The Short SA.4 Sperrin; Britain’s Back-Up, Back-up Nuclear Bomber

[@markymark3572]

The Vulcan & the Victor still look like they have come out of a sci-fi film

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Agreed.

[@johnp8131]

Worked on both and it was a pleasure. Far more interresting than just replacing stock units on a Tornado.

[@Sacto1654]

The Vulcan especially. The delta-like wing of the Vulcan was a real technological leap forward, though Avro had to redesign the wing twice during the production run. Pity the RAF retired the Vulcan, because if they had rebuilt the cockpit with a modern glass instrument panel and replaced the Olympus turbojets with Tay turbofans, the Vulcan could have lasted in service with the RAF easily into the 21st Century.

[@tyler_bt3326]

@@Sacto1654the engines and controls aren’t the problem with keeping the Vulcan in service. It’s the airframe. The downside to having an aircraft that size yet that manoeuvrable is fatigue. The US can do it with the B-52 because they have so many spare parts, and they can pretty much just bolt a new set of wings on. But replacing the wings on a Vulcan means replacing half the aircraft. Metal fatigue is a real plane killer, and the Vulcans were not built to be robust flying bricks like a B-52. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have seen it. But the work you’d have to put in to make it work would probably end up costing as much as designing a new bomber

[@tyler_bt3326]

@@Sacto1654another point is that strategic bombers like that are just generally outdated. They don’t need to carry nukes anymore, that’s the Vanguard’s job these days. They’re also too big to run bombing missions unless you have complete air superiority. The US have the sheer force to ensure that in a conflict, we do not. A squadron of Tornados is far more effective on a ground attack run than a couple of updated Vulcans would be

[@philjameson292]

The Sperrin looks like a 1930s version of what they thought a jet bomber would look like

[@marinculic976]

that recording you put in at the end is amazing, what a time it was, sitting on a grassy field and 50 m from you a strategic nuclear bomber is landing

[@johnjephcote7636]

Maybe Farnborough (buildings seem familiar) or a press demonstration?

[@petesheppard1709]

Note the shadow; it cleared a one-story house by less than a wingspan as it touched down!

[@goodfes]

It was only in the late 80's that events began to change after unfortunate incidents. Certainly back then you could still get very close to aircraft, F1, Rally cars etc.

[@petervalentine722]

The Sperrin which was used as a test bed for the DH Gyron engines was flown until 1959 when a maximum power measured take-off was being carried out at Hatfield. Max power on the two Gyrons and two Avon's was applied, the brakes released at which point the main wing spar fractured. This ruptured the fuel tanks, fuel poured out, the Sperrin was towed away, parked in the DH Engines hangar and broken up in 1962. I was on the airfield at Hatfield and saw it all happen. Peter Valentine

[@DoktorStrangelove]

Last seven years of my dad’s USAF career were spent in SAC (he was a support officer). We lived at Loring AFB from August ’79-August ’82. The B-52Gs were shocking at first, but familiar when we left. We could hear the engines winding up at all hours from our townhouse a mile and a half from the flight line. What really got me was a few years later outside Offutt AFB when the E-4B flew over and shadowed me while I was mowing the back yard…

[@ChrisHodgsonCorben-Dallas]

This is a real advert for history on this platform. You’d never see this on the BBC, engaging yet without any condescension and on a subject I’d never heard of before. Thanks Ed

[@TheGrant65]

Agreed. At some point around 65 years ago, the news media seemed to become collectively uneasy about discussing the Cold War - perhaps the sheer, destructive power of the weaponry then in development. So the public never really "got" the obsolescence of heavy bombers, as soon as long-range nuclear missiles and SAMs were invented.

[@bigblue6917]

The Valiant was used during the Suez Crisis where the Egyptians used the MiG 17s to try to intercept it. But as the service ceiling for the Valiant was 2,000 feet higher than that of the MiG they never got close.

[@RedXlV]

Back in the days when "just fly higher, LOL" was a valid tactic for a bomber to avoid interception. Unfortunately, missiles would soon put an end to that tactic.

[@Col_K]

I didn't know the RAF operated B-29s. My Dad was a B-29 engine mechanic during the Korean War. I'm sure he would have jumped at a chance to transfer from Fairbanks, Alaska to anywhere in England, had he been given the opportunity.

[@rokuth]

The nose of the Sperrin seems to reflect Short's seaplane heritage.

