb up ladder and we haven't even turned the key


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 27, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> MiG-15. And more than a few were shot down as RB-47s during the cold war. You want a fan-effing-tastic read about RB-47s, RB-29s, RB-50s, RC-130s, US subs doing covert ops tapping Russian comm cables, etc., buy Blind Man's Bluff. You will not be disappointed. And you will be shocked by the number of US air assets shot down that you never have heard about. It was a war. And many of our best lost their lives fighting it.



Blind Man's Bluff is and will be a permanent addition to my personal library collection. Awesome book, one of my all time favorites. Agree 100% Matt! It is a must read.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 27, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I had control of the Q button for 4 years and 4 minutes is too quick, drop your pool cue or cards put helmet on run the 25yds to aircraft climb up ladder and we haven't even turned the key



You controlled the Q button on Vulcans?

I'm not getting into an argument but I think there are a ton of references to 4 mins or under all over the net ( not just from the wilder end of it either).
The British V bombers were specifically designed (thanks to geography the geopolitics of the time) to get away as fast as possible, they sat ready waiting in the full knowledge that a Soviet strike would be on their heads in minutes, even at the dispersal fields around the UK.

Interestingly the B52 B1 also show this thinking in some of their systems today (the single push button auto-multiple engine start for instance).

Maybe we're talking about slightly different things, I found this -

_When operational, crews were allocated their war targets and, having satisfied wing staff they were proficient to prosecute their war mission, were rostered for QRA. This was the raison d’être of the V-force. Each squadron mounted a QRA aircraft and crew 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This amounted to crews pulling 3 to 6 days a month. While on QRA, crews were subjected to random call-outs throughout the day and night to continuously test the readiness posture. 

To launch the force quickly, aircrews and stations were directly linked to the Bomber Controller at HQ STC. Deep his Bunker, when the Bomber Controller announced “Readiness State 05!” the crews ran to their aircraft. On board and breathless, the crews awaited further Readiness State changes. 

Next came either “Readiness State 02” or “Scramble”. At RS02, all engines were started simultaneously at the press of a single button. Alternators and powered flying controls automatically started and came on line. 

The aircraft was ready to taxi within 20 seconds of hitting the button. 
The average time taken for all 4 aircraft to be airborne from “Scramble” was 1 minute 47 secs, but *there are recorded occasions when all 4 were airborne within a minute.* _

Here


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2011)

No I controlled the Scramble button on F101 Voodoos , although Vulcans were frequent visitors as targets , just don't believe it for a 2 minute scramble unless they are sitting their crew positions on the aircraft. If that was the case its possible if they are in the Q playing cards or pool imho it impossible unless the RAF hired 16 Usain Bolts as aircrew


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 27, 2011)

Having had another look around I found this, I have to agree that your 5 minutes may well be right the most fair description of what went on.


This site has ex-crew talking one specifically saying 4 minutess is a myth but 5 minutes was not.



> one ex-crew poster says -
> 
> Four minutes? Pure myth.
> 
> ...



So, I hope I didn't come across as too argumentative I'm happy to agree with you pbfoot. 
Happy new year.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 27, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> Having had another look around I found this, I have to agree that your 5 minutes may well be right the most fair description of what went on.
> 
> 
> This site has ex-crew talking one specifically saying 4 minutess is a myth but 5 minutes was not.
> ...


no fear , I've seen far more of my share of scrambles, and probably seen more Vulcans and Victors


----------



## jipi (Jan 3, 2012)

The Basket said:


> The Tu-16 was exported and is still flown and developed in China.



I read somewhere that China was still building them (But maybe it is what you meant.)


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2012)

Yes China flies a version with air-to-ship strike capability.


----------

