Another V force question

Burtonwood, Cuba.

ef2: RAFHB Journal #24 has MBF at “higher alert” during the Crisis, but short of dispersal. Discussion on here on dispersal has suggested that Burtonwood was assigned to the Coningsby Vulcan 2 Wing for the period early-1963 – November,1964. So: nowt in Oct.62.

Burtonwood, Cuba.

ef2: RAFHB Journal #24 has MBF at “higher alert” during the Crisis, but short of dispersal. Discussion on here on dispersal has suggested that Burtonwood was assigned to the Coningsby Vulcan 2 Wing for the period early-1963 – November,1964. So: nowt in Oct.62.

Have to bear in mind that the ‘rule’ for much of the period was cities, not necessarily in the UK (Bristol Bombay) while there was an apparent overlap with flying boats…

I should have been more expansive JDK, I meant names chosen from within the United Kingdom as in all of it, including the Commonwealth and Empire.

Not sure cities rather than areas was the name driver, what about Lancaster, Windsor, Warwick, Heyford, Hampden, Blenheim?
Getting a bit too close to Dukes territory again!

I enjoyed AKs names speculation para!

Have to bear in mind that the ‘rule’ for much of the period was cities, not necessarily in the UK (Bristol Bombay) while there was an apparent overlap with flying boats…

I should have been more expansive JDK, I meant names chosen from within the United Kingdom as in all of it, including the Commonwealth and Empire.

Not sure cities rather than areas was the name driver, what about Lancaster, Windsor, Warwick, Heyford, Hampden, Blenheim?
Getting a bit too close to Dukes territory again!

I enjoyed AKs names speculation para!

an ICBM targetted all airfields the Vs operated from, including all dispersal sites

Its makes you “shudder” when you think of just how much of the UK would have been targeted….and if it did kick-off how much of the UK would be destroyed. Im guessing probably the biggest target nearest to me would have been USAF/RAF Burtonwood because as you guys know it was a huge storage/forwarding depot to feed a war in Europe….and a V-Bomber dispersal point….Id love to find out if there were any loaded aircraft at Burtonwood during the days surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis awaiting a scarmble!!!

an ICBM targetted all airfields the Vs operated from, including all dispersal sites

Its makes you “shudder” when you think of just how much of the UK would have been targeted….and if it did kick-off how much of the UK would be destroyed. Im guessing probably the biggest target nearest to me would have been USAF/RAF Burtonwood because as you guys know it was a huge storage/forwarding depot to feed a war in Europe….and a V-Bomber dispersal point….Id love to find out if there were any loaded aircraft at Burtonwood during the days surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis awaiting a scarmble!!!

Great question though, previously British bombers were named after areas within the UK.

Not exactly. Have to bear in mind that the ‘rule’ for much of the period was cities, not necessarily in the UK (Bristol Bombay) while there was an apparent overlap with flying boats / maritime patrol named after port cities (Saro London) or as time wore on, coastal towns with ports – Stranraer, Lerwick.

Twists for alliteration, relations (York for the Roses opponent of Lancaster, from Manchester of course – Avro Liverpool anyone?) and exceptions make it a mess, but as Allan’s said, interesting to try and find the sense within it.

Handley Page liked India – Hyderabad, Hinaidi. Then Victoria after the city, not the queen, Vimy (and Amiens) for military memory, and so on.

Canberra was chosen for sales pitch reasons, it worked. There’s been no other Australian bombers named after the state capitals, although there was one flying boat, not surprising as most of the cities have ports – (Handley Page Hobart, Supermarine Sydney (the Blackburn Sydney was a British flying boat prototype) Percival Perth (the Blackburn Perth after the Scottish one) and the Bristol Brisbane, Miles Melbourne, Avro Adelaide. 😀 However the RAN did use most of those state names for ships, several times, and the country (HMAS Australia).

HTH.

Great question though, previously British bombers were named after areas within the UK.

Not exactly. Have to bear in mind that the ‘rule’ for much of the period was cities, not necessarily in the UK (Bristol Bombay) while there was an apparent overlap with flying boats / maritime patrol named after port cities (Saro London) or as time wore on, coastal towns with ports – Stranraer, Lerwick.