[@radosaworman7628]

"apparent indiffrence to streamlining" gold

[@onenote6619]

If you think that's bad, take a look at the Martin XB48, which flew a few years earlier. The engine installation in particular had aerodynamic properties described as 'like a brick wall'.

[@fakenorwegian4743]

I caught that too. Funny.

[@unclenogbad1509]

I rather like the look of the Sperrin - sort of a retro-futurist missing link between big props and big jets. Also, I get the feeling that Short's themselves may have had a back-up plan of their own for this back-up of a back-up; in that the design could possibly be adapted into a pretty fair airliner.

[@paulwoodman5131]

What was Short's future after this? I like this plane. Engine pods easy to adapt experimental engines.

[@paulwoodman5131]

It has a flying boat Look to the cockpit and nose. A friendly place to work for the pilots. 😊

[@unclenogbad1509]

@@paulwoodman5131 Yes, I can see that, you're right. Of course, flying boats were what Short's were best known for, so I guess it's the apple not falling far from the tree.

[@onenote6619]

There were quite a few 'prop planes with jet engines' in the late 40s - the B45 Tornado and IL22 being fine examples. And the AJ2 Savage had both.

[@PhantomP63]

The cockpit windows would be at home on a large yacht as well. It’s an elegant look.

[@aaronleverton4221]

"Okay, think of Canberra, yes? Okay, like that, but, you know, more. Like, a lot more. And also four engines." "Can do, Boss!"

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Should have called it the "Vyron" to get a contract... Big plane! The pic with crew showed her size. _Victors always looked like a drawing out of some old "The Future in 2000" books I read as a kid._

[@michaelwright2986]

I saw a Sperrin at Farnborough when I was still in short trousers. It was acting as a testbed for the Gyron: we pronounced the engine's name with an initial affricative, like "gyroscope." The Gyron was going to be the Really Really Big jet, but it never seemed to get anywhere--that would be interesting to hear about. But the Gyron Junior did get some use--Wikipedia tells me it was used in the initial (underpowered) version of the Buccaneer, so not much more successful than big brother. That's a really interesting account. I didn't know that the Valiant was essentially carried on as a private venture. I'd always thought that the Ministry ordered two cutting edge aircraft (which ended up being the most successful and long lasting of the whole set), with the less adventurous Valiant as a safety development. And they ordered the Sperrin, just in case, and then there were four. But the Sperrin as initially intended as a safety net for the two advanced aircraft looks almost rational. Looking back, it looks like the British industry produced a profligate number of prototypes, all competing. I suppose the US produced a lot of different types, some of which failed; but they could afford it. France seemed to manage things with a bit more economy. Although British aviation enthusiasts have nothing but bad to see about the forced amalgamations, something like that was needed for a world where aircraft production was getting more and more capital intensive. When I was at secondary school, the Aviation Club (or whatever we were called) got taken on a Saturday to Hatfield where the Comet was being produced. What we were shown looked like a series of sheds, one with a Comet fuselage in a corner. Memory is highly fallible (I realise I can't by memory locate this visit to before or after the disasters--must have been after, by my age), but the impression I carry with me is that it would all have looked a bit scruffy in the back garden of the bloke next door.

[@johndavey72]

Hi Ed. I knew about the Sperrin and it's demise . It ticked all the boxes , unfortunately Vickers ticked bigger boxes and in record time . The Valiant suffered from terminal structural fatigue very early in it's life brought on by the RAF suddenly deciding they needed a very fast , very low flying aircraft able to penetrate the Soviet Union. The Valiant fitted the bill however, the extra stresses put on the aircraft resulted in it's premature demise . Thanks Ed.

[@michaelw2288]

Looks like box: tick Flies like a box: tick

[@MrDgwphotos]

That requirement for low altitude penetration tactics to penetrate the Soviet Union was (at least for the USAF) the result of the development of the SA-2 and the downing of Francis Gary Powers and his U-2, which meant that high altitude attacks on the Soviet Union were no longer viable. Both the B-58 and B-52 had their attack profiles altered as a result.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

👍Thanks for another great video. Fun fact - the Sperrin was named after the Sperrin Mountain range in Northern Irerland (Sliabh Speirín). The Wiki entry mentions that one reason for delay was that Shorts built production rigs to make the prototypes because they expected a production order to follow.

