Avro Vulcan vs. Boeing B-47 Stratojet for RAAF 1959?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 719

I have just finished reading The Vulcan Option for the Royal Australian Air Force.
It is a paper put out by the RAAF’s Air Power Studies Centre, (written by Denis O’Brien, March 1994).

The study goes into the ‘Murdoch Mission’ of 1954, when Air Vice-Marshal A.M. Murdoch left Australia with the responsibility to select aircraft needed by the RAAF to operate into the 1970’s.
Both the Air Attaché in Washington and the Air Office Commanding the RAAF Headquarters in London were instructed to obtaining formation relating to the new advanced generation of combat aircraft then either in service or in development.

Interestingly the ‘Murdoch Mission’ included the study of potential aircraft to fulfill RAAF Operational Requirements
No.OR/AIR36 ‘Bomber’ aircraft;
No.OR/AIR34 ‘Fighter’ aircraft;
No.OR/AIR33 ‘’Medium Range Transport’ aircraft; and No.OR/AIR37 ‘Applied Jet Training’ aircraft.
(Could you just imagine having this opportunity???)

The main topic of this paper, as its title suggests was that of considering a bomber on the basis of selecting aircraft entering squadron service from mid-1959 replacing the English Electric Canberra light bomber in RAAF service.
In March 1959, the ‘Murdoch Mission’ report unanimously recommended the purchase of the Avro Vulcan or Handley Page Victor strategic bomber, with the desire to be nuclear-capable was confirmed.
It should be noted, that as the new bomber was not to be ordered until 1956-57, a decision between the Vulcan and Victor was to be delayed so to allow further evaluation of the two designs. ‘If however, a decision had to be made at the time or writing the report, the Mission would recommend the Vulcan design’, it concluded in its report.

But the tremendous cost of re-equipping the RAAF with the likes of the 39 x Vulcan bomber it estimated it needed (get this for an expected service life of 16-years!), would not just include the airplane itself at an estimated cost of Sterling 538,000 per aircraft ex-works did not fare well.
For by Aug 1956 the cost of an aircraft had increased to Sterling 760,000 with Olympus 12 engines and Sterling 900,000 withlympus6 engines.
This figure did not include costings for engine spares, ground handling equipment, bomb gear, technical publications or flight sims. The cost of infrastructure was also a significant factor to take into consideration.

During the time of the investigation into acquiring the V-bomber for the RAAF, the Australian Minister for Defence, Sir Philip McBride, in a letter to the then Prime Minister, stated:
‘The Americans might be induced to assist our defence effort by storing some of the reserve aircraft in Australia. ‘He (Minister for Air, Athol Townsley) mentions that the United States Air Force is re-equipping with the Boeing B-52 heavy bomber, which is to heavy for our requirements, but that the B-47 which it replaces would be suitable; he suggests that 30 of the latter could be stores here (Australia), and we would pay a hiring fee for those used.’

My question of this forum is –
- Of the Avro Vulcan and Boeing B-47 Stratojet, which would have been the more
capable design to have served the RAAF?

- Of the Vulcan and the B-47, which bomber would have been more suited to modifications and upgrades?

- Of the Vulcan and the B-47, which design would have been better suited and
capable (structural!) to endure the change to low-altitude penetration missions
with the advent of the likes of the Soviet SA-2 ‘Guideline SAM?

- Possibly the largest consideration to a small air force, such as the RAAF, which
would have been the most cost effective to both purchase and operate?
Does anyone have cost figures of the B-47?

Of added interest during the ‘Murdoch Mission’ to the United States and Britain were the likes of-

- Details of experimental aircraft such as the Avro 720, Bristol 188 and the
Chance-Vought XF8U-1 were included in its report

- In 1955, an examination of airfield suitable to support the operations of the likes of Vulcan / Victors bombers concluded that none of the RAAF existing airfields meet RAF Bomber Command Class 1 airfield criteria; it was considered that limited AUW operations (150,000 lbs) would be possible at Amberley, Darwin, Williamtown and Pearce.
To comply with the RAF standards (and maximum fuel loads required to reach the RAAF’s anticipated targets (– north of the Kra Peninsula to South China border) would have required further significant additional expenditure.

