Foreign Vulcans

I remember way back during Confrontation a RAF Vulcan paid a visit to Melbourne. I stood in awe in my front garden as it flew overhead accompanied by a RAAF Neptune which seemed to be going flat out just to keep up.

Exported Big Bombers

USSR put Badgers in Egypt, Iraq and Indonesia, Blinders in Iraq and Libya; licensed Badger into PRC, then pulled the plug in 1960: Xian reversed it as H-6 for themselves and for Egypt, Indonesia and Iraq.

Discounting Aeronavale Lancaster VII (MR role) and transfers between the King’s Forces, I think the only other movements of “strategic” bombers have been of HP O/400 (100, 1918 licenced-built by Standard A/c Corp.NY, some shipped as unflown kits to Oldham National A/c Factory, though beached by Armistice), and of 1950 loaned B-29, UK/US… except for UK’s export 1948 of 12 retread and 18 new Lincolns to proto-fascist Argentina. Together with UK’s shipment of 100 Meteors that did upset US – Monroe Doctrine, our backyard, Mustangs and Thunderbolts are quite enough for them. UK did not enquire too closely just who threatened Peron, but bartered aircraft for beef. We were hungry and had no $. Bar some freight conversions of piston Heavies, that’s it. Only big boys should play with big toys.

In 1962/63 UK MoA was required to re-affirm the tasks for CA Fleet trials a/c to try to assemble a total of 6 Mk.1 Vulcan as interim loan to SAAF, as lead-in to Buccaneer. Abandoned as all too hard.

(Source: I was there).

Vulcan as nuclear carrier in SwAF?

Swedish Vulcans ?? see previous thread

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83787&highlight=swedish+Vulcans

Following this thread I thought what about us, swedish airforce, until cadman’s link to Jan’s input.

But I only remember (reading?) about the intention of the Vulcan in swedish service as connected to our nuclear program at the time. The nuclear program was later scrapped, so no Vulcan. Not knowing of the Vulcan as a replacement to the Canberras as a recc.- spyplane.

The Vulcans would have caused virtually no damage to the fleet from 55,000ft even if the Harriers couldn’t interfere IMHO

AAM missiles can go up.
Also the Vulcans would have had to come lower at some stage, I agree with Chox that it is a crazy notion, even a small fleet of tired Vulcans would have been very difficult to maintain.

Would the Harriers have been able to stop them?

The Harrier is down as having a service ceiling of 51,000 ft and the Vulcan a ceiling of 55,000 so would that 4,000 ft make a difference?

Would the Harriers have been able to stop them?

The very idea of Vulcans being used against the Falklands by Argentina is comical. Even their Canberras were “sitting ducks” … imagine a Vulcan?!:p

DaveF68, I believe this is what you were referring to? Especially the next-to-last paragraph on page 3.

{edit: my copy of the memo is a larger file size, and enlarges more clearly. PM me if you want me to e-mail it to you}

That’s the one, and that’s fine! Thanks

If Argentina had bought Vulcans, the Falklands war (aka the Malvinas war of British aggression :diablo: 🙂 ) might have been a bit more interesting.

Would/could they have attacked the UK fleet?

Would the Harriers have been able to stop them?

Those papers are certainly interesting (I’ve used some extracts in my new TSR2 book) but they don’t explain the wider picture. In essence, the various evaluations were shaped by other considerations. Most importantly, the desire to become attached to America, and also the question of what purchases the Australian Cabinet would actually sanction. It was quite a complicated business but the interesting aspect is that the long-established notion that Britain simply failed to “sell” TSR2 to Australia (and the wicked Mountbatten’s input, etc.) is in fact nonsense. They had no real intention of buying it in any case.

Okay, this takes us even further away from Vulcans – apologies!

The memo I have seen basically made that point (Wish I could find the blooming thing!)