[@allangibson8494]

The Avro Lincoln could and DID carry a nuclear weapon. Avro Lincoln’s were used to drop test articles in Australia from up to 50,000ft with Python turboprop power plants. The Lincoln’s problem was that it was unpressurised so the aircraft had to be flown with the entire crew in pressure suits for the test operations. The six turboprop Lincolns were scrapped in the late 1950’s.

[@ConnAshby]

Short Bros used Belfast Harbour airport, now Belfast City, as their test airfield, as the factory was situated there. It's amazing to think that a quad jet nuclear bomber used to fly from my tiny local airport😁

[@RubyFox_YT]

I'd pronounce "Gyron" as Jai - ron. It is nice to see that the UK had a back up plan to their back up plan just incase. It was a smart move considering what they were up against and it didn't hurt anything to do it. Except for Short* Smart move.

[@rackstraw]

"Gyron" sounds more like a kaiju than a heraldic term.

[@marcbrasse747]

I concur on the pronunciation. Also seems to be used in older documentaries. 😁

[@marcbrasse747]

@@rackstraw Yeah. Just like that other British kaiju, the griffin / gryphon. I am sure they also stole that from the Japanese. Not! 😁

[@johnp8131]

My father worked for De Havilland for over fifty years from the early thirties and he always pronounced it as you suggest, with a soft G like a J, as in gyroscope. No Idea why they changed it to a name with an alternate pronounciation after the Ghost and Goblin?

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@johnp8131 Knights kill cleanly?

[@nairbvel]

Never heard of this one before, thank you!

[@neilbertuk1]

Never heard of this before. Insanely interesting documentary.

[@tedmustard2798]

The Short Sherpa was donated to Ashley Down Technical College (now UWE) in Bristol. I saw it there on a school visit to the tech in 1964. There was a Short Sperrin lookalike, an Avro Aston, based at the then BAC Filton for, I think, engine development at the same time. I saw it there when visiting the AEF for Chipmunk flights with the CCF. Keep up the good work.

[@wkelly3053]

An example of an advanced technology feature of the Sperrin was its 4000 psi hydraulic system. Most hydraulic systems of the time were designed to be operated at far less pressure, although the more or less standard moving forward would be 3000 psi, which was used in the F-86 Sabre beginning in 1947. Even 3000 psi was a lot in those days. Anyway, I'm not aware of any other airplane that used a 4000 psi system at the time the Sperrin was designed, nor am I sure of the precise reason. Today, some airplanes use 5000 psi systems, give or take. In general, higher pressure allows for smaller components and lighter systems. As to aerodynamics, I actually think the Sperrin was quite a clean looking airplane.

[@HorstMichel-mh7gv]

The Vulcan is still the most elegant looking plain.

[@michaelogden5958]

aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. Good video!

[@militanttriangle2326]

I think so as well.

[@marcbrasse747]

The Valiant was indeed more advanced but it’s service life was cut short by structural problems. One wonders if the Short would also have had such problems.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

I also wondered about this. If the Sperrin had been constructed using flying boat philosophy - strong enough to be thumped about in the sea, maybe it could have been used for low level operations?.. 🤔

[@mountkeen8701]

Interesting story. I've always been fascinated by this aircraft and the contemporary Avro Ashton - both early attempts at large jet aircraft. I hadn't realised that Shorts had effectively been gazumped by Vickers. Thanks for another fascinating video.

[@RobSchofield]

I've always found the Sperrin to be a strangely attractive looking 'plane, with hints of Sunderland and Stirling in the lines. I note you showed (very briefly) the Valiant B2 (the Black Bomber), the faster, strengthened version that Vickers offered in preference for production over the B1, but was ignored by the Ministry and eventually broken up. Subject for another Forgotten? Also, would love to see a story about the Gyron engine family.... Great stuff, keep it up!

[@leighrate]

Personally I think that with a little bit of work it would have made a very effective anti submarine/ anti shipping platform. When you're operating over the North Atlantic simple is good.

[@wkelly3053]

Yes. Carrying on the legacy of the Short flying boats.

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

That picture SB.4 was so striking familiar I knew I saw it somewhere before and then I rememberered it was in a comic I used to read as a kid. I still have it, Dan Cooper's very first album called The Blue Triangle, at least that what it's called translated in English, don't know how popular these were overseas. Thanks for bringing back the nostalgia.

