AHC: British strategic bomber

[galveston bay]

The Mirage IV wouldn't be a bad option, even it does have the "Not invented here and OMG you want us to buy a FRENCH plane!"

The point of departure for this option would be continued Anglo-French cooperation post Suez. As the Anglo-French cooperated with the SEPECAT Jaguar it isn't even that big a stretch.

This gives the British a supersonic medium range bomber able to carry 2 nuclear weapons which with tanker support can reach deep into the European Soviet Union, or later on with a lot of support, reach the Falklands from Ascension Island

It isn't a heavy bomber (more of a medium bomber), but not a bad option

 

[jsb]

What about a bigger Mirage IVB design with 2 x Olympus 22R ?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Are you suggesting replacing the V bombers with a Nimrod based unit from the start or something post retirement of the V's, cause at that stage the Nimrod's are in the exact situation as the V's themselves (ie 60's designs with no standardisation and out of production), so how do you get that number (what more than the ASW variant's) at that stage?

I'm sugesting that a bomber Nimrod is ordered once the maritime patrol versions are complete. By using an existing aircraft (and while the tooling for them is still in place) it would be both quicker and cheeper than starting from scratch. We know from real life they can be kept in service until at least 2010, and with more aircraft in the fleet it should be possible to keep some in service longer. Is it the best possible option? No. Further development of the Vulcan or Victor would be preferable but the time for that has passed. The B 52 would carry a greater payload but production has ceased and I can't see the RAF accepting second hand aircraft? The B1 is sometime away from production and I doubt Britain can afford it anyway. The RAF would also be wary of it after the US unilaterally cancelled Skybolt. If Britain is going to continue operating long-range strategic bombers the decision would have to be taken in the late 60s or early 70s as the Vulcans and Victors are begining to wear out and a replacement is clearly needed. After that and you are looking at designing a completely new aircraft which is both a long process and very expensive and therefore may well be cancelled by a future government due to the expense (probably just as production is about to begin).

 

[jsb]

Can the Nimrod be developed easily ?

Isn't it a MPA based on an airliner,
= weak wings and no low and fast flying ?
= small under wing Bombay with wing spar going through floor above ? (at CG)
= its based on an old aircraft and cant fit big turbofans why not go for a clean sheet ?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Cost and time, it's quicker and cheaper to use an existing design than start from scratch. The Nimrod already has a Bombay that carries 20,000lbs of stores and as maritime patrol aircraft has to operate at low level over the North Atlantic so has to be able to cope with the worst weather the ocean can throw at it. It's not perfect but it has what it needs to to the job. That said it will be vulnerable to Soviet block ack ack, so it would be best to buy Tomahawks when they enter service in the U.S. The Nimrod bomber would need wing hard points to carry them but we know (though of course they don't) from the Falklands War that they can be fitted when needed. Two Tomahawks on each wing should be doable and would enable the Nimrods to avoid flying over enemy territory.

 

[Riain]

One thing that always bothers me with these challenges is that people always seem to obsessively focus on making a POD as late as possible. This forum covers a hundred and fifteen years, so why limit things to a post V-bomber or even post WW2 world?

It'd be hard to make a chain of causality from a successful battle of Nueve Chappele to a British strategic bomber today.

 

[The Knight]

The slow pod is to have British American relations remain sour after Suez. The British join with the French long term. So we have not one but two strategic bombers.

Vulcan mark 3. With the POD being late 1950's the Vulcans are still in production and an upgrade for the late sixties or seventies is definately possible.

Supersonic bomber. Developed as a joint project with France in tandem with the Concorde.

 

[Namayan]

Technically Britain has present day otl strategic bombing capability.

You don't need b52 nor b1 to be qualified as strategic bomber. Either the tornado or what will replace it, f35, have strategic bombing capability.

All this is possible due to air refueling. And the Royal Air Force have air refueling capability in present day otl.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

You can't carpet bomb an airfield or tank park with a Tornado.

 

[Mike D]

You can't carpet bomb an airfield or tank park with a Tornado.

Why would you want to? We could have Super Lancasters in their hundreds, we'd still use Storm Shadow and Brimstone to hit targets like that.

Carpet bombing doesn't work if the enemy's unsporting enough to have some form of anti-aircraft system. These days no-one actually flies over a target unless you really have to - aside from places like Afghanistan where the heaviest weapon the enemy has is an RPG, obviously.

 

[bsmart]

You can't carpet bomb an airfield or tank park with a Tornado.

Actually the Tornado has an excellent anti airfield denial weapon and if I remember correctly was used in Gulf War I.

 

[Ato]

You can't carpet bomb an airfield or tank park with a Tornado.

You do know this was at least 50% of the Tornado's original mission requirements?

It involves cluster bombs, lots and lots of cluster bombs.

