The Vulcan Howl

XH558 displaying at the Abingdon Air Show, 8/5/11

[@Mercmad]

i saw a Vulcan do a really low fly past in 1964! when they opened the Mangere Airport in Auckland New Zealand . Truly fantastic and a well named aircraft

[@neiltay2002]

Good stuff! Seen the Vulcan a few times, always found the 'howl' more terrifying than the pure volume of the beast.

[@michaelwthalman]

I remember seeing those flying out of Offutt AFB Nebraska all the time back in the 70's and early 80's. They where very impressive and smokey!!!!

[@brucesmith484]

You're right....bring the Vulcan's back.

[@dragonbutt]

Best sounding use of 90% power ever.

[@thatman64]

What's not to love? I know I might seem old when I write this, I'm really not; but newer isn't always better, and I think many old aircraft have been replaced out of industrial necessity, rather than military incapability, that could, If upgraded, be brought back to wreak havoc and re-ignite British industry. I can't believe I've written this much, but it'll save me from having to write my thoughts out on the matter again, and maybe somebody can get some enlightenment from it. Or something...

[@Nexus0809]

I went to RAF cosford 2013 airshow and I'm pretty sure the commentator said EXACTLY those words!

[@iiTzTayTay]

I think there's only one left in the world that flies...

[@ToonandBBfan]

I dont agree with bringing them back for a nuclear role but in the conventional role they would be quite good. Think how many cruise missiles or Small diameter bombs a Vulcan could carry!

[@Grahamgusbull]

Some howls aren't ......that definately WAS!

[@DoctorPossum]

You're right, XH558 is the last one in airworthy condition.

[@thatman64]

We SHOULD bring them back. Like most British built aircraft, it ended due to politics rather than reaching the end of it's usefulness. There are hundreds of examples of this. Had Britain's politicians had the integrity to uphold British pride, rather than buy american (or dream of american toys in place of British- TSR2/F111) We could have had a thriving Aviation sector. Strategic bombers are much more versatile than a nuclear sub, and a lot cheaper too. The Vulcan still had decades left.

[@donkiddick12]

That is so true,but then again thats Britain for you.

[@1chish]

An American B52 crew member asked my mate who was in ground crew on V bombers if they flew high to avoid Russian radar. My mate said yeah they can ceiling at whatever it was (higher than a B52 and the guy was impressed. Then my mate said 'Of course we don't fly high its too risky. We fly under their radar...'

[@MsBeryl6]

SAD TO HEAR THAT THE AVRO VULCAN WILL BE PUT INTO RETIREMENT AT THE END OF 2013. PLEASE, PLEASE IF THERE IS SOMEONE OUT THERE WITH MONEY TO SPARE, HELP KEEP THIS WONDERFUL PLANE IN THE AIR. IF ALL THE MILLIONAIRES GOT TOGETHER, THEY COULD KEEP IT FLYING.

[@jordandwilliams91]

yeah i dont disagree with you, i think we should bring them back but you're forgetting we already have a thriving aviation sector. we just share it with other european countries. we still help make some great aircraft.

[@ToonandBBfan]

As much as I love the Vulcan I cant agree with you. A nuclear sub could loiter anywhere in the ocean for weeks on end waiting to unleash its doomsday arsenal. A Vulcan has limited range and speed and can be picked up on radar, not to mention that even in 1982 the Vulcans avionic equipment was pretty much an antique. Then theres the issue of what happens if an aircraft crashes over another country whilst carrying a nuke. Air-launched nukes dont have the range of sea launched nukes either

[@thatman64]

Big advantage of being able to fly commercial routes, using civil navaids. Try disguising an ICBM as a 747. This means you can launch a mission early, with lots of time to abort, but the target doesn't realise til it's too late. You have a cheap enough multi-purpose weapon that is useful in peacetime. You don't scare non-target nations by launching nukes that they think are targeting them. You give the public better airshows.

[@ToonandBBfan]

Well, I suppose France has an air launched standoff nuke missle (launched from a special variant of the Mirage 2000). Vulcan would fly further and carry more than a Mirage 2000 can. Thanks

[@thatman64]

with either of those countries would bring the US in and, again, any amount of nukes we bring would be negligible in comparison. We also have to consider what less capable states might have the ability and will to attack us. Countries that would not see the US dragged into the fight. Unlikely. But I believe in a nation being able to protect itself. An improved Vulcan would allow us to fight these fights 'cost effectively', through a tested platform, without the expensive ground-up...

[@tboltjohn]

Live long...and deaf.

[@jeffjn]

The one in Canada flies? I don't think so :-)

[@thatman64]

I want to clarify my reply. I think they would be brilliant in the nuclear deterrent role. You may be thinking of the 50's when bombers would be dropping dumb nuclear bombs, where I am advocating the use of standoff nuclear weapons. Like your cruise missiles they wouldn't need to get far into deadly airspace to drop their weapons. They most likely wouldn't survive deep inside these days. Britain, in this cheapo, cost cutting age, cannot afford realistically to have a nuclear deterrent based...

[@grahammosdall5442]

@tykelad101, I totally agree with you

[@thatman64]

solely around a submarine, who's sole aim in life is to never fire it's weapons. If the military was more central to Government's heart, with increased spending, it would be another matter. A much better proposal, considering the likelihood of ever using it, is to have a multi-purpose platform; a heavy bomber with long loiter time in a conventional (secondary) role, for more economical use in places like Afghanistan, much the same as B1s do for the USA right now. The Primary mission for these...

[@christianlebordelais]

Belle prise

[@hughgordon6435]

What actually is the cause of the howl?

[@thatman64]

planes would be to provide a credible deterrent to any country that has nuclear weapons, and would threaten the UK with them. These countries have to be taken on their own merits. Russia, China...Both have masses of nukes, and the ability to deploy them in such great numbers that ANY amount Britain could realistically return would be negligible, and not much of a reason for either country to refrain from attacking us if they wanted to. God knows why they would. Let's not forget that any fight...

[@thatman64]

development work associated with current next generation planes *cough* F35, this would give us fresh aircraft for another 20 years rather than buy half-lifed surplus B1's etc. Another bonus, the cynic in me says, is the time between go orders and missile away is a lot longer than an ICBM. I wouldn't trust cameron to cross the street without second guessing himself. Imagine that with a nuke. The plane would give him more time to abort a preemptive strike for example. Aircraft also have the...

[@srm113k]

Made in Staines

[@stubbostubbs]

Er Putins crew perhaps??

[@jeffjn]

Made in Russia? Made in the UK you mean.

[@molsmith]

I agree to. I am near Abingdon an saw this aircraft - brilliant. When we built things, they were done properly. This, and previous governments have let down the name and history of the Brish People. Where is our industry now... nowhere! mol