Shipbucket

I have a FD design challenge if anybody is interested.

Following the retirement of the RAF’s so-called V bombers, the Victor, Valiant and Vulcan (that were so fundamentally different from anything that had gone before), what would have happened had the British Government decided to invest heavily on a replacement Strategic Bomber

The US has the B52 Stratofortress, The B1 Lancer, the B2 Spirit… When the UK had always been at the forefront of Aircraft design and development, what might this new Aircraft have looked like, and how would it have changed or even itself been replaced in a modern day RAF

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

Are there any other requirements to this bombers? Like max load, range, number of engines, crew, electronics and so on? I'm interested in this challenge but im not well informed about the british bombers in the past and their requirements

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~

Everything depends here on one question that has not been mentioned in Your challenge: in this timeline is Skybolt cancelled or not?
Now, Hood or Blackbuck may correct me if I'm wrong (quite likely I am ), but if it is not cancelled, then Vulcan becomes updated to B.3 standard and
VC.10 is being built in missile-carrier version. I guess these airframes could serve until around 1980s - perhaps with Skybolt's being either heavily upgraded or replaced by something new. And by mid-to-late 1980s probably the cheapest option available would be probably B-1 Lancer - after all, if USA could sell UK Polaris and Trident (in real life) then selling B-1 becomes IMHO not unthinkable.

In answer to both queries, the answer is that there are NO prerequisites, other than as has until recently, the British MOD has always tried to buy British. Not only to safeguard British jobs, but also to retain control of the intellectual property and to stop the proliferation of advanced combat machines, equipment and software from getting into the hands of their potential competition and to minimise any increase in the threat risk.

The UK has always had a very vibrant Arms industry, where innovation has always led the way. That was until of course the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, after which time as far as I’m aware, the UK ceased to invest heavily into future proofing the British Armed Forces. Bit by bit funding has been reduced and projects cancelled, forcing Governments of all persuasion in to panic buying off-the-shelf kit when they suddenly realise there’s a shortfall.

So, Imagination and Innovation…. It can be old kit that’s been constantly upgraded to meet requirements (longer range, increased speed and payload – including the carrying of nuclear weapons) or brand new, cutting edge stealth designs.

Intercontinental Range is a given, with an absolute minimum range of transatlantic and back again, preferably on one tank of fuel. And the aircraft should be British, or at least possess British Engines and electronics, although if new, then feel free to make it up as you go along

Good luck, and happy flying

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

This sounds interesting.

So we want to stay British then let's forget sky bolt, a replacement for blue steel would be needed of totally British design. You'd be looking at entry into service when? Mid to late 1970's.

we'd need a forward thinking and pro active government so...... TSR 2 would go ahead for both recon and as a tactical bomber then your looking at a strategic bomber.

Swing wings were in fashion or coming, fast and low level would be key, it would still be aimed at the Soviet Union and the Sam defences were ever increasing against medium and high altitude bombers.

I think even a British plane designed at this time may resemble the soon to arrive B1 and Russian Black jack. Weapons would be a standoff missile with possibly a warhead derived from the WE177. Free fall would by this time be out of the question on all but tactical strike aircraft and then in low level toss bombing attacks using lower yield weapons.

I don't see a true strategic bomber arising after the Vs but a quasi-strategic aircraft, possibly even jointly developed with the French as an early Mirage IV replacement, something in the realm of an FB-111H or the like, able to penetrate at low level, deliver buckets of instant sunshine either via free-fall or propelled methods and return (hopefully) home.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

I think what bb wrote make more sense because you can use such a plane (may sth. like Su 34 or F 111) for more tasks than just carry bombs...
If we look on what shippy wrote the bomber design would be quite similar to the B1 so it would be senseless to develop an own plane when on fitting to the tasks is available...

So it would be the best to use a plane with 2 engines, 2 crew members (sitting side by side). I think a similar concept to the f111 would be realistic because I don’t think the British would use a Russian concept…

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~

Like Blackbuck, I don't see a need for "true strategic" range, that "range of transatlantic and back again, preferably on one tank of fuel". After all, the most important targets would be on this side of the Atlantic.
So, assuming the service entry at around 1975, and with no Skybolt as Shippy2013 wants (which means that probably X.12 Pandora would be in use since mid-to-late 1960s - and that was a HUGE missile) it raises question of the main armament - Upgraded Pandora, later replaced by smaller ALCM-like missiles?
Anyway, all ideas written above lead me to something like oversized, swing-wing TSR.2, possibly with F-111 cockpit (maybe even Su-34-like - with "social area" behind), likely with bomb bay, but with really big stuff (like Pandora, again) carried under wings.

The reason for the range requirement is because although the Soviets were the biggest threat to world peace and security from the British perspective, throughout the 50's, 60's, 70,s 80's, 90's and 00's, oh, and the 10's of course, Britain has always been fighting somewhere in the world.... the Malay Crisis, the Mau Mau's in Kenya, the Suez Crisis, Aden, Falklands, Iraq, to name but a few.... plus wars the British may wish to have been involved in, had they the kit, such as long range strategic bombers.... So the requirements have always been there from a military point of view, but the Treasury has always been the obstacle facing the British Armed Forces. But that's a whole different barrel of fish.

_________________
https://discord.gg/5PHq8Dk
My artwork is posted here: https://www.deviantart.com/adenandy/gallery/all

One thing your forgetting when it comes to range requirements is, in at least the early time frame of this aircrafts entry into service Britain still has basing options in many strategic places globally meaning the truly vast ranges of the B52 and alike although desirable aren't as important as an aircrafts survivability and weapons carriage. Britain in the 60's still had basing options in the Western and Eastern Med, Middle East, Far East, Australia etc....

I'm swinging towards eswube's idea of maybe an oversized swing wing TSR 2 type aircraft as aposed to a true strategic bomber.