Talk:Avro Vulcan

Armament

The section on armament seems to neglect to mention the WE177 bomb. 176.26.154.58 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Was it carried, can you source it? My vague recollection is that the Vulcan had gone from free-fall nukes before the WE.177 came in. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Its already started in the text of this article that the Vulcan carried the WE177 weapon. The problem is that this detail is missing

from the ARMAMENT section. The addition needs to be made to the ARMAMENT section.2A02thw WE:C7D:A8BF:4100:ACC3:E1AF:886D:27B5 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unsourced. Also the WE.177 isn't a single weapon, it's a broad term for three completely different physics packages, albeit in much the same casing. As their tactical functions were so different, I'm not aware of any aircraft that carried all three. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For your info Andy the Wiki WE.177 article lists the Avro Vulcan as being a carrier for the WE177. It also cites a few aircraft which were specified to carry all three variants.2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:486B:C927:236D:30A8 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The article states:

After the British Polaris submarines became operational and Blue Steel was taken out of service in 1970, the Vulcan continued to carry WE.177B in a tactical nuclear strike role as part of the British contribution to Europe's standing NATO forces, although they no longer held aircraft at 15 minutes readiness in peacetime.[146] Two squadrons were also stationed in Cyprus as part of the Near East Air Force and assigned to Central Treaty Organization in a strategic strike role. With the eventual demise of the WE.177B and the Vulcan bombers, the Blackburn Buccaneer, SEPECAT Jaguar, and Panavia Tornado, continued with the WE.177C until its retirement in 1998.[148] While not a like-for-like replacement, the multi-role Tornado interdictor/strike bomber is the successor for the roles previously filled by the Vulcan.[149]

The Armament sections says:

21 × 1,000 pounds (454 kg) of conventional bombs

1 x Blue Danube nuclear gravity bomb

1 x Violet Club 400 kt nuclear gravity bomb

1 x U.S. Mark 5 nuclear gravity bomb supplied under Project E

1 x Yellow Sun Mk.1 400 kt nuclear gravity bomb

1 x Yellow Sun Mk 2 1.1 Mt thermonuclear gravity bomb

1 x Red Beard nuclear gravity bomb

Yes the specific variant of the WE177 needs mention and I will say it again, the WE177 is not mentioned under the armament section. This needs correction. 2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:7CFC:D6FA:E94C:F245 (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

An error in the armament section was raised on the 14th June 2015 and it has still (23 Dec 2015) NOT been corrected. This reflects very poorly on the quality of this article.2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:65EC:466D:472:7736 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really it is still outstanding as a reliable reference for the requested change was never supplied. Note wikipedia is not a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The article currently mentions the WE177 bomb without citation, but you object to my suggested changes to overcome the inaccuracy of the article on the grounds that I have not supplied suitable citations. This is an inconsistent approach. It is clear from the cross references to the Wiki WE177 article that the Avro Vulcan article is deficient. Using this as a start it will be easy to find valid references to support the improvement of this article. I have made the point and provided some evidence, it would be good if someone with editing skills could work the improvements into the Avro Vulcan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:7533:6CEC:DE2E:E308 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this difficulty. The first mention of the WE.177B in the text is immediately followed by a citation, and subsequent discussions where it crops up appears sensibly cited too. I just added the WE.177B to the Armaments list, as discussed (and cited) in the main text, and duplicated the existing citation there too. Does anybody still have a problem with this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done Steelpillow for correcting the article, although I am suprised the changes were not mentioned on these talk pages until now. You have stated that one WE.177 bomb was carried. Given the payload of the vulcan, the mission objectives and the low weight of a WE.177 it wouldseem likely that more than one would be carried. It may be worth checking this detail.2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:E4F8:31C3:EA1F:E397 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Vulcan B.2 carried at various times; 1 x WE.177A (10 Kt) or 1 x WE.177B (420 Kt), or after 1974, 1 x WE.177C (190 Kt): [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.200 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

WE.177 had ONE warhead (the correct UK term)

• WE.177A had a fission warhead of 10 Kt named KATIE.

• WE.177B used the KATIE warhead as a thermo-nuclear trigger allied to a SIMON secondary.

• WE.177C used the KATIE warhead as a thermo-nuclear trigger allied to a CIRENE secondary (itself a cut-down SIMON).

A variant of KATIE was also used in the UK Polaris A3T as a thermo-nuclear trigger which is one of the reasons the UK needed to do so few nuclear tests.

WE.177C was introduced due to a NATO limitation of 200 Kt for tactical nuclear weapons. Presumably in the case of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe this limitation was intended to limit as-far-as-was-practicable the amount of damage inflicted upon fellow NATO member states' - in practical terms the-then West Germany - territory, as it was after an enemy advance into friendly territory that the NATO weapons would, at least initially, be used.

