@@Andy_NovosadVictor was the most advanced aerodynamic V-bomber, the fastest, most high altitude and with the highest bombload. Hence it outlasted the other two.
@ursus9104 Victor did indeed outlast the Vulcan in terms of service length, but that was in the role of a tanker. When it comes to the role of a bomber, where all cutting edge characteristics become really crucial, the situation is quite the opposite. The Vulcan was still in use even during the Falklands conflict, while the Victor had already been a tanker for about fifteen years. Although, Victor is still my favourite of the three.
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.
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.
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.
The Victor and Vulcan were so beautifully elegant and incredibly futuristically looking. Never saw the Valiant in flight, but I did see rare overflights of the Victor (tanker) and the Vulcan at airshows. Magnificent and majestic.
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.
Great video, but please put some alternative units on screen for the technical data. Miles per hour for an aircraft is outrageous, either kmh or knots.
@percysmith. In 1959 New Zealand built a new airport at the capital, Wellington, and to open it put on a show. A Sunderland flying boat made a low pass but ripped it's keel on the runway, flew off to base and sank. An RAF Vulcan was to kiss the runway and immediately take off as the runway was too short. It planted at least one main gear, broke it off and went to full military power and took off, flew to an NZ air base, landed with more damage and was repaired and able to fly home after only a year of repair. Did I mention that the air was gusty, with strong variable windspeed and direction and unstable? The US Navy blue angels figured it out and flew a safer routine than normal, no damage. There were two other aircraft damaged from ground contacts before the day ended.
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?
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.
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
In terms of raw performance, the Vulcan had the edge in payload and altitude capabilities, while the Victor excelled in speed and range. As much as I love the Vulcan. The Handley Page Victor was my favourite and easily the most sinister and threatening of the 3 V bombers. It still looks modern tody
@@Gez492 In terms of raw performance the Victor was faster in cruise, had greater endurance and carried 50% more bombs. The Vulcan had no 'edge' over the Victor in any parameter.
@uingaeoc3905 Yes, you are of course correct in most of your critique but when used in different scenarios i.e Victor could carry larger number of bombs in a more traditional heavy bommbing role, where as the Vulcan could specialize in low level penetration. I believe the Vulcan has a small advantage in max speed and ability to maintain that speed in low-level tactical scenarios. But Vmax is close with Vulcan just ahead. These two both had the looks that the Valiant lacked. The Victor was brooding and intimidating even on the ground. The Vulcan looked almost aerobatic and graceful until it lets out the legendary eerie howl, then you sense its purpos! Both the very very best of British design, they are so so different yet so close in performance. My favourite is Victor ; the second is Vulcan. Absolute favourite English Electric Lightning. Other loved aircraft, Haker Hunter , Vickers Armstrong VC10 & Super VC10 Concorde of course. Hawker Harrier and latterly Typhoon has impressed with its sheer power and agility.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 The RAF preferred the Victor, which did carry Blue Steel and could also carry Skybolt. But the official government view was they would not purchase from a firm which did not join or merge into the two big groups , HSA and BAC. Neither of these would offer enough to HP to take it over, the value being based on the much larger order expected from the RAF for the Victor B2s and the Military Tyne Herald. So their knowing HP would not get the order unless they took over they waited for its bankruptcy. What the government should have done is make the award to HP and so give HSA and BAC no option but to make a good takeover offer.
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?
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 :)
Claiming action in Egypt was the only bombing done by the V-force apart from Black Buck, but the Victor was used in 1963 during the Indonesian Confrontation.
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.
*Makes a video about the V Bomber fleet and their history* *Name drops all the V Bombers so the audience knows what aircraft will be talked about* *Only talks about the Vickers Valiant* *Ends the video* Yeah, from the aircraft that was retired well before the other two parties of the V Bomber fleet, I could really make an informed opinion on whether or not the V Bombers were a boom or bust. If you just wanted to make a video saying how underappreciated you think the Valiant was, the title was a little misleading ... And so is the description
There biggest down fall was a lack of ability do adapt and lack of funding to change them. The V bombers and the B52 are the same age but the B52 could be adapted to the modern world the 2/3 V bombs couldn’t be adapted like that.