[@hackdaniels7253]

I was very surprised to learn recently that all three V bombers had windows and positions for bomb aimers, who laid down on the floor and used a visual sight exactly like they would have in WW2.

[@janvanhaaster2093]

Yesterday there is now put a movie here on YT " Highlights of Farnborough - 1951 | Shell Historical Film Archive " ; on it you can see also a demo flight there of the Short Sperrin AND the Vickers Valiant !

[@crudbasher72]

I really enjoy your series on obscure aircraft. Well done Ed.

[@ravenclaw8975]

Another great video sir, as usual. The Sperrin looks like a bad kitbash with a post-war plane glued to an early WW2 design (Short Sunderland obviously) Thank you.

[@markxfarmer6830]

Nicely done, as usual. Keep up the good work.

[@johnjephcote7636]

Growing up in the 1950s and being very air-minded, and close to the DH and Handley Page factories, I nevertheless was unaware until the following decade, of the Sperrin. It was in none of the publications that I read.

[@fakenorwegian4743]

I always loved the look of this plane. It's so unusual. British aircraft design always had a unique quality to it.

[@ptonpc]

I liked the slab sided look.

[@davidg3944]

Thanks, Ed - another interesting video on an aircraft I knew nothing about.

[@patrickcosgrove2623]

Simple in style. Engines stand out though. To be honest I haven't heard of this aircraft before. Did find it interesting. Thanks for sharing 👍😊

[@walterpleyer261]

With a slightly wider fuselage it would have been a decent jet airliner by the standards of the time

[@andrewdunn9220]

Interesting design --- but the layout of those double engine pods have me wondering if the aircrew were in greater risk of being deafened!

[@donjones4719]

1:07 I truly wonder if the Victor's look was inspired by 1930s sci-fi illustrations. It may have simply followed where the aerodynamics led - but the other V-bombers came up with different aerodynamic shapes that worked well. Anyway, I love it.

[@markweitzman4943]

Great video. Hadn't heard of this aircraft before. Cheers from SoCal.

[@fredericksaxton3991]

Thank you. Excellent video. 🙂

[@finlayfraser9952]

Great stuff Ed!

[@fungibleunit4477]

The ex-DH technician I knew (he worked on Mosquitos at first and eventually retired an electrical fitter for engine nacelles @ Rolls-Royce) pronounced like Gyron like "Giro". It had a lot "not right" with it. :P

[@andywells397]

Excellent vid..good research, fuselage looks very much like a b52 especially forward from the wings

[@yes_head]

Nice one, Ed. Although it would have been nice to know what happened with the Gyron engine, since as far as I know it never went into production.

[@goodfes]

another great video Ed, an aircraft I know little about, thanks!

[@johnjephcote7636]

I was aware from an early age of the Tudor that had been given underslung pods of Nene engines. The Avro 'Ashton' was used for research and it looked very attractive from the front quarter (though I hated the Tudor rear fuselage 'design').

[@glennpettersson9002]

I wonder if the Shackleton crews would look at the Sperrin and think, if only 🫤

[@michaelkinsey4649]

"The Lincoln could not carry a nuclear weapon" More accurate to say "it couldn't readily have carried the UK weapon then in development ie Blue Danube, and clearly jets were the way to go" Bombload of Lincoln and Lanc circa 10,000 lbs, ie Grand Slam. Blue Danube weighed 10,000 lbs If Silver Link (ie enlarged bomb bay removing the main spar obstruction) B29s had not been ready, Lancs were apparently earmarked to bomb Japan. So..... it could probably have been done with a Lincoln. Main stumbling block would have been the fatter girth of Blue Danube rather than it's weight?

[@irvan36mm]

Back then, the nukes were almost as big as the aircraft that were to deliver them

[@MImlac]

Love the postwar jets. That was my grandfather's epoch -- after serving in WW2 he flew fighters in the 1950s and '60s for the USAF.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, Ed...👍

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I think the nose looks a little off but those four engines in that configuration is pretty original and really adds some personality to the plane.

[@bpora01]

So weird to see B-29s with british livery.

[@oldesertguy9616]

I had never heard of British B-29s.

[@carlj4546]

@@oldesertguy9616 were they actually B50s?

[@oldesertguy9616]

@carlj4546 he said B-29, but B-50 would make sense. I had forgot about the B-50.