Due to the overwhelming-size of the Warsaw Pact conventional forces the early ("First Use") use of tactical nuclear weapons by NATO was intended as soon as their use was authorised by the member state invaded. It was therefore expected by NATO that in the case of an invasion of Western Europe by Warsaw Pact forces the conflict would become nuclear within 48-hours of it commencing. Note; this meant that the NATO nuclear weapons would initially be used lawfully in territory with the full consent - albeit in extremis - of that territory's government. Any reply by Warsaw Pact forces with nuclear weapons within the invaded NATO state would not be lawful, and would, in effect, sanction further NATO nuclear attacks within Warsaw Pact territory, which up to that point, had not been affected by war.

The Vulcan B.2 nuclear force was latterly assigned to SACEUR with the proviso that it could be appropriated immediately for solely UK use if required by the UK in an emergency. The Vulcan force ceased to be armed with WE.177 in 1982, with the weapons being re-assigned to the Buccaneer and Tornado force, with these weapons remaining in service until 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Hawker Siddeley Vulcan"?

The first line of this article gives "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan" as a later title of the Avro Vulcan, giving a reference to a single link of the RAF Museum. Whilst Avro became a part of Hawker Siddeley on 1 July 1963 according to Avro Aircraft, page xxii (A J Jackson, Putnam) and the last aircraft was produced after that in 1965, the last order for the Vulcan was placed with Avro in 1958 (according to the Production section at the end of the article).

Hence surely any reference to Hawker Siddeley being the manufacturer is surely invalid, unless there are other references to support the RAF Museum?

I worked on the Vulcan at Scampton in 1980-82 and, whilst it was then supported by Hawker Siddeley, you would have been laughed at if you had called it the "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan"!!

Possel47 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Perhaps send an email to cosford@rafmuseum.org or research@rafmuseum.org to see why they say that? (Hohum ^@) 16:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The Vulcan is listed in the 1965–66 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft as the "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan". This differs from the Shackleton (which was out of production but still being modified) which was listed as the "Hawker Siddeley (Avro) Shackleton".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The RAF Museum aircraft was actually completed when the company was Hawker Siddeley! A quick look at Flight archive of the late 1960s shows that the term Hawker Siddeley Vulcan was common at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Which RAF Museum? Cosford? Their captions and info boards are full of real howlers. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The usage was by Flight not the RAF Museum. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If you look at various 1970's issues of Flight International you will find advertisements from Hawker Siddeley which include both the Vulcan and the Buccaneer under their name, as well as of course the Harrier. So HS Vulcan is absolutely correct for that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured in Thunderball

I'd like to develop a section to highlight how the Avro Vulcan is featured in the James Bond movie Thunderball. It's such a great film (not even topped by the remake - or maybe it was topped). For me, the movie was my "movie introduction" to nuclear weapons... much better than Crimson Tide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderball_(film)

So what can we write?

  Was that the actual plane?
  Was the protocol that the pilot went through in the movie realistic?
  Could that plane have made it to the Bahamas? survived a water landing otherwise intact? etc.

The film features a few shots of a real Vulcan in flight. A large-scale model was used for the ditching and sinking sequences. (Notably, the model had a working undercarriage.) A full-scale replica was built for the underwater sequences in which the bomber is concealed by the enemy and later discovered by our man Bond. There are online photographs of this astounding replica. It was destroyed by explosives after filming so that no other film production could use it. The onboard procedures seen in the film are obviously fictional, for entertainment purposes, and would not work. The cockpit is very tight and you couldn't really invite a spare pilot to take the right-hand ejector seat just like that, nor could you plug a nerve-gas canister into the oxygen supply. And a solo pilot, with the rest of the crew dead, would not be able to navigate over that distance. In addition, the Vulcan, designed only to fly to the western parts of the Soviet Union and (theoretically) back, would not have the fuel to reach the Nassau area from southern England, which is about four thousand miles. It would plunk into the sea a good thousand miles short of target. As regards ditching, nobody ever did ditch a Vulcan so we don't know how that would work, but it would be extremely hairy. The large flat undersurface is good, but the effect of water sloshing into the jet intakes would be somewhat unpredictable. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Anything on this should be in Aircraft in fiction rather than here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::(Aaaarrggghhhhh. That sentence was accidentally reverted by me.  Browsing watchlist using iPad while lying in bed the big thumb tried to select diff but obviously got the rollback instead. Apologies to MilborneOne.)Moriori (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Vulcan is NOT tailless!

This bomber clearly has a proper tail and is not a flying wing. It is not a fin, and my edit removing the word "tailless" should hold sway. 110.32.2.41 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not a flying wing but doesnt have a seperate horizontal control surfaces so is a tailless delta. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Common aircraft terminology. See e.g. the IWM, which says it is tailless. [2] Perhaps 110.32.2.41 should go tell them they are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, the Vulcan fits the classification of tailless. Strange. 110.32.2.41 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Specialist terminology doesn't always concur with what might be expected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

'Tailless' refers to the lack of a tailplane. The fin is usually part of the fuselage and thus not strictly speaking part of the 'tail'. Footage of Vulcan prototype VX770 being rolled here starting at 24:35 - [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)