Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Could Vulcan's have reached Moscow?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Monday, 3rd May 2010
When the Vulcan bombers were first deployed in the late 50s they were armed with gravity nuclear bombs, it was not until 1963 that they were equipped with a stand off nuclear missile.
Despite this, as the nuclear deterrent they were presumably intended to attack Moscow in the event of war. In reality if required could they have reached Moscow in the late 50s unescorted getting past swarms of Migs? -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 3rd May 2010
At first they were supposed to fly higher than the Migs. Then they turned to low level flying. I think anybomber crew, be it RAF or USAF flying to Russia would have known it was a one way trip.
-
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 3rd May 2010
Despite this, as the nuclear deterrent they were presumably intended to attack Moscow in the event of war.Β
Why presumably? Is there any evidence that the UK intended to use its nuclear arsenal to attack civilian targets. The UK's own defence exercise Operation Square Leg, for instance, worked from the standpoint that a Soviet nuclear attack on the UK would not bomb London just for the sake of it. -
Message 4
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 3rd May 2010
I'm tempted to ask "could Vulcan's what reach Moscow?"
But I won't.
The answer to the question is yes, the V bombers were designed to reach Moscow from bases in UK (in the same way Lancasters and Halifaxes were designed to reach Berlin). That doesn't mean they were all tasked to go there.
Initially, they were expecting to operate above fighter height (and early AAMs were short range) and had considerable onboard ECM equipment.
The standard mission plan called on them to return to UK having bombed. Mercifully, the crews never had to find out.
"RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces" Humphrey Wynn (Air Historical Branch) goes into all sorts of technical detail about the design roles of the aircraft. Probably one to get from the Library, though. -
Message 5
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
No3,
I don't think that the statement concerning London can be quite as certain as you intimate. London was after all the centre of the government and the civil service i.e, control of the British Isles rested there. That is why presumably the Regional Seats of Government sites were set up at various scattered locations. I visited one in the late sixties and from what I can recall of our limited training for civil defence in the event of nuclear hostilities then London was reviewed as a target. In our silly games anyway! I'm not sure if our conclusions are still subject to the Official Secrets Act so all I can do is keep mum and laugh silently.
The targets for the Vulcan bombers I imagine worked with much the same logic(in the loosest possible sense). The likelihood of any returning from the long range mission were remote, especially when they were allowed to continue in service when they became nothing but death traps for the crews(Fairey Battles all over again)and pilots I recall were issued eye-patches so that at least one eye escaped injury from the nuclear flash. Fancy flying a Vulcan all the way home and landing the beast on one eye? I presume that the second mission for the pilots would have been their last, unless they doubled up with other pilots so that at least one eye was available - one outward one homeward.
Meanwhile of course in a vain effort to stem the advancing Soviet invasion of Europe our forces had embarked to the Continent using cross-channel ferries to 'leave our England as dead midnight still' but guarded not by 'Grandsires and old women' but by American forces flown in for the task. Ohh dear me how the futility of it all floods back!
Regards,
Spruggles. -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
Again the delay of the stand off weapon was a treasury thing. The same thing happened in Gulf War 1. The Tornado was tasked to attack airfields but the weapon allowing them to stand off was delayed because of interference from the treasury. So the pilots had to fly their aircraft right across the field dropping their bombs. Afterwards the RAF was promised their stand off weapon, but as far as I know it is still pending.
GF -
Message 7
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
Greetings GrumpyFred,
I worked on the guidance system for the Blue Steel SOB and was made redundant when the Gov decided to buy the US Skybolt instead. Eventually it transpired that their weapon didn't work so they wrote letters to some of the departed staff to ask them back again. Some did go back but it meant such a delay that the Blue Steel was out of date by the time it finally reached Bomber Command. Mind you, it did work!
Regards,
Spruggs. -
Message 8
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
The weapon employed by the Tornado to attack airfields in Gulf War 1 was JP233, which had been developed specifically for the job. It was the RAF, not the Treasury, that had decided they required a weapon that had to be delivered by flying low, straight and level across a heavily defended target. Far from being a result of Treasury parsimony, it cost so much to develop that the USAF pulled out of what had been a joint programme because of the expense.
Besides being dangerous to use, it didn't prove particularly effective in shutting down Iraqi airfields anyway. The RAF were glad to have the excuse of anti-land mine legislation (JP233 scattered delayed-action antipersonnel mines along with runway-cratering submunitions) to ditch the weapon without loss of face.
Subsequently, the RAF acquired the Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile, which was used operationally in Gulf War 2. But it was never intended as a successor or alternative to JP233, which was the RAF's own first choice for an airfield-denial weapon. -
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
Colonel Blimp I have a ruling. When in doubt blame the treasury. 99 times out of 100 I'll be right.
GF -
Message 10
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
Spruggles
Have you read Wynn's book? It would be interesting to know what you thought of the section on Blue Steel.
Cheers
LW -
Message 11
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Tuesday, 4th May 2010
I'm tempted to ask "could Vulcan's what reach Moscow?"
doh.... I did post late at night.
Thanks for the response though. -
Message 12
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 5th May 2010
LW,
No, sorry I have not read Wynn's book, but as I was confined to the guidance system I doubt if I could comment with any authority on the weapon itself as most of my knowledge of Blue Steel would be based on shop floor intelligence(and lack of same).