[@georgebarnes8163]

@@carlj4546 No, they were B-29, the British called them the Washington B1

[@brianwillson9567]

The valiant was a perfectly adequate back up to the more advanced vulcan and victor. The sperrin was an employment exercise to keep shorts in work.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Another ace video, and on a plane I have never heard of either. Those stacked engine pods look very unusual, especially the ones which have different engines top and bottom! Were there any precedents or subsequent designs that use this vertical stack? Cheers Ed!

[@ioogy]

Might this just be considered Art Deco? I could definitely imagine Howard Hughes taking that for a spin!

[@paulqueripel3493]

The Valiant B2 was almost different enough to be a 5th bomber.

[@999theeagle]

I can see where the show The Thunderbirds got there plane ideas! They look great.

[@malcolmtaylor518]

Good footage, new to me.

[@gort8203]

Looks as if they took a design for a propeller airplane and just stuck turbojets in the nacelles. These nacelles looked to the past instead of the future, in contrast to the pylons of the Boeing B-47 which were the way of the future for large subsonic jets.

[@JGCR59]

With that deep flying boat like fuselage, I wonder if it could have been turned into a jet transport

[@mattheweagles5123]

Another one I hadn't realised existed!

[@georgebarnes8163]

All three of the V bombers had wings based on the experimental aircraft manufactured by short Bros in their SC1 and SB4 aircraft, so in a way Short Bros had a hand in all four aircraft.

[@Farweasel]

Damn great BUFF of an aeroplane like the Sperrin *And no more than a handful even amongst the enthusiasts here have heard of it before* ! Seems to have been named after some Mountains in Northern Ireland no one outside there's heard of either 😋

[@grahamcook9289]

I think the Sperrin would have made a great transport aircraft, or even commercial airliner. Strange engine configuration though, given that access to the Arado Ar234 designs which had a better underwing 2 and 4 engine configuration, although not underslung with a pylon.

[@billwill7383]

Good looking plane.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The Manchester and the HP.56/HP.57 Halifax were MEDIUM bombers not heavy bombers (Air Ministry Specification P.13/36) . The only heavy bomber the RAF had ordered in the mid-1930s was the Stirling (Air Ministry Specification B.12/36). The letter P in the Specification identifies a medium bomber whilst a heavy bomber was indicated by the letter B.

[@anthonylewis679]

I never would have considered a big 4 engined bomber as "medium", but, i`m no aviation expert 🙂

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@anthonylewis679 just like with tanks, the word medium shifts about a bit with no clear definition. When it comes to bombers, the Lancaster is a heavy bomber, but so is the B-17, but the specification that led to the Lancaster was for a medium bomber.

[@hertzair1186]

Always liked the unique look of the Sperrin…waiting for some Ukrainian model kit mfg to make one …

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this and new to me👍✈️

[@philjameson292]

The black Valiant is the updated low level intruder version that was prototyped but not produced I think that it makes the Valiant look pretty mean

[@avus-kw2f213]

Very cool design

[@brucemitch928]

The Valiant is such a clean timeless looking aircraft.

[@spamcan61]

It is in many ways my favourite V bomber, so sleek. The second prototype disintegrated mid air and crashed into some woods near where I now live. After things had cooled down the local Boy Scouts were sent into the woods to search out pieces of wreckage, can't quite imagine that happening now lol.

[@whtalt92]

Remarkable how similar the tail of the Sperrin looks to the L-188 & P-3...

[@Ob1sdarkside]

A plane that sort of looks like the future, but from people that couldn't commit to going all in

[@revenvrake7412]

I wonder how that Brute would have done if it had also been considered for the low altitude attack role 🤔

[@oml81mm]

Although it was not mentioned in the narrative, there were a few photos of the Vickers Valiant Mk2 (the black aeroplane with the very prominent pods for the main undercarriage to retract Into). This was designed for low level work, but was deemed to be unnecessary. It could never have been forseen at the time but this might just have been the best V bomber of them all.

[@rovercoupe7104]

Short Bros is my favourite aerospace firm. M

[@douglasthecorgi2568]

I’d love to see an alternate history where these were designed a few years earlier and went up against ME-262s.

[@discount8508]

like the stirling and sunderland it was still capable

[@alan-sk7ky]

Stirling was a bit crap frankly, overly large fuselage ie; heavy and a wing limited to 99ft span as per the airstaff requirement it was designed to meet. made a passable glider tug and equipment dropper because of the long bomb bay.

