V Bomber Program on More4 at 10:00pm tonight

[Dr Jekyll]

Eric Mc said:

The heavy bomber is almoost dead as a concept now. The last US one was the B2 and the last Russian the Tu-160. Both are over 20 years old now.

Maybe dead as a concept, but darned useful in practice once you have air supremacy.

[Eric Mc]

Not arguing - but they are very expensive to develop these days. I think the unit price for each B2 was higher than each Space Shuttle.

[SamHH]

Eric Mc said:

Not arguing - but they are very expensive to develop these days. I think the unit price for each B2 was higher than each Space Shuttle.

I think the cost of the B2 was more down to the advanced technology required to make it stealthy wasn't it?

It may be the case that nobody is designing any new heavy bombers, but is the USAF not intending to keep the B-52 in operation for another 40 years? That suggests that they foresee a requirement for such an aircraft in the future.

[Eric Mc]

True - the bigger the bomber - the harder to make it stealthy.

The USAF have about 90 of the original 800 B-52s still in service.

[Nick_F]

Dunk76 said:

B Oeuf said:

Dunk76 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Eric Mc said:

I was just wondering how many top ups a Tornado GR4 (or even a Typhoon in ground attack mode) would need compared to the Vulcan.

Converted airliners make much better tankers than converted bombers.

During the first gulf war bombing raids were mounted with three Tornados to carry bombs, three Buccaneers to carry laser guidance systems, and two Victors to refuel them all.

If only the Victors had not been converted to tankers one of them could probably have done the job on it's own.

The combat range of a GR4 is around 1400kms (although I presume this includes some high speed mucking about, rather than an economic cruise with high-speed bombing run at the end).

Tellingly, the GR4's payload is almost that of the Vulcan. I'd imagine the Tonker's nav and guidance systems are more efficient than the V-Bombers stuff.

Ah but 3890km in ferry config ie 4 underwing tanks compared to the big fellers 6290km. Tonks would only need one laser guided weapon to achieve the task surely?

Well that's the difference between a dedicated heavy bomber, and a multi-role strike aircraft with the payload of a heavy bomber. The Tornado can bomb with the Vulcan, but only if it relinquishes range.

Personally, trusting one Tornado with one bomb for one runway is asking for failure.

JP233? 23something, anyway.

The piece on Black Buck in that excellent programme doesn't mention that the lead aircraft allegedly had to abort as a window wouldn't stay shut, or that the RAF focussed rather too much on having the 'best pilots' for the job rather than the 'best bomb aimers'...

Helluva long way to go to drop some dumb bombs on the strength of a Norden Bombsight...

[DiscoColin]

SamHH said:

Eric Mc said:

Not arguing - but they are very expensive to develop these days. I think the unit price for each B2 was higher than each Space Shuttle.

I think the cost of the B2 was more down to the advanced technology required to make it stealthy wasn't it?

It was all about the extremely high R&D spend for the comparatively low number of airframes. IIRC the average cost per plane comes in at about the cost of a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser. Had the Americans opted to build a second tranche the cost would have been significantly lower (each plane weighing in at the same kind of ball park figure as a destroyer).

So yeah - the components weren't cheap...

[B Oeuf]

Nick_F said:

Dunk76 said:

B Oeuf said:

Dunk76 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Eric Mc said:

I was just wondering how many top ups a Tornado GR4 (or even a Typhoon in ground attack mode) would need compared to the Vulcan.

Converted airliners make much better tankers than converted bombers.

During the first gulf war bombing raids were mounted with three Tornados to carry bombs, three Buccaneers to carry laser guidance systems, and two Victors to refuel them all.

If only the Victors had not been converted to tankers one of them could probably have done the job on it's own.

The combat range of a GR4 is around 1400kms (although I presume this includes some high speed mucking about, rather than an economic cruise with high-speed bombing run at the end).

Tellingly, the GR4's payload is almost that of the Vulcan. I'd imagine the Tonker's nav and guidance systems are more efficient than the V-Bombers stuff.

