Should the Vulcan have been replaced

[Seawitch]

Yea, I'm lost as well.

So get a map.

 

[Waynos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What you really needed was the TSR.2.

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

 

[Matt308]

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.