the vulcans to the falklands

[fortune]

How did a limited number of Vulcans get to the falkland Islands and back?
Simply by refueling vulcans with vulcans
how is that possible?
circular yes?
they refueled themselves all the way to the falklands and back with only a few USAF tankers in the sky... not enough to to do it with tankers alone

One of the most misunderstood logistics of modern warfare in the air is range vs load

read: Vulcan Boys by Tony Blackman

not until you do will you realize how far ahead of the world we are in USN carrier based refueling drones

but admit it... you dont know much

and really dont want to

 

[Crovax]

 

[Grand Mal]

How did a limited number of Vulcans get to the falkland Islands and back?
Simply by refueling vulcans with vulcans
how is that possible?
circular yes?
they refueled themselves all the way to the falklands and back with only a few USAF tankers in the sky... not enough to to do it with tankers alone

One of the most misunderstood logistics of modern warfare in the air is range vs load

read: Vulcan Boys by Tony Blackman

not until you do will you realize how far ahead of the world we are in USN carrier based refueling drones

but admit it... you dont know much

and really dont want to

Arggh?

 

[Oozlefinch]

 

[Questerr]

 

[tacomancer]

How did a limited number of Vulcans get to the falkland Islands and back?
Simply by refueling vulcans with vulcans
how is that possible?
circular yes?
they refueled themselves all the way to the falklands and back with only a few USAF tankers in the sky... not enough to to do it with tankers alone

One of the most misunderstood logistics of modern warfare in the air is range vs load

read: Vulcan Boys by Tony Blackman

not until you do will you realize how far ahead of the world we are in USN carrier based refueling drones

but admit it... you dont know much

and really dont want to

If they have a warp drive, surely they can cross a bit of ocean.

 

[Oozlefinch]

they refueled themselves all the way to the falklands and back with only a few USAF tankers in the sky... not enough to to do it with tankers alone

Oh, and fact error here. They never used US tankers to do that mission. All refueling was done by other Vulcans configured as tankers.

Now it is true that the US did replace the tankers typically in the air on regular missions so that the Vulcans could be retasked to that mission. But the mission itself used only UK assets.

Then the moving to drone tankers. No idea where you are even trying to go with this, but whatever.

 

[Peter]

The V-Force bombers were indeed amazing for the time.
The Vulcans also managed to nuclear bomb the US twice in the largest ever wargames and the US airforce were amazed.



It's not always simply about throwing money at the military sometimes companies can just make great aircraft and at that time we had 3 of them.
It also helps that they all looked wonderfully futuristic.

 

[Questerr]

Oh, and fact error here. They never used US tankers to do that mission. All refueling was done by other Vulcans configured as tankers.

Now it is true that the US did replace the tankers typically in the air on regular missions so that the Vulcans could be retasked to that mission. But the mission itself used only UK assets.

Then the moving to drone tankers. No idea where you are even trying to go with this, but whatever.

The tankers were Victors. Not Vulcans.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The tankers were Victors. Not Vulcans.

Yes, but the point is that the USAF did not do the refueling. All they did was take over the normal refueling for the RAF so they could dedicate them all to this mission.

 

[fortune]

The V-Force bombers were indeed amazing for the time.
The Vulcans also managed to nuclear bomb the US twice in the largest ever wargames and the US airforce were amazed.



It's not always simply about throwing money at the military sometimes companies can just make great aircraft and at that time we had 3 of them.
It also helps that they all looked wonderfully futuristic.

The challenge that the brits put on display was to use 12 Vulcans to refuel the leader which was carrying tons of munitions and thereby very little fuel.
Watch the animation or click the story here

So when you see all the work going into flat tip refueling drones you get a better feel for how they are planed to be used in the Pacific.

Some of the above posters are typical of todays military who are unable to comprehend things without propellers. That is why we put them out in the sand.

 

[Oozlefinch]

So when you see all the work going into flat tip refueling drones you get a better feel for how they are planed to be used in the Pacific.

To be honest, I think refueling drones is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard of. Especially for the Navy.

An MQ-25 is almost the same size as an F-18, and with only 2 hard points is absolutely worthless for anything other than refueling. At least an F-18 with buddy tanks can still do other missions, just detach the buddy tanks and they are an F-18 ready for combat again. The MQ-25 would be taking up room in the hangar bay and flight deck, and it can do nothing else but refuel.