Ah but 3890km in ferry config ie 4 underwing tanks compared to the big fellers 6290km. Tonks would only need one laser guided weapon to achieve the task surely?

Well that's the difference between a dedicated heavy bomber, and a multi-role strike aircraft with the payload of a heavy bomber. The Tornado can bomb with the Vulcan, but only if it relinquishes range.

Personally, trusting one Tornado with one bomb for one runway is asking for failure.

JP233? 23something, anyway.

The piece on Black Buck in that excellent programme doesn't mention that the lead aircraft allegedly had to abort as a window wouldn't stay shut, or that the RAF focussed rather too much on having the 'best pilots' for the job rather than the 'best bomb aimers'...

Helluva long way to go to drop some dumb bombs on the strength of a Norden Bombsight...

JP233 is a runway denial device, letting one of those off would have rendered the thing useless and the intention was to be able to repair it for future use

[spitfire-ian]

Nick_F said:

The piece on Black Buck in that excellent programme doesn't mention that the lead aircraft allegedly had to abort as a window wouldn't stay shut,

Nothing allegedly about it, XM598 (now at Cosford) had a faulty seal on a cockpit window which meant they couldn't get it to shut properly and therefore pressurise the cockpit. Quite a common occurrence by all accounts.

The windows which open are the 2 triangular shaped ones either side of the main cockpit windscreen.

Edited by spitfire-ian on Tuesday 11th August 09:25

[eccles]

spitfire-ian said:

Nick_F said:

The piece on Black Buck in that excellent programme doesn't mention that the lead aircraft allegedly had to abort as a window wouldn't stay shut,

Nothing allegedly about it, XM598 (now at Cosford) had a faulty seal on a cockpit window which meant they couldn't get it to shut properly and therefore pressurise the cockpit. Quite a common occurrence by all accounts.

The windows which open are the 2 triangular shaped ones either side of the main cockpit windscreen.

Edited by spitfire-ian on Tuesday 11th August 09:25

Getting the DV window to seal can be a problem on the C-130 as well. You end up with lots of sealant and vaseline all over the opening!

[JVaughan]

B Oeuf said:

Nick_F said:

Dunk76 said:

B Oeuf said:

Dunk76 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Eric Mc said:

I was just wondering how many top ups a Tornado GR4 (or even a Typhoon in ground attack mode) would need compared to the Vulcan.

Converted airliners make much better tankers than converted bombers.

During the first gulf war bombing raids were mounted with three Tornados to carry bombs, three Buccaneers to carry laser guidance systems, and two Victors to refuel them all.

If only the Victors had not been converted to tankers one of them could probably have done the job on it's own.

The combat range of a GR4 is around 1400kms (although I presume this includes some high speed mucking about, rather than an economic cruise with high-speed bombing run at the end).

Tellingly, the GR4's payload is almost that of the Vulcan. I'd imagine the Tonker's nav and guidance systems are more efficient than the V-Bombers stuff.

Ah but 3890km in ferry config ie 4 underwing tanks compared to the big fellers 6290km. Tonks would only need one laser guided weapon to achieve the task surely?

Well that's the difference between a dedicated heavy bomber, and a multi-role strike aircraft with the payload of a heavy bomber. The Tornado can bomb with the Vulcan, but only if it relinquishes range.

Personally, trusting one Tornado with one bomb for one runway is asking for failure.

JP233? 23something, anyway.

The piece on Black Buck in that excellent programme doesn't mention that the lead aircraft allegedly had to abort as a window wouldn't stay shut, or that the RAF focussed rather too much on having the 'best pilots' for the job rather than the 'best bomb aimers'...

Helluva long way to go to drop some dumb bombs on the strength of a Norden Bombsight...

JP233 is a runway denial device, letting one of those off would have rendered the thing useless and the intention was to be able to repair it for future use

isnt that Sharkey Wards point ... The SHAR could have done much more Damage and been more efficient both in weaponry and fuel and more accurate too. OK, I know his points of view are biased being naval rather than Air Force.. but the figures do make you wonder

[Eric Mc]

Ward is correct - from a miltary point of view.