 

[bsmart]

I think by the time of the Falklands war the role of the Strategic Bomber was beginning to disappear.

I am assuming that by Strategic Bomber you mean one that can strike the primary opponents homeland and destroy or at least severely damage major cities or command and control targets.

For that role ballistic and cruise missiles had taken over the primary strike roles and manned bombers were only used as supporting weapons (such as their role in teh American Nuclear triad).

If you mean as a long range strike aircraft against tactical or theatre targets such as the Black Buck missions, Arc Light missions in Vietnam, or the use of B-52, B1, and B2 bombers against Afghan or Iraqi targets I believe this is use of an aircraft designed for a strategic role in a 'grand tactical' role.

For the first role (striking a primary opponents center of power) I believe the British would be best served by using cruise missles and ballistic missles. I believe GLCMs based in the UK would cover many of the potential targets. Having Nimrod or Airbus aircraft converted to cruise missile carriers would provide some flexibility (look at the proposals to use B-747s as cruise missile launchers back in the 70s (rotary carriers on tracks on the main deck with launching through side doors)

For the second role improved Vulcans or modified Nimrods would work. But I think that mission exists primarily because the capability exists and is a weapon in search of a justification rather than a design criteria

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned yet but if there was another Falklands War we wouldn't need a manned aircraft to do the same job that Black Buck did, we would just TLAM any target that needed to be.

 

[Landshark]

It'd be hard to make a chain of causality from a successful battle of Nueve Chappele to a British strategic bomber today.

On the old board they once made Louis Armstrong the first man on the moon. Modern alternative historians have grown fat and lazy, there's not one of you man enough to have Lady Gaga become Pope starting with a POD at the Battle of Cannae.

 

[SactoMan101]

Could the RAF has something akin to a "strategic bomber" in 2015?

The answer is yes, with the POD of the RAF getting the F-111K into service by the early 1970's. Fitted with a much-updated version of the avionics from the Blackburn Buccaneer, and eventually an uprated development of the Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan rated at around 24,000 lb. thrust, the F-111K would provide a long-range interdiction platform that could have most of the capabilities of the V-bombers.

 

[Riain]

On the old board they once made Louis Armstrong the first man on the moon. Modern alternative historians have grown fat and lazy, there's not one of you man enough to have Lady Gaga become Pope starting with a POD at the Battle of Cannae.

I'd say that the opposite is true, it is hard and though provoking to put tight bounds on the PoD and try to get the desired result. I'd say that with no bounded PoD a space opera is plausible, which is great like the Star Wars trilogy, but not what I'd consider Alternate History rather its more along the lines of Game of Thrones.

 

[fscott]

I think by the time of the Falklands war the role of the Strategic Bomber was beginning to disappear.

I am assuming that by Strategic Bomber you mean one that can strike the primary opponents homeland and destroy or at least severely damage major cities or command and control targets.

For that role ballistic and cruise missiles had taken over the primary strike roles and manned bombers were only used as supporting weapons (such as their role in teh American Nuclear triad).

If you mean as a long range strike aircraft against tactical or theatre targets such as the Black Buck missions, Arc Light missions in Vietnam, or the use of B-52, B1, and B2 bombers against Afghan or Iraqi targets I believe this is use of an aircraft designed for a strategic role in a 'grand tactical' role.

For the first role (striking a primary opponents center of power) I believe the British would be best served by using cruise missles and ballistic missles. I believe GLCMs based in the UK would cover many of the potential targets. Having Nimrod or Airbus aircraft converted to cruise missile carriers would provide some flexibility (look at the proposals to use B-747s as cruise missile launchers back in the 70s (rotary carriers on tracks on the main deck with launching through side doors)

For the second role improved Vulcans or modified Nimrods would work. But I think that mission exists primarily because the capability exists and is a weapon in search of a justification rather than a design criteria

Boeing is building the P-8 Anti sub aircraft, modified 737's, to replace the P-3. It can eject from internally sonar buoys and air to surface missiles. 'They have most of the technology to make the 747 quite dangerous.

 

[Riain]

How about giving the Tornado F3 a further makeover for the very long range tactical role, it already had an extra 200 gallons of fuel than the GR1. Perhaps a bit more of a stretch, some cabin comfort modifications, deleting the gun and you'd get something capable of 5 hour strike missions without IFR and 7 or more with IFR depending on crew endurance.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Best bet for a late PoD? Refit Vulcans as ALCM shooters in the late 1970s as a more flexible adjunct to the Polaris force. Four squadrons would probably suffice. Major rebuild in the 1990s to relife the airframes and make them better suited to the post-Cold War world. RAF buys into the USAF's NGB/LRS-B program - remember, it's conceived as a low-cost, low-risk aircraft - to replace the Vulcans.

In a move considered typical of British military procurement, the Vulcans were withdrawn from operations the day after the LRS-B buy was announced.