- It was calculated that peacetime flying training requirements were estimated at 480-hours per month or 30-hours per Vulcan per month. Which equates to 60,000 gallons per month of fuel burnt?

- Added to this was a report by the General Manager of the Government Aircraft Factories, Mr M.B. Woodfull, dated May 1955, on the ability of Australian aerospace industry to manufacture and or maintain and modify the chosen winning design.
Of interest was his final report, Woodfull was so concerned about the reliability of
the United Kingdom to provide spares, particularly in time of war that he
suggested that if the Avro Vulcan was selected as the winning design, then he
recommend that they be re-design to take a U.S. engine and Appendix ‘A’
equipment should be performed.

Regards
Pioneer

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

In 1959, B-47s were old and tired. The S-75 was tailor made to shoot down B-47s and the B-47s had a tendency to shed wings in low altitude toss bomb deliveries. To mitigate the wing shedding issue, massive doublers were added to the wing roots in the late 1950s.

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 593

Buying a squadron of second hand B-52 B's or D's would have been more cost effective overall in the long run. The BUFF was in full production at the time and obtaining either earlier marks or new build D's or E's would have been possible. The B-47's were getting long in the tooth by the late 1950's and the Vulcan would have provided a capability perhaps better suited to Australia's requirements but would have been prohibitively expensive.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 9,683

In 1959, B-47s were old and tired. The S-75 was tailor made to shoot down B-47s and the B-47s had a tendency to shed wings in low altitude toss bomb deliveries. To mitigate the wing shedding issue, massive doublers were added to the wing roots in the late 1950s.

I think the Vulcan had a bigger payload. It certainly had better aero performance (altitiude, manueverability). Don't know how it compared in range off the top of my head.

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 355

In 1959, B-47s were old and tired.

It ain't necessarily so. In 1959, some B-47s were just two years old at the time. They were still the backbone of SAC in 1959.

Logan Hartke

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 9,819

In 1959, B-47s were old and tired. The S-75 was tailor made to shoot down B-47s and the B-47s had a tendency to shed wings in low altitude toss bomb deliveries. To mitigate the wing shedding issue, massive doublers were added to the wing roots in the late 1950s.

Disagree, some of the 47s were fairly new.
The "milk bottle" program was well in hand by then...as I understand the program, it did not involve "massive doublers."
Unlike the Valiant, the 47s weren't withdran because of fatigue...the JFK administration was looking to reduce medium bombers replacing them with ICBMs and a few F-111s. Although it was just entering service, the B-58 was pretty much dead by then and the B-70 was history as well.
Shades of Duncan Sandys, missiles were the in thing according to McNamera (sp?) and his "whiz kids".

B-47s fit the bill better than new expensive Vulcans or B-52Ds or even early variants of B-52s which would have been available (used) beginning in the early 60s.

With the overall slight risk of them actually being used in combat, used B-47s at free/giveaway prices make sense. There were plenty available with spares, the engines were low tech, and I'm sure SAC would have been happy to provide a training program.

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 355


My question of this forum is –
- Of the Avro Vulcan and Boeing B-47 Stratojet, which would have been the more
capable design to have served the RAAF?

- Of the Vulcan and the B-47, which bomber would have been more suited to modifications and upgrades?

- Of the Vulcan and the B-47, which design would have been better suited and
capable (structural!) to endure the change to low-altitude penetration missions
with the advent of the likes of the Soviet SA-2 ‘Guideline SAM?

- Possibly the largest consideration to a small air force, such as the RAAF, which
would have been the most cost effective to both purchase and operate?
Does anyone have cost figures of the B-47?

Let me try my best at these. My answers are my opinions, not fact.

1. More capable? Avro Vulcan. The two aircraft would have been closely matched in pure performance figures (speed, range, etc), with the Vulcan holding a slight edge in most categories, but realistically the Vulcan would be a good deal more capable. It could fly further, fly faster, fly much higher, and do all while carrying more.