The Vulcan missions were more about a demonstration of power, capability and commitment.

[B Oeuf]

Eric Mc said:

Ward is correct - from a miltary point of view.

The Vulcan missions were more about a demonstration of power, capability and commitment.

in time honoured RAF, 1000 bomber raid, Dambuster tradition

[Dunk76]

Well, by all accounts it put the wind up the Argentinians - it's one thing to have a Carrier based strike aircraft dropping runway denial pods. It's entirely another to have a thumping great Nuclear-capable Bomber dropping conventional payloads having taken off from an island completely out of reach of the Argentine airforce.

[fadeaway]

eccles said:

spitfire-ian said:

Nick_F said:

The piece on Black Buck in that excellent programme doesn't mention that the lead aircraft allegedly had to abort as a window wouldn't stay shut,

Nothing allegedly about it, XM598 (now at Cosford) had a faulty seal on a cockpit window which meant they couldn't get it to shut properly and therefore pressurise the cockpit. Quite a common occurrence by all accounts.

The windows which open are the 2 triangular shaped ones either side of the main cockpit windscreen.

Edited by spitfire-ian on Tuesday 11th August 09:25

Getting the DV window to seal can be a problem on the C-130 as well. You end up with lots of sealant and vaseline all over the opening!

Window sealing wasn't a biggy either - they always sent up 2 Vulcans so that the second one could complete the mission if there was any problem with the first one. Second one would turn around quite soon if the first was working ok.

[B Oeuf]

yup, that's why Black Buck required so many aircraft, as I recall there were hot spares on the airfield at Ascension with engines running too

[spitfire-ian]

Isn't that what we said before? XM598 was the lead aircraft, couldn't get its window to seal so the back up, XM607, took over.

[Lefty Guns]

The phenomenal cost per unit of the B2 is partially because of the reduced number of aircraft procured. The DoD cut it's order 2 or 3 times IIRC from the original number of aircraft.

R&D cost had to be split over fewer aircraft which increases the unit cost. Cue media hysteria over the cost of each aircraft. The R&D cost won't change (much) if you build 1 or 1000 units.

For example:

Say R&D cost is $10Bn. Build 500 units, R&D cost per unit is $20m. Build 100 aircraft the R&D cost per unit is $100m.


The same thing happened to the SR71, F117 and many others I'm sure.

[Eric Mc]

Lefty Guns said:

The phenomenal cost per unit of the B2 is partially because of the reduced number of aircraft procured. The DoD cut it's order 2 or 3 times IIRC from the original number of aircraft.

R&D cost had to be split over fewer aircraft which increases the unit cost. Cue media hysteria over the cost of each aircraft. The R&D cost won't change (much) if you build 1 or 1000 units.

For example:

Say R&D cost is $10Bn. Build 500 units, R&D cost per unit is $20m. Build 100 aircraft the R&D cost per unit is $100m.


The same thing happened to the SR71, F117 and many others I'm sure.

Correct - which is the same reason why NASA should never have stopped using teh Saturn V.

[Lefty Guns]

I think the B2 order went from >130 to 20!

No wonder they were so expensive on a per-aircraft basis!

[perdu]

B Oeuf said:

Eric Mc said:

Ward is correct - from a miltary point of view.

The Vulcan missions were more about a demonstration of power, capability and commitment.

in time honoured RAF, 1000 bomber raid, Dambuster tradition

If they had bombed from the Carrier Force the likeliest "doers" would have been the RAF Harriers anyway, ground attack was far and away more their mission than the Shars, so Sharkey is right and wrong.

But as Eric says the intention was to warn Argentina that if the UK could "find" a tiny set of islands with big loud bombers they could certainly find Argentina more easily.

"This is my big stick, how's your sore head?"

Seems to have done the trick