Twists for alliteration, relations (York for the Roses opponent of Lancaster, from Manchester of course – Avro Liverpool anyone?) and exceptions make it a mess, but as Allan’s said, interesting to try and find the sense within it.

Handley Page liked India – Hyderabad, Hinaidi. Then Victoria after the city, not the queen, Vimy (and Amiens) for military memory, and so on.

Canberra was chosen for sales pitch reasons, it worked. There’s been no other Australian bombers named after the state capitals, although there was one flying boat, not surprising as most of the cities have ports – (Handley Page Hobart, Supermarine Sydney (the Blackburn Sydney was a British flying boat prototype) Percival Perth (the Blackburn Perth after the Scottish one) and the Bristol Brisbane, Miles Melbourne, Avro Adelaide. 😀 However the RAN did use most of those state names for ships, several times, and the country (HMAS Australia).

HTH.

I read somewhere that an ICBM targetted all airfields the Vs operated from, including all dispersal sites.

Once airborne they would not be able to land at their departure airfield as it would have been destroyed. (assuming they scrambled in time)

I think the Soviets took it seriously.

Baz

The Vulcan pilot I spoke to mentioned that – I remember him saying ‘While your parents amd grandparents were sleeping, I was up there, protecting you, and I had no airfield to come back to’

At Farnborough 08, where I saw the Vulcan fly for the first time, I got talking to a Ex russian pilot, who had flown with his son from Nevsky Prospekt (spelling likely wrong) to see his ‘beautiful nemesis’ Vasily was a Bear co pilot in the 60’s and he told me that the Russians saw the Victor as thee Hurricane, the more rugged dependable machine that would do the damage, but saw the Vulcan as the Spitfire – The one they scared of, but also the one that captured their imagination. I was standing next to him when she roared down the runway, and he had tears in his eyes as he said ‘Good to see you again, old friend’.
That memory will always stay with me.

I read somewhere that an ICBM targetted all airfields the Vs operated from, including all dispersal sites.

Once airborne they would not be able to land at their departure airfield as it would have been destroyed. (assuming they scrambled in time)

I think the Soviets took it seriously.

Baz

The Vulcan pilot I spoke to mentioned that – I remember him saying ‘While your parents amd grandparents were sleeping, I was up there, protecting you, and I had no airfield to come back to’

At Farnborough 08, where I saw the Vulcan fly for the first time, I got talking to a Ex russian pilot, who had flown with his son from Nevsky Prospekt (spelling likely wrong) to see his ‘beautiful nemesis’ Vasily was a Bear co pilot in the 60’s and he told me that the Russians saw the Victor as thee Hurricane, the more rugged dependable machine that would do the damage, but saw the Vulcan as the Spitfire – The one they scared of, but also the one that captured their imagination. I was standing next to him when she roared down the runway, and he had tears in his eyes as he said ‘Good to see you again, old friend’.
That memory will always stay with me.

took it seriously.. Just as they will have taken seriously the Force de Frappe and Chinese Badgers, then IRBMs. None was at Overkill, Massive volume, but..how much was enough? It’s the porcupine: if a predator cares to put in enough effort, shrug off the pain, he can take a porc… but easier not to bother. Both Sweden and Switzerland spent heftily, ironly, to be porcupines dissuading USSR from bothering. The volumes of nuclear capabilities invested by USSR and USA were grotesque. UK settled on some dozens of targets, declining, as the cost of the business spiralled, to simply the Moscow criterion. UK’s Deterrent, the unsinkable aircraft carrier, was integrated in US’; though CDG asserted the independence of his, France never left NATO’s innermost Planning forums, and during 1962 Cuba he made it clear to JFK that France was with him.