Why so many people think drones are the solution to everything, I have no idea. Especially as we have already seen how effective they are in a high-ECM environment.

In other words, damned near worthless.

 

[fortune]

So come back all yee so ill-read as to not recognize the Roman god of fire, "vulcan" as the the name applied by Avro Aviation to the flying aircraft herein described and one used so brilliantly by the Royal Air Force to send the ultimate message to the Argentinians from the Queen of England via Prime Minister Marguerite Thatcher "DON'T STEP ON ME" AND NOT the racial moniker for Capt Spock

I came here to help you understand who and what your military and our research are designing and building for your safety even though it makes you uncomfortable in your hideous ignorance. It does I know. You hate me... you need to hate me for rubbing your Patriot Missile command face into the sand.

Next lessons coming up
1) what does density altitude have to do with India's defense against China?
2) why is India deathly afraid to purhcas American weapons?
3) what is the major program DARPA has going on for the United States Army right now? (it is really really big)

I am fully sure you will offer nothing in response but you know I will teach you no matter what you want to learn.

50 years in military aerospace gives me a step up, assholes.

 

[Dayton3]

The Vulcans were refueled by Victor tankers which were refueled by other Victor tankers en route.

 

[fortune]

The Vulcans were refueled by Victor tankers which were refueled by other Victor tankers en route.

jup
missed that
I think one or two other vulcans could have been rifted for fuel in bomb bay
I';;; have to read it again

thanks

 

[Oozlefinch]

So come back all yee so ill-read as to not recognize the Roman god of fire, "vulcan" as the the name applied by Avro Aviation to the flying aircraft herein described and one used so brilliantly by the Royal Air Force to send the ultimate message to the Argentinians from the Queen of England via Prime Minister Marguerite Thatcher "DON'T STEP ON ME" AND NOT the racial moniker for Capt Spock

I came here to help you understand who and what your military and our research are designing and building for your safety even though it makes you uncomfortable in your hideous ignorance. It does I know. You hate me... you need to hate me for rubbing your Patriot Missile command face into the sand.

And of course the utter humiliation as what was seen as one of the finest Navy's in the world lost a lot of their prime ships to a third world country. Who since then has still not learned that ski-jump carriers are not a good replacement for full CATOBAR carriers. And literally lost a destroyer and 2 frigates (and had 8 other ships damaged) to 1950's era light attack aircraft lobbing dumb bombs.

The thing is, I actually remember this war quite clearly. It was actually at the time I met my wife, who was born and raised in Argentina. And I have studied it intensively since then, as it was a great example of how a "Third World Nation" could humble a First World Nation. And the sad thing is that even 4 decades later, the UK has not realized their deficiencies and has done little to correct them. So if it is repeated, the results will likely be largely the same.

But trust me, I have no interest in your laughable concepts of our "military and our research". Your insults as always simply are ignored, as you have no idea what you are really talking about. But you give yourself far too much credit. I do not hate you, I laugh at you. Just another ignorant millennial who is whining because others do not fawn to your obvious "superiority".

 

[Oozlefinch]

The Vulcans were refueled by Victor tankers which were refueled by other Victor tankers en route.

And I admit I did blow that, as I was working off of memory. And both start with "V" so it was an easy mistake.

But I knew they were fueled with other RAF aircraft, not US ones like the OP tried to say. The US had no assets involved in that fight, and as being neutral they could not get involved even logistically. That conflict for the US was rather tricky, as while the US is a strong ally of the UK, it also tread closely along the Monroe Doctrine, as well as with other alliances in the area. If the US had actually gotten involved with assets, then Argentina could have likely gotten other nations to support them just to spite the US.

Not that even if the MQ-25 existed at the time it could have done that mission. Because the MQ-25 is a CATOBAR drone. And the UK carriers are not CATOBAR equipped. So in the event of a "Falklands II", the RN could not use the MQ-25. So they literally would have to do the same thing they did 40 years ago.

Then again, as the UK retired their last bombers over a decade ago and has not made a replacement, they could not repeat that operation even if they wanted to.

 

[fortune]

jup
missed that
I think one or two other vulcans could have been rifted for fuel in bomb bay
I';;; have to read it again

thanks

Maybe someone can find where I read that vulcans could refuel Vulcans with storage bladders? been looking but can't find it.... they replace bomb bay with fuel.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Maybe someone can find where I read that vulcans could refuel Vulcans with storage bladders? been looking but can't find it.... they replace bomb bay with fuel.