The victor could be in service today as a strategic bomber if it received the same attention as the B52 in terms of upgrades but unfortunately it did not…
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.
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
“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.
And just co-incendetallt my mum, my aunty, my nan and my grandpa all died of cancer. They were all alive and living in Adelaide, South Australia at the time of the Maralinga testing. We didn't have it as bad as the aborginal people who lived around Maralinga - my family weren't actually nuked. My family - Adealide is roughly 900km away from Maralinga. The 2 proceeding generations of my family were "lucky" and just caught cancer. And it wasn't just bomb tests. Britain also released various radioctive materials into the wind - independant of bomb tests - just to see what would happen. Should Australia require nuclear weapons, say because the US decides to withdraw from treaty obligations, then as far as I am concerned the UK owes us. You have them because we participated, payed for part of the program financially and paid for the program in terms of human suffering.
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😂🤣
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.
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
@@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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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
Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: sponsr.is/magellantv_dwaynesaviation. Start your free trial TODAY
Handley-Page Victor was always my favorite from childhood plastic models.. still is .. ;)
AA😮1
The Victor looks great today.
The Victor looks like a flying piece of grim architecture any day.
@@Andy_NovosadVictor was the most advanced aerodynamic V-bomber, the fastest, most high altitude and with the highest bombload. Hence it outlasted the other two.
@ursus9104 Victor did indeed outlast the Vulcan in terms of service length, but that was in the role of a tanker. When it comes to the role of a bomber, where all cutting edge characteristics become really crucial, the situation is quite the opposite. The Vulcan was still in use even during the Falklands conflict, while the Victor had already been a tanker for about fifteen years.
Although, Victor is still my favourite of the three.
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.
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.
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.
Total Horse Shit!!! Victor was the best aircraft of the three.
Only time the government said screw it and made the best purchase decision - buying all 3
The Victor and Vulcan were so beautifully elegant and incredibly futuristically looking.
Never saw the Valiant in flight, but I did see rare overflights of the Victor (tanker) and the Vulcan at airshows. Magnificent and majestic.
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.
Great video, but please put some alternative units on screen for the technical data. Miles per hour for an aircraft is outrageous, either kmh or knots.
@percysmith.
In 1959 New Zealand built a new airport at the capital, Wellington, and to open it put on a show.
A Sunderland flying boat made a low pass but ripped it's keel on the runway, flew off to base and sank.
An RAF Vulcan was to kiss the runway and immediately take off as the runway was too short.
It planted at least one main gear, broke it off and went to full military power and took off, flew to an NZ air base, landed with more damage and was repaired and able to fly home after only a year of repair.
Did I mention that the air was gusty, with strong variable windspeed and direction and unstable?
The US Navy blue angels figured it out and flew a safer routine than normal, no damage.
There were two other aircraft damaged from ground contacts before the day ended.
I am surprised that you did not mention the loss of the first Valiant Prototype over Southern England.
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?
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.
I love how 1960s planes look like something I would make in kernel space program
The Victor was easily the most capable of the three V-Bombers. It flew higher, further, faster and carried more than 50% more bombs.
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
In terms of raw performance, the Vulcan had the edge in payload and altitude capabilities, while the Victor excelled in speed and range. As much as I love the Vulcan. The Handley Page Victor was my favourite and easily the most sinister and threatening of the 3 V bombers. It still looks modern tody
@@Gez492 In terms of raw performance the Victor was faster in cruise, had greater endurance and carried 50% more bombs. The Vulcan had no 'edge' over the Victor in any parameter.