The notion of a USSR: France-solo, or USSR:UK-solo Armaggeddon was not serious; the capability of France and UK to stand alongside US and hurt USSR a tous azimuths was serious, was so taken by USSR, who spent to counter…and imploded. The Bomb is the most cost-effective weapon yet devised. Arab v.Israel for the fifth time, Pakistan v. India for the third time, China v. USSR, NATO v. WarPac for the first time have all been defeased by the Bomb. If only it had been deliverable in 1914, or 1939…

took it seriously.. Just as they will have taken seriously the Force de Frappe and Chinese Badgers, then IRBMs. None was at Overkill, Massive volume, but..how much was enough? It’s the porcupine: if a predator cares to put in enough effort, shrug off the pain, he can take a porc… but easier not to bother. Both Sweden and Switzerland spent heftily, ironly, to be porcupines dissuading USSR from bothering. The volumes of nuclear capabilities invested by USSR and USA were grotesque. UK settled on some dozens of targets, declining, as the cost of the business spiralled, to simply the Moscow criterion. UK’s Deterrent, the unsinkable aircraft carrier, was integrated in US’; though CDG asserted the independence of his, France never left NATO’s innermost Planning forums, and during 1962 Cuba he made it clear to JFK that France was with him.

The notion of a USSR: France-solo, or USSR:UK-solo Armaggeddon was not serious; the capability of France and UK to stand alongside US and hurt USSR a tous azimuths was serious, was so taken by USSR, who spent to counter…and imploded. The Bomb is the most cost-effective weapon yet devised. Arab v.Israel for the fifth time, Pakistan v. India for the third time, China v. USSR, NATO v. WarPac for the first time have all been defeased by the Bomb. If only it had been deliverable in 1914, or 1939…

I guess with them being the V force that is the real reason the Sperrin was shelved, it just didn’t fit!

I guess with them being the V force that is the real reason the Sperrin was shelved, it just didn’t fit!

I read somewhere that an ICBM targetted all airfields the Vs operated from, including all dispersal sites.

Once airborne they would not be able to land at their departure airfield as it would have been destroyed. (assuming they scrambled in time)

I think the Soviets took it seriously.

Baz

I read somewhere that an ICBM targetted all airfields the Vs operated from, including all dispersal sites.

Once airborne they would not be able to land at their departure airfield as it would have been destroyed. (assuming they scrambled in time)

I think the Soviets took it seriously.

Baz

Slight thread deviation but does anybody know what the Russians thought of the threat posed by the V bombers?

Slight thread deviation but does anybody know what the Russians thought of the threat posed by the V bombers?

Though Attlee funded R&D of UK’s Bomb and 3 Bombers, he hoped not to have to buy any of them. The spy Fuchs and Korea changed that, but he ordered, 9/2/51, only 25 of the Interim Medium Bomber, named 6/51 resurrecting a Vickers name from 1931. After Churchill’s lot got in, 26/10/51, Valiant was uplifted to 52. Avro’s and HP’s orders, 25 each, came 22/7/52. More were sought by RAF. The names Victor and Vulcan were felicitously available: MAP in ’44 had assigned them to V-S T.368/372, but took the “propaganda” as Spitfire Mks.21/23.

My invented speculation is that CAS MRAF Slessor came up with V, naming Vulcan, 10/52 and Victor 11/52, to encourage a sense of paternity by the PM, who uplifted both to 32 by mid-1954 and on 26/6/54 funded their H-Bomb, bouncing his successor to fund, 31/5/56, Marks 2 to deliver it.

Though Attlee funded R&D of UK’s Bomb and 3 Bombers, he hoped not to have to buy any of them. The spy Fuchs and Korea changed that, but he ordered, 9/2/51, only 25 of the Interim Medium Bomber, named 6/51 resurrecting a Vickers name from 1931. After Churchill’s lot got in, 26/10/51, Valiant was uplifted to 52. Avro’s and HP’s orders, 25 each, came 22/7/52. More were sought by RAF. The names Victor and Vulcan were felicitously available: MAP in ’44 had assigned them to V-S T.368/372, but took the “propaganda” as Spitfire Mks.21/23.

My invented speculation is that CAS MRAF Slessor came up with V, naming Vulcan, 10/52 and Victor 11/52, to encourage a sense of paternity by the PM, who uplifted both to 32 by mid-1954 and on 26/6/54 funded their H-Bomb, bouncing his successor to fund, 31/5/56, Marks 2 to deliver it.