The Rise and Fall of the V Bombers

Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: sponsr.is/mage.... Start your free trial TODAY
In the 1950s and ‘60s, the Royal Air Force’s V-Bomber fleet was the custodian of Britian’s nuclear deterrent. A trio of aircraft, the Vickers Valiant, Handley Page Victor and Avro Vulcan; all these bombers were tasked to deliver nuclear weapons of varying yields to targets in the Soviet Union (USSR).
Should the Third World War have broken out, these aircraft would have flown to their aimpoints in the USSR across what was arguably the most heavily defended airspace in the world. How likely was it that these aircraft would have reached their targets, delivered their nuclear weapons and escape unscathed?
____________________________________
To contact me directly: [e-mail]
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.

[@Dwaynesaviation]

Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: sponsr.is/magellantv_dwaynesaviation. Start your free trial TODAY

[@androidemulator6952]

Handley-Page Victor was always my favorite from childhood plastic models.. still is .. ;)

[@Poorlybobsdad]

The Victor looks great today.

[@level30boss27]

Only time the government said screw it and made the best purchase decision - buying all 3

[@rodpettet2819]

They were urgently needed to fulfil a vital part of the UK's deterrent. So cost was largely irrelevant despite the hard financial times. There were few other options. By the way wasn't the valiant scrapped early because of cracking wing spars?

[@uingaeoc3905]

Cracking caused by changing flight profiles to low level. The delta winged Vulcan had lower stress problems. the Victor was not affected so much as reassigned to tanker duties.

[@JoshJones-37334]

Wings Over the Rockies is a terrific museum. They let me sit in an EB-57 and let me try to fly the Wright Flyer in their simulator. The volunteer curators saw me and my buddy were correctly identifying planes from across the gallery and came over and offered to let us cross the ropes and try the sim. If you ever get a chance to go, make a day of it.

[@alanwilliams9310]

I am surprised that you did not mention the loss of the first Valiant Prototype over Southern England.

[@DavidLee-df888]

First video from your channel that I've watched. Very good.... apart from the fact that it was almost all about the Valiant. I suppose it's fair given that you mentioned the Valiant gets less coverage than it's contemporaries. Not that I'm complaining, the Valiant is an interesting aircraft even if I like the Sci-Fi look of the Victor's cockpit/frontend. Maybe this is a series and the other two will be explored?

[@chorltondragon]

Lovely video. I'm a Vulcan fan since seeing it fly overhead at a local airshow. But I don't know much about the other two. Your video has whetted my appetite to know more. Thank you :)

[@ianallan8005]

I love how you illustrated the “huge British fleets of bombers” with two photos of American bombers. Try harder please

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

Nice footage and graphics. Thanks for video.

[@quannyfourtwo4366]

Vulkan was pretty handy with Falklands raid

[@Sacto1654]

They should have just standardized on one bomber design: the Avro Vulcan. With around 160-180 planes built, the Vulcan could have been perfected to be the RAF's primary nuclear bomber platform, and they could have modernized it with new Rolls-Royce Tay engines, a three-crew digital cockpit, and the ability to carry modern conventional stand-off weapons; such an upgraded Vulcan could still be in RAF service in 2024.

[@Cailus3542]

Didn't the Vulcan have issues with engine maintenance and replacement? I can't remember where I read that, mind you, so I could be wrong. Still, it's one reason why the B-52 has persisted. Besides that, conventional bombers are less useful than they used to be, unless you're the US and you want to throw an obscene amount of money into them.

[@Whiteshirtloosetie]

No they should not have stuck with one design as that makes no logical sense as each one was new technology then. If they had stuck with one design and it failed then the backup would have been the Short Sperrin. If they had to stick with one design then it should have either been the Valiant B2 or the more advanced of the other two which was the Victor. Both Vulcan and Victor designs would have advanced to larger Phase 6 designs regarding Skybolt. So possibly like the B52 continue to develop even maybe still around today. Plus if the foresight was there Valiant B2's possibly also TSR2 to follow later. But suprise, suprise now finding it's a Labour government cancelling not one but both projects. Also the Falklands proved the advantage of both Vulcans and Victors as with refuelling the Vulcan K2 only had one refuelling probe whilst Victors had three. Therefore the Falklands may have been lost to the Junta.