The RAAF expressed a decided preference for an improved A-5 Vigilante, citing the uncertain technical risks of the still-in-development F-111 compared to the known characteristics of the in-service A-5.

However, the F-111 was chosen in 1963 (mainly on political grounds).

The F-4 was never in the picture of the initial decision… the USAF offered B-47s as the “interim aircraft”, but the RAAF said they weren’t needed, as the F-111 was to be in service before 1970.

The first F-111C was handed over to the RAAF on 4 September 1968, but problems with the wing carry-through box (the advanced wing sweep mechanism) delayed delivery to Australia. After further development and testing, and after much negotiation regarding aircraft fatigue life, the aircraft remained stored at General Dynamics until final acceptance in 1973.

As a result of this unexpected delay, 24 F-4E Phantoms were leased to Australia to provide an interim attack capability.

The report of the RAAF Evaluation Team online here: http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/imagine.asp?B=1533518&I=1&SE=1

The evaluation looked at F-4C & RF-4C, Mirage IVA, RA-5C, TSR.2, and TFX (F-111).

DaveF68, I believe this is what you were referring to? Especially the next-to-last paragraph on page 3.

{edit: my copy of the memo is a larger file size, and enlarges more clearly. PM me if you want me to e-mail it to you}

Would said documents (if they exist) be available under the Freedom of Information Act?

Would there be any documents available to confirm Argentine interest if they approached through the FO?

Good question – one would assume so, but I don’t think anybody has ever bothered looking into the story as it evidently didn’t go anywhere.

So who were those Latin American gentlemen that visited Saints in 1981? and wandered excitedly up and down the line of recently retired and delivered Vulcans parked on the lazy runway? Not sure if the senior RAF escort were there to stop then nicking the aircraft [not locked!] or answer questions. Made for a bit of a diversion on a hot sunny day while skiving for a smoke.

Cheers
Mad Jock

Australia didn’t actually have any serious interest in TSR2 either. After an initial evaluation, their attention shifted to the USA. Many have speculated as to why, and blamed the UK for the way in which TSR2 was handled, or accused the US of underhand sales techniques, and so on. In actual fact, the real reason behind Australia’s preference for F-111 (and the interim F-4) was to simply become politically attached to the US. No matter how good TSR2 (and borrowed Valiants) might have been, Australia had no intention of adopting them.
.

The memo I have seen basically made that point (Wish I could find the blooming thing!)

Would there be any documents available to confirm Argentine interest if they approached through the FO?

As I mentioned previously, the only real link with Australia was during the TSR2 saga and in reality it would probably have been Valiants that would have been sent to Australia in any case, even though some authors have suggested otherwise in the past.

The British Government was slow to make the offer of providing bombers as a stop-gap until TSR2 would be ready, so by the time that they made a serious offer, Australia was no longer interested. The notion that the aircraft would merely be positioned in Australia but flown by the RAF was just adding insult to injury.

Australia didn’t actually have any serious interest in TSR2 either. After an initial evaluation, their attention shifted to the USA. Many have speculated as to why, and blamed the UK for the way in which TSR2 was handled, or accused the US of underhand sales techniques, and so on. In actual fact, the real reason behind Australia’s preference for F-111 (and the interim F-4) was to simply become politically attached to the US. No matter how good TSR2 (and borrowed Valiants) might have been, Australia had no intention of adopting them.

Vulcan’s were obviously familiar sights in Australia though, but only in RAF hands!

Re the Argentine and Vulcans, is there much evidence to support that?

No there isn’t, just a much-reported claim that Argentina did approach the UK Government (Foreign Office) to explore the possibility, but the enquiry was immediately dismissed – allegedly. Personally, I’m not entirely convinced that it actually happened, unless it was actually a very vague suggestion made by Argentine officials who hadn’t even thought-out the practicalities or cost.

Again, very little evidence, and nonsensical as an ELINT platform.

Swedish Vulcans ?? see previous thread

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83787&highlight=swedish+Vulcans