[@georgebarnes8163]

@@alan-sk7ky as capable as the Lancaster even with its clipped wings and underpowered engines.

[@comradeiosif2794]

Have you covered the B-45 Tornado? It seems like the Sperrin and Tornado are contemporaries.

[@FirstLast_Nba]

I'm amazed I've never heard about any of this before.

[@il6993]

I think you'll find Gyron is pronounced "Gyron". I hope this helped.

[@wintersbattleofbands1144]

😅

[@teslashark]

Imagine this thing having a sea version, a new Sunderland!

[@demonicsquid7217]

No chance, the engines placement isn't suited for seaborne ops.

[@paulwoodman5131]

Great Experimental plane ready to be developed into just about anything. The United States would have had more work & money for it. But they had their own transitional bombers, B-47, B-51. Want to hear more about the B-51.

[@TheOsfania]

7:39 Any fan of Mid-Mod would be a fan of this type.

[@hackdaniels7253]

1:03 the only Valiant mark 2. Wonder if it had stronger spars.

[@javiergilvidal1558]

VERY much stronger spars, designed from the outset to fly low. Those ultra-smart, futuristic pointed pods at the trailing edges were intended to house the main undercarriage, which retracted backwards, in order to clear the wing for another spar of a much beefier consistence. The B2 would have succedded where the Mk 1 failed -or, rather, could not cope with flying in conditions it had never been designed for.

[@brianwillson9567]

​@javiergilvidal1558 you beat me to this answer. A much 'beefier' aircraft, but deemed unnecessary as an interdictor.

[@javiergilvidal1558]

@@brianwillson9567 It was not much 'beefier', but much beefier. And not an interdictor, but a strategic bomber. It was not deemed unnecesary but too expensive, and the British did not expect the Soviets to develop radar as fast as they did, making high altitude bombing too risky. When the B2 was cancelled, the Brits still hoped to be able to attack from high altitudes for a long enough time to develop Vulcan and Victor

[@larry648]

Well, we (the U.S.) put the B-45 into production for the same reason.

[@radiosnail]

I read once an author saying it wud have been good to give the RAF several hundred Sperrins while perfecting the Victor and Vulcan. Looks like they almost just used a Stirling fuselage hey had lying around the factory.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

ah the old RAF mantra - "the bomber will always get though". eeesh. the deep strike and no where near the target missions of the RAF!

[@davidjones332]

The phrase "the bomber will always get through" had absolutely nothing to do with the RAF. It came from a speech by the then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who was making the point in 1934 that in any future war, civilians would not be immune from airborne attack. Nobody ever suggested that meant that bombers were immune from interception.

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

Mr. Ed Nash, how did the Sperrin compare with the North American B-45 ? Btw, have you made a video on the B-45 ? It seemed that its service time was rather short. As you said, that was the time of ww2 vintage designs with jet engines stuck on them.

[@CounterClaws]

I really like the look of the nacelles

[@drstevenrey]

The Valiant was the only one of the trio that would have been halfway usable as a civil airliner. The other two were just too bonkers. On looks alone, the Sperrin takes the prize. Mad but reasonable.

[@Jim-ic2of]

Handsome aircraft . Good for camping .😊

[@PhantomLover007]

Never understood the different sizes of engine pods/cowlings. If all the engines were the same.

[@wkelly3053]

Why do some sources say "Shorts" in instead of Short?

[@aac7183]

From Shorts Brothers

[@kenmccormick8059]

The full name of the manufacturing company was 'Short Brothers and Harland', often abbreviated to Shorts.

[@bensmith7536]

Ive been an aviation nut since childhood, my first word was "plane". How do you find these designs??? I thought I knew boats. Seems theres more to discover.

[@williamzk9083]

Russia in 2022 has proven yet again how important Britain's nuclear deterrence was. Thank you Britain.

[@ThePlayerOfGames]

Lol. Putin threatened nuclear war over Western intervention in Ukraine and everyone's balls shrivelled up instantly 😂

[@skylongskylong1982]

Boys, and Girls, the U.K. is the only present nuclear power that does not have the capability to drop free fall nuclear bombs. That’s right every other nuclear nation from Pakistan to USA has this capability, today.

[@forcea1454]

France doesn't either, they have air launched cruise missiles.

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

Mr. Ed Nash, I beg to differ with you on the British streamlined look ! Every British plane design has this unique British streamlining not seen anywhere else ! Viz the Fairey Fd-2