They would never have needed to, as the Vulcan is what was used to replace the Victors. At that point the remaining Victors were repurposed to recon and fueling missions. And with so many of those in inventory there was no reason to convert Vulcans.

In fact, those remained in service a bit longer, as the Vulcans were retired in 1984. The Victor was ultimately replaced by the converted VC10 jetliner, and the L-1011 (also both retired), and they now use the A330.

Kind of overkill, as they no longer use strategic bombers.

 

[Dayton3]

They would never have needed to, as the Vulcan is what was used to replace the Victors. At that point the remaining Victors were repurposed to recon and fueling missions. And with so many of those in inventory there was no reason to convert Vulcans.

In fact, those remained in service a bit longer, as the Vulcans were retired in 1984. The Victor was ultimately replaced by the converted VC10 jetliner, and the L-1011 (also both retired), and they now use the A330.

Kind of overkill, as they no longer use strategic bombers.

Victor tankers were used all the way up to the end of Desert Storm in 1991.

 

[Dayton3]

They would never have needed to, as the Vulcan is what was used to replace the Victors. At that point the remaining Victors were repurposed to recon and fueling missions. And with so many of those in inventory there was no reason to convert Vulcans.

In fact, those remained in service a bit longer, as the Vulcans were retired in 1984. The Victor was ultimately replaced by the converted VC10 jetliner, and the L-1011 (also both retired), and they now use the A330.

Kind of overkill, as they no longer use strategic bombers.

Actually the Victor as a bomber came in a little bit after the Vulcans as a hedge against what was seen as the Vulcan's riskier design.

In fact the Victor was actually a better aircraft all around than the more exotic-looking Vulcan. Higher payload (potentially) faster, stealthier, and it could self land.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Victor tankers were used all the way up to the end of Desert Storm in 1991.

They were retired from active service in 1993, today almost all of them have been scrapped. I believe there are only 4 or 5 left. all in museums.

 

[Dayton3]

They were retired from active service in 1993, today almost all of them have been scrapped. I believe there are only 4 or 5 left. all in museums.

Two are still in taxiable condition. The last one to fly made an accidental take off about 20 years ago while conducting a "fast taxi".

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually the Victor as a bomber came in a little bit after the Vulcans as a hedge against what was seen as the Vulcan's riskier design.

But they were being retired by 1968 as bombers. They continued on as recon and fueling aircraft, but the bomber role was moved to the Vulcan.

Not unlike the A-4, literally a Korean War era fighter that still saw service until 2003. But it was no longer used for combat, it had long ago been replaced by the F-18. But it continued as a fueler once the A-3 was retired for another 2 decades. But their actual combat role was ended by the late 1970's, other than their use as an adversary OPFOR aircraft at TOPGUN. Typically standing in for the MiG-17 "Fresco". It did not look much like the MiG-17, but it shared many of the same flight characteristics and was obviously not one of the aircraft (F-14, F-18) that they actually taught the pilots in the school in.

 

[Dayton3]

But they were being retired by 1968 as bombers. They continued on as recon and fueling aircraft, but the bomber role was moved to the Vulcan.

Not unlike the A-4, literally a Korean War era fighter that still saw service until 2003. But it was no longer used for combat, it had long ago been replaced by the F-18. But it continued as a fueler once the A-3 was retired for another 2 decades. But their actual combat role was ended by the late 1970's, other than their use as an adversary OPFOR aircraft at TOPGUN. Typically standing in for the MiG-17 "Fresco". It did not look much like the MiG-17, but it shared many of the same flight characteristics and was obviously not one of the aircraft (F-14, F-18) that they actually taught the pilots in the school in.

This reminds me of a story told by a Royal Air Force Victor commander who landed at the U.S. Andersen Air Force Base (Guam). He was greeted by a USAF ground crew member who asked him "Sir? Is that Vulcan?".

The Victor commander told him that is was a Victor. That unlike the USAF which relied on the B-52. the Royal Air Force had bought the Victor and Vulcan for its long range bomber needs.

The American said "Wow! I wish we could afford to do that!.

The British officer thought considering the U.S. had bought four times as many B-52s as the RAF had bought Victors and Vulcans combined he wasn't sure the American should've been too impressed.