@uingaeoc3905 Yes, you are of course correct in most of your critique but when used in different scenarios i.e Victor could carry larger number of bombs in a more traditional heavy bommbing role, where as the Vulcan could specialize in low level penetration. I believe the Vulcan has a small advantage in max speed and ability to maintain that speed in low-level tactical scenarios. But Vmax is close with Vulcan just ahead. These two both had the looks that the Valiant lacked. The Victor was brooding and intimidating even on the ground. The Vulcan looked almost aerobatic and graceful until it lets out the legendary eerie howl, then you sense its purpos! Both the very very best of British design, they are so so different yet so close in performance. My favourite is Victor ; the second is Vulcan. Absolute favourite English Electric Lightning. Other loved aircraft, Haker Hunter , Vickers Armstrong VC10 & Super VC10 Concorde of course. Hawker Harrier and latterly Typhoon has impressed with its sheer power and agility.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 The RAF preferred the Victor, which did carry Blue Steel and could also carry Skybolt. But the official government view was they would not purchase from a firm which did not join or merge into the two big groups , HSA and BAC. Neither of these would offer enough to HP to take it over, the value being based on the much larger order expected from the RAF for the Victor B2s and the Military Tyne Herald. So their knowing HP would not get the order unless they took over they waited for its bankruptcy. What the government should have done is make the award to HP and so give HSA and BAC no option but to make a good takeover offer.
I have been to the Wings Museum. It's an excellent museum and there is a nice little beer garden out front.
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?
So much for the Valiant. what about the other two?
Side note: They were never meant to return, there would of been nothing to return to.
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 :)
Nice footage and graphics. Thanks for video.
I currently work at the Strategic Air Command and Aerospace Museum in Ashland, Nebraska, Home of Vulcan XM573.
Vulkan was pretty handy with Falklands raid
I thought only 1 made it to target
They did nothing useful. Take off and landing was still accomplished till the end of the war.
Should have titled this the rise and valley of the Valliant
Definitely should've named this 'The rise and fall of the Valiant bomber'
Claiming action in Egypt was the only bombing done by the V-force apart from Black Buck, but the Victor was used in 1963 during the Indonesian Confrontation.
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.
Victor looking straight outta Star Trek, run and cry Romulan Warbird
video is more about valiant than other bombers
*Makes a video about the V Bomber fleet and their history*
*Name drops all the V Bombers so the audience knows what aircraft will be talked about*
*Only talks about the Vickers Valiant*
*Ends the video*
Yeah, from the aircraft that was retired well before the other two parties of the V Bomber fleet, I could really make an informed opinion on whether or not the V Bombers were a boom or bust.
If you just wanted to make a video saying how underappreciated you think the Valiant was, the title was a little misleading ... And so is the description
There biggest down fall was a lack of ability do adapt and lack of funding to change them. The V bombers and the B52 are the same age but the B52 could be adapted to the modern world the 2/3 V bombs couldn’t be adapted like that.
The victor could be in service today as a strategic bomber if it received the same attention as the B52 in terms of upgrades but unfortunately it did not…
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.
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
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.
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
“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.
Was there a WW3? Was that because we had the flying deterrents?
If so, then they were not a waste of money!
And just co-incendetallt my mum, my aunty, my nan and my grandpa all died of cancer. They were all alive and living in Adelaide, South Australia at the time of the Maralinga testing. We didn't have it as bad as the aborginal people who lived around Maralinga - my family weren't actually nuked. My family - Adealide is roughly 900km away from Maralinga. The 2 proceeding generations of my family were "lucky" and just caught cancer. And it wasn't just bomb tests. Britain also released various radioctive materials into the wind - independant of bomb tests - just to see what would happen.
Should Australia require nuclear weapons, say because the US decides to withdraw from treaty obligations, then as far as I am concerned the UK owes us. You have them because we participated, payed for part of the program financially and paid for the program in terms of human suffering.
B52 was positively ancient compared with the British jets, plus showed in battle, we nuked them in war game.
'Nassair'? It was Nasser
A certeza dos projetos Ingleses era que sairia uma aeronave mais feia que a outra.😅
I love how you illustrated the “huge British fleets of bombers” with two photos of American bombers. Try harder please
Why build one bomber that works, when you can build three?
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😂🤣
The US will always pay good money to protect its interests :)
They wanted sci-fi space age looking instead of realistic.
👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈
UK never fails to surprise me with there most ugliest designs ever made
They are nuclear bombers if they go to war they fail, they go to war??
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.
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
@@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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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