[@uingaeoc3905]

The Victor was easily the most capable of the three V-Bombers. It flew higher, further, faster and carried more than 50% more bombs.

[@andrewwmacfadyen6958]

When the role of the V bombers switched to low level penetration the Victor was less suitable because fatigue life was less than than the Vulcan. The Victor with it's low belly was also less suitable for carrying the Blue Steel missile and wasn't as suitable for the later cancelled Sky Bolt. The tanker Victors operated in the smoother air at higher altitude so were less vulnerable to fatigue also the wings were clipped during conversion to reduce the stress on the wing spars

[@tsr207]

The V force was a remarkable contributing factor to NATO's defence posture in the 60's and 70's. QRA was a way of life for the V force crews which by being ready 24/7 demonstrated the commitment of the RAF and UK government to the security of Europe. A mere 12 minute video of clickbait is an insult to the service these crews gave and needless to say I will not be subscribing.

[@rocksnot952]

Why build one bomber that works, when you can build three?

[@brentsummers7377]

The Valiant did its maiden flight just 10 years after the Lancaster's maiden flight. Such amazing progress in 10 years. Equally amazing that Britain found the money to build the V Bomber force. Guess it was the bank of Harry Truman that made it all possible😂🤣

[@michaelhband]

👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈

[@sergeychmelev5270]

Only the Vulcan was somewhat successful as a bomber. The other two were a waste of money spending just 10 years in service as bombers.

[@Orbital_Inclination]

They weren't a waste of money, the situation just changed after the U-2 incident and we switched to low level, which only the Vulcan could withstand

[@uingaeoc3905]

Sorry - you do not understand what the issues were that led to reassignment. Overall the Victor was the most capable but the the government would not order from small companies only from the merged BAC and HSA.

[@petersmith7126]

Did WW3 break out whilst in service .... Did we have to use them in their nuclear role at all..... Answer is NO...... Outcome Job Completed Successfully

[@johnmorris7815]

“Somewhat successful”? all of them were successful as we didn’t have a nuclear war during their service as our main nuclear deterrent, when the mission changed the only one of the three that could withstand the stresses of low level flying was the Vulcan, it continued on as its mission continued to change even famously making two subsequent successful bombing missions against the USA during Red Flag exercises and completing the longest bombing mission in RAF history during the Black Buck missions to bomb the Falklands during the Argentine occupation. The Victor of course had a long career as a tanker.

[@musicbruv]

Was there a WW3? Was that because we had the flying deterrents? If so, then they were not a waste of money!

[@pedrohpires6608]

They are nuclear bombers if they go to war they fail, they go to war??

[@ZacLowing]

They wanted sci-fi space age looking instead of realistic.

[@gort8203]

What interests me is that Britain was deep in debt after WWII, yet spent money on three airplanes for the same role. In the next decade they would be unwilling/unable to spend money on a single bomber.

[@JSmith19858]

Because there were three small companies that wouldn't work together. When they were all merged into BAC they worked on one project, TSR2, that failed because the original factions wouldn't work together within the merged company

[@gort8203]

@@JSmith19858 Yes, there was a lot of consolidation in the industry after WWII and companies were fighting for their lives. It's fine to either cooperate on a bid, or try to win a bid solo, so I think the government gets the blame for redundantly funding actual production of three different airplanes for the same job.

[@JSmith19858]

@@gort8203 favouring one dooms the other two companies. Which one to do you favour vs the other disappearing in possibly marginal seats. See US procurement now and the reason why the F35 is so overpriced

[@gort8203]

@@JSmith19858 Companies are supposed to go out of business (or merge) when there is not enough business to support them all. That what mergers and acquisitions are for. Also, I doubt the F-35 would have been cheaper if the USAF had decided to also buy the Boeing version of the JSF along with it.

[@JSmith19858]

@@gort8203 you don't understand post war British politics and relationships between Unions and Socialist governments. The price of the F35 inflated as production of components was split across NATO allies, rather than keeping production in the US. It wasn't cheaper to do it, it's just to keep NATO allies sweet