General Jack Ripper Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 On 3/6/2019 at 3:25 PM, Erwin said: Just as with consumer products there is huge pressure to persuade customers to buy new and discard the old rather than repair the old. Airframes have a limited life span, just like any other machine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 On 3/6/2019 at 3:30 PM, Combatintman said: Erm … I'm sure one bombed Port Stanley in 1982. They dug her out of storage for that one. Here's one of those television documentaries: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StieliAlpha Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 27 minutes ago, Erwin said: "In addition to a "special" (i.e., atomic) bomb, the (Vulcan) aircraft was to be capable of alternatively carrying a conventional bomb load of 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)" and capable of carrying one 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) bomb to a target 1,500 nautical miles... the similar OR.230 required a "long range bomber" with a 2,000 nautical miles range." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan B52 payload is something like 70,000 lb with "typical combat range of more than 8,800 miles (14,080 km) without aerial refueling." And the US has the capability of sending several. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress The logistics to send a sufficient number of bombers to a distant target like the Falklands seems to have been beyond Brit capability at that time. IIRC the Falklands War was reportedly a "near run thing" that stretched the former Brit power to its limit. One bomber with conventional weapons isn't going to have that much effect - esp compared to the sub sinking of Belgrano. There is a nice description of Black Buck 1 in the German Wikipedia (Though it is certainly not the most scientific source and Wicky’s link states, that many “known details” of BB1 are unclear or debatable). According to the Wikipedia article, 2 Vulcan and 11 tankers were necessary to bring one Vulcan to Port Stanley. Of those, 1 Vulcan and 2 tankers were “reserves”. A quite complicated re-fuelling pattern had to be developed, where e.g. the last tanker was met by outbound tankers to be refuelled on the return leg. That’s sounds like quite an exercise. Further acc to that article, the Vulcan carried 21 special bombs, designed to drill into the ground for a few meters before explosion. The idea was to create earth quake like ripples in order to damage the run way even with near hits. The article says, the Vulcan scored only one direct hit. Acc to Wicky’s article, it is being debated, if the Vulcan scored a hit at all. The main damage was done by a follow-up Harrier raid, which scored another three hits. In any case, the runway damage was sufficient to render it useless for Argentine jets. Though, acc to Wicky’s article again, it seems like the Argentine had given up the idea to station jets in Port Stanley before the bombing already. And, yep, it was a fairly “near run thing”. After the landing, the British Fleet was quite much confined in the narrow channel between the two Falkland Islands. Plus, the about 40 Sea Harriers had a pretty hard time against about 200 Argentine planes. Thus the loss of something like 5 major ships. Not to forget the landing ship Sir Galahad, which was hit while unloading Welsh Guards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 15, 2019 Author Share Posted March 15, 2019 For any of you in the UK and fancy a trip to Doncaster to hear the engines... https://mailchi.mp/vulcantothesky/first-xh558-engine-ground-runs-of-the-season-announced?e=7a0e93146c 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.