My question of this forum is –
– Of the Avro Vulcan and Boeing B-47 Stratojet, which would have been the more
capable design to have served the RAAF?
– Of the Vulcan and the B-47, which bomber would have been more suited to modifications and upgrades?
– Of the Vulcan and the B-47, which design would have been better suited and
capable (structural!) to endure the change to low-altitude penetration missions
with the advent of the likes of the Soviet SA-2 ‘Guideline SAM?
– Possibly the largest consideration to a small air force, such as the RAAF, which
would have been the most cost effective to both purchase and operate? Does anyone have cost figures of the B-47?
Let me try my best at these. My answers are my opinions, not fact.
1. More capable? Avro Vulcan. The two aircraft would have been closely matched in pure performance figures (speed, range, etc), with the Vulcan holding a slight edge in most categories, but realistically the Vulcan would be a good deal more capable. It could fly further, fly faster, fly much higher, and do all while carrying more.
2. More suited to modifications and upgrades? Depends. The B-47 was more versatile in its career, having a good deal more variants. Its relatively short service life compared to the Vulcan, however, meant that the Vulcan was upgraded more. Black Buck showed how easily modified and versatile the Vulcan could be. The B-47 would be easier to re-engine, but the Vulcan didn’t need re-engined.
3. Better low-level penetrator? Avro Vulcan. The Vulcan did it better and did it longer. The B-47 wasn’t bad at it by any means, but it took its toll on the aircraft, which wasn’t designed for that sort of abuse in the least bit.
4. Most cost-effective? B-47. The unit cost (new) of the B-47 was about half (at worst) that of the Vulcan and about a third (at best) that of the Vulcan. If we’re talking surplus and/or slightly used, I’d not be surprised if the Aussies could have gotten 40 B-47s for a tenth the price of the same number of Vulcans. The US was giving away all sorts of planes at that point in the Cold War. There were no surplus Vulcans at this point (there were probably never 40 surplus Vulcans in all of the Cold War), so the RAAF would be getting these from the factory–new–and would be paying for it. The Vulcans also needed 5 crew to the B-47s 3 crewmen.
In all honesty, I think the B-47s would be all Australia needed. They didn’t have nuclear weapons and never got them, so it’s unlikely that Vulcans or B-47s would be dropping anything but conventional and practice bombs. Both aircraft had the range to accomplish conventional bombing or maritime patrol (if properly configured).
B-47s could even have been re-engined with Avons for a bit of fleet commonality with the CAC Sabres (the F-86 shared the same engine as the B-47), although there would be additional cost involved with that.
As long as they weren’t busy collecting foliage from treetops in New Guinea and Indonesia their whole careers, RAAF B-47s could have served well into the 70s, at least until F-111 replacements could be acquired.
Both aircraft were capable, versatile, tough aircraft that would have served well. The Vulcan would have been the better of the two but would surely have cost at least 3 times what the B-47 would have over its lifespan. Would it have been worth it? Without the nuclear mission, probably not, but we’ll never know either way. It’s a what-if no matter which way you slice it.
Logan Hartke
Sign In