2. More suited to modifications and upgrades? Depends. The B-47 was more versatile in its career, having a good deal more variants. Its relatively short service life compared to the Vulcan, however, meant that the Vulcan was upgraded more. Black Buck showed how easily modified and versatile the Vulcan could be. The B-47 would be easier to re-engine, but the Vulcan didn't need re-engined.

3. Better low-level penetrator? Avro Vulcan. The Vulcan did it better and did it longer. The B-47 wasn't bad at it by any means, but it took its toll on the aircraft, which wasn't designed for that sort of abuse in the least bit.

4. Most cost-effective? B-47. The unit cost (new) of the B-47 was about half (at worst) that of the Vulcan and about a third (at best) that of the Vulcan. If we're talking surplus and/or slightly used, I'd not be surprised if the Aussies could have gotten 40 B-47s for a tenth the price of the same number of Vulcans. The US was giving away all sorts of planes at that point in the Cold War. There were no surplus Vulcans at this point (there were probably never 40 surplus Vulcans in all of the Cold War), so the RAAF would be getting these from the factory--new--and would be paying for it. The Vulcans also needed 5 crew to the B-47s 3 crewmen.

In all honesty, I think the B-47s would be all Australia needed. They didn't have nuclear weapons and never got them, so it's unlikely that Vulcans or B-47s would be dropping anything but conventional and practice bombs. Both aircraft had the range to accomplish conventional bombing or maritime patrol (if properly configured).

B-47s could even have been re-engined with Avons for a bit of fleet commonality with the CAC Sabres (the F-86 shared the same engine as the B-47), although there would be additional cost involved with that.

As long as they weren't busy collecting foliage from treetops in New Guinea and Indonesia their whole careers, RAAF B-47s could have served well into the 70s, at least until F-111 replacements could be acquired.

Both aircraft were capable, versatile, tough aircraft that would have served well. The Vulcan would have been the better of the two but would surely have cost at least 3 times what the B-47 would have over its lifespan. Would it have been worth it? Without the nuclear mission, probably not, but we'll never know either way. It's a what-if no matter which way you slice it.

Logan Hartke

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

I would generally favour the Vulcan over the B-47, though the Americans might make a better offer. One issue is the envisaged role - if your main aim is to have conventional bombers, for use against Indonesia (Konfrontasi...), then either may be an option, but the Vulcan probably has an edge on survivability.

I would certainly stress the need for proper support, so there are more issues to consider; especially the need for air to air refuelling. The Vulcan or Victor both ended up acting as tankers as needed; whereas the B-47 option probably requires a proper tanker, e.g. KC-135.

If the Americans make a good offer, e.g. buying one squadron of early model B-52s ((B-52Ds hopefully), and getting a squadron of KC-135s included in the deal. Even one squadron of B-52s or Vulcans would be a pretty big statement. If the Aussies had turned to American supply earlier, then it presents a number of possibilities, outside of the bomber issue.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 9,819

I would generally favour the Vulcan over the B-47, though the Americans might make a better offer.

I'm sure they would have since any 47s would have been used and SAC was preparing to get rid of them. I'd guess the airframes would have been just this side of "free". Spares and training would have cost more.

What would be fun to know (but there is no way of knowing) is the cost of a new Vulcan vs a new B-52. Just comparing published airframe costs won't work since the airframes are only a part of the package.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 3,614

V-Bombers vs B-47

The "V" bombers were in a similar weight class as the B-47, but the Vulcan and Victor carried nearly the bomb-load of the B-52.

Type: B-47E; Function: bomber; Year in service: 1951; Crew: 3; Engines: 6 * 3,266kg G.E. J47-GE-25
Wing Span: 35.36m; Length: 33.48m; Height: 8.51m; Wing Area: 132.66m2
Empty Weight: 36,630kg; Max.Weight: 89,893kg
Speed: 975km/h; Ceiling: 12,350m; Range: 6,440km
Armament: 2*g20mm, 9,072kg

Type: Valiant B Mk.1; Function: bomber; Year: 1955; Crew: 5; Engines: 4 * 4,535kg R.R. Avon 201
Wing Span: 34.85m; Length: 32.99m; Height: 9.80m; Wing Area: 219.43m2
Empty Weight: 34,419kg; Max.Weight: 63,503kg
Speed: 912km/h; Ceiling: 16,460m; Range: 7,420km
Armament: 9,525kg

Type: Victor B Mk.2; Function: bomber; Year: 1961; Crew: 5; Engines: 4 * 7,830kg R.R. Conway RCo.11
Wing Span: 36.48m; Length: 35.03m; Height: 8.57m; Wing Area: 223.52m2
Empty Weight: 41,277kg; Max.Weight: 105,687kg
Speed: M0.95; Ceiling: 18,300m; Range: 3,700km (B Mk.1 2,400 km)
Armament: 15,875kg

Type: Vulcan B Mk.2; Function: bomber; Year: 1960; Crew: 5; Engines: 4 * 9,980kg B.S. Olympus 301
Wing Span: 33.83m; Length: 32.15m; Height: Wing Area:
Empty Weight: Max.Weight: 113,400kg
Speed: 1,030km/h; Ceiling: 19,800m Range: 7,640km
Armament: 21,454kg

Type: B-52D; Function: bomber; Year: 1956; Crew: 6; Engines: 8 * P&W J57-P-29WA
Wing Span: 56.39m; Length: 47.73m; Height: 14.72m; Wing Area: 371.60m2
Empty Weight: 85,730kg; Max.Weight: 204,120kg
Speed: Ceiling: Range: 11,860km
Armament: 4*mg12.7mm, 108 bombs (500lb GP)[54,000 lb {24,545 kg}]

Type: B-52H; Function: bomber; Year: 1960; Crew: 6; Engines: 8 * 75.6kN P&W TF-33-P-3
Wing Span: 56.39m; Length: 49.05m; Height: 12.40m; Wing Area: 371.60m2
Empty Weight: Max.Weight: +221,353kg
Speed: 957km/h; Ceiling: 16,765m; Range: 16,093km
Armament: 1*g20mm, 22,680kg (20*msl AGM-69 SRAM)

The B-47 was directly comparable to Valiant B mk1. The low-level-optimized Valiant B mk2 first flew in 1953, and was canceled in 1955... given the mission's start date of 1954, the best "medium-bomber" option for the RAAF was to order a batch of the Valiant B mk2... and demand the UK government allow Vickers to build them... as well as 12 V1000s... 4 in tanker config & 8 in transport config.

Member for

18 years

Posts: 231

It would be cool to see how the Aussies could develop the B-52 into a seriously kick ass MPA... ;)

Matt

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 253

If the RAAF was wanting the quickest and cheapest and most available airplane then they would go for the B-47. A good airplane that was more conventional but had still lot of life in the airframe for the money.

The Vulcan was one of the most forward-looking and adaptable aircraft ever devised.........somebody could produce the design today and they'd have customers for it.

But, in the end, both were largely intermediate types and in 1959 as an RAAF officer looking at planning, budgets, etc.........I'm fronting the B-47 since it's cheaper, proven, and very available. Consider they were planning it would serve until the mid-70s and the USAF began considering the F-111 a B-47 replacement by the the same time period and the RAAF was ironically buying the F-111 along the same time.

But, Australia wasn't invaded during that time regardless of the airplanes they used so I suppose it's all moot at this point.

Member for

19 years 6 months

Posts: 262

I know the Vulcan would have been a good bomber. 1) Would the USAF have allowed the RAAF to purchase B-52B,C,D, or E? 2) The big belly bomb up conversion IIRC would have surpassed the Vulcan in conventional bombload. 3) wouldn't a tactical nuclear bomber have been more effective? look at the F-105 sure it sustained alot of losses in SEA, but it was doing a job it wasn't really designed to do.

It just makes you wonder if they had there thinking caps on straight? IIRC they fell in love with the Phantom didn't they?

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 784

It just makes you wonder if they had there thinking caps on straight? IIRC they fell in love with the Phantom didn't they?

Yea the RAAF didnt really want to return them andi can recall reading that they (the RAAF) wanted to keep the F-4s along side the F-111s.

I severly doubt that the B-52 would've been able to operate safely in the hot aussie environment with our wonderfully short runways we had in those days.
Nor could we afford to operate them!

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 719

Thanks to you all for your great points gents

Note to Logan - I never gave any thought to the re-engine with Avon’s of the B-47, and its contribution to fleet commonality

Regards
Pioneer

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

Slippery Sam brings up an excellent point - the runways you expect to use! The B-47 and B-52 required pretty long takeoff runs, hence the tales of it relying on the curvature of the Earth to get off the ground!

If you want to operate from bare bases up in the North of Australia, then Vulcan might make sense. If we entertain the possibility of something smaller, then a lot of possibilities present themselves - F-105s or Mirage IVs (possibly Avon engined, alongside Avon-engined Mirage IIIs, which were tested, but not opted for). The smaller types do make sense if you are looking at a nuclear strike type first and foremost, since you don't require much payload for the nuclear mission. If the conventional bombing role is the main requirement, then the Vulcan might make sense. The Victor might still be worth a look, especially a combined bomber-tanker, like the B.1A, which was a two-point tanker, but retained full bombing capability.

I would also aim to beef up recon capability - e.g. rebuild (or order new) some of the Canberras to high-altitude recon aircraft. Essentially, they would become equivalent to the RB-57F, perhaps re-engined with the Olympus (the Olympus was tested on the Canberra, and improved performance a lot). Even a single squadron of these would boost Australia's recon capability massively.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 2

I think the B-47 could well have been adapted and improved to give it a very long service life. It could probably be turned into a tanker fairly easily, and in design terms it is very similar to the B-52, which has given well over 50 years of service and still carries on. Maybe the B-47 could have been upgraded to give it cruise missile capability? The only reason it was phased out was because even better aircraft were available. Like the B-52, it would have been more suited to use as a missile carrier, whereas the Vulcan would have been more use as a heavy strike aircraft. And also according to a book i have, the B-47 has a range of 3600 miles compared to 3450 for the Vulcan. And maybe extra cash from buying the B-47s could be used to upgrade them and improve their survivability? In USAF survice the basic B-47 design was hardly upgraded at all due to its short service life.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

I'd of much rather seen Vulcan in the SAC inventory than messing with terrible, short-lived designs like the B-58. Northrop should have licensed it for the competition and ran with their own refinements to push it into the supersonic regime when pressed. Even if they had to use the J71 rather than the Olympus early on, that would have been a nice plane.

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 719

Gents, it's been a long time since we've seen this (2008).
I've just refund this post of mine, as I'm doing a 'Alternative History Backstory' on another forum, and my issue is spacifically this dilemma a V-bomber or B-47 as an interim bomber to replace the light and limited English Electric Canberra bomber, until more advanced supersonic all-weather strike/bomber platforms like the TRS.2 and or TFX are off the drawingboard and concrete in their physical development, bugs ironed out and proven to be workable.
So taking into consideration everyone's replies and wealth of information, and of course 'real factors'/'considerations' like unit costs, through-life operating costs, cost of needing to upgrade runways and facilities; I've come to favour the idea/notion of low flight hours second hand B-47's, modified with Rolls-Royce Avon turbojets, for thrust, economy and commonality. These RAAF B-47's will also employ the specialised RATO packs designed for the B-47, to elevate the issue/needs of costly lengthening /strengthening existing runways.
I envisage the money saved in an expected 'U.S. friendly deal' will afford funds for specialised airborne refuelling tanker's like the ubiquitous Boeing KC-135's, which will benefit the whole ADF, as opposed to just the B-47's.

Thank you again for your time and input!

P. S. Logan Hartke, would you be up to doing an couple of WhatIf RAAF Boeing B-47 profiles?

Regards
Pioneer

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 2,357

Bager,

Your figures seem suspect. The Victor carrying a smaller bombload than the Vulcan? The Victor demonstrated a drop of 35 1,000 lb bombs, the Vulcan could manage 'only' 21. Half the range of a Vulcan? I think not.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

Don't know how it compared in range off the top of my head.

Depends which version, the B1 was fairly short-ranged but the B2 had significant modifications to extend range to about 7,400km, it was also faster than the B-47 and much higher altitude. This video also seems to suggest that there was a method of carrying 30x1,000lb bombs internally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOmPJOT-wUg&t=80s