I did however read the 1957 Defence White Paper which cast a gloom over the industry and left some of us with a nasty taste in the mouth. It was universally seen I recall as the death knell of British aviation, particularly R&D.
No doubt as Grumps has said the Treasury had a major influence on the White Paper and I'm sure that it was in favour of ordering the Skybolt because it would be cheaper.
Considering the parlous state of Britain's economy during this period I can understand the need for restraint, especially after the production of the Gloster Javelin and the spiraling costs of the Supermarine Swift; but strange wasn't it that presumably the same logic was applied to cancellation of the TSR2 in favour of the F111? The F111 also suffered development problems did it not - which led to our cancelling it - and leaving the both the RAF and the national purse denuded. Did we pay a contract termination fee I wonder for the F111 - does anyone know?
But we weren't the only ones were we? The Canadians had their Avro Arrow cancelled under rather strange circumstances(well according to some authorities anyway) so, was it all co-incidence or not?
Regards,
Sprugs. -
Message 13
Posted by Wally (U14414065) on Wednesday, 5th May 2010
To answer the original question, the Russians believed so and that is all that really mattered. The designers inadvertently gave the beast a very poor radar profile, or as we call it now Stealth.
The combination of low flying and poor radar was a nightmare to the Russians and their only answer was to hope that someone along the flightpath would be able to take them out with conventional arms fire. -
Message 14
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 5th May 2010
Spruggles, Vizzer
I managed to get to the Library and have a quick look at Wynn's book.
According to the documents he cites, the RAF's initial focus for the V Force was Soviet airfields and naval bases. A Targets committee was then re-established to co-ordinate targetting with the USAf and toprepare a plan for unilateral UK "emergency" action.
The RAF/USAF co-ordinated plan allocated the Medium Bomber Force (the V bombers) 106 targets:
69 cities designated as centres of government or of other military significance
17 long-range air force airfields (i.e. nuclear threat to UK)
20 elements of the Soviet air defence system
One aspect of this co-ordinated plan was that the RAF bombers could reach key targets quicker than USAF bombers based in the Continental United States (CONUS).
Given the limited size of the RAF nuclear force, the plan for unilateral action concentrated on attacking centres of administration and population. Apparently 98 cities wee identified. This seems to me to be a deterrent plan rather than a war-fighting plan.
Incidentally, both plans were retaliatory, not "first strike".
LW -
Message 15
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 5th May 2010
I met a retired Vulcan pilot at an American friend's 'Thanksgiving' dinner a while back and talk turned to this very topic.
He was expected to hit targets up to and well beyond Moscow (see Wiki article on range of Vulcan).
In the era of thermonuclear weapons the distinction between 'civilian' and military targets was (and still is) illusory. (see Jim Baggott's book "Atomic", 2009)
He was trained to fly on to friendly airfields. He did not regard his potential missions as 'Kamikaze', although Moscow's air defences against sub-sonic 'air-breather' attacks were acknowledged to be formidable.
Seems that the V-deterrent actually worked.... -
Message 16
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
Greetings one and all,
Yes, the initial concept of the V-Bomber Force was seen as a tactical delivery system rather than a strategic one. As has been said its primary function was to nullify or saturate the Soviet defence to allow the long range US bombers time to get over 'the hump'. However, once the 10 megaton and then the 50 megaton bombs were developed which complimented(if that's the right word to use)the multi-warhead ICBMs then obviously the target priority shifted. Then we have to accept that the targets were specifically cities. The proliferation of warheads was due to the estimates of the bombs getting through to their targets but was there a contingency plan to modify the attack if it became clear that a higher percentage than estimated were getting through? And which was the easiest targets that were most vulnerable to air-bursts?
But naturally, the key consideration in such strategy was what you ultimately wanted to achieve. Just the destruction of the opposing forces or eventual occupation? This was reflected in the method of delivery - a careful study of the geographic location, population, ease of reaching with conventional delivery systems all entered the equations - for example, although a ground burst would have proved extremely effective for the elimination of military targets the increase in nuclear 'dirt' - residual radiation, fallout etc made the occupation of such sites problematical to say the least(and in those times the pattern of atmospheric spread of the nuclear cloud also exercised their brains a bit.) An air-burst did less destructive damage but was 'cleaner' in terms of fall-out so a much bigger bomb could be deployed.
With the escalation of the weapons, I think the US had about 30,000 stockpiled in the middle sixties(the Soviets about the same) then the serious talk began concerning the 'preemptive strike'. Dangerous times!
To this mix must be added the European contingent and that of the unknown quantity that was China. It was a time when one had to choose one's friends very carefully.
I recall Chairman Mao was reputed to have said that 'China had nothing to loose from a nuclear war', but we all knew that this vast country had comparatively little of the surface area that could effectively support life, especially after the effects of nuclear war. So, did Mao believe his statement or were the Chairman's words like the rest of all that posturing in the sixties, just bluff?
Thankfully the bluffs seemed to have worked. That's how we survived I suppose. We lasted because all of the leaders could see the what the results of their actions would mean. For the first time in history the generals, the admirals and the politicians could look at their wall charts and see the rings of expected damage superimposed over their cities and they too were not immune from the war that they might start. -
Message 17
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
If I remember rightly, the V Bomber delivery was to fly at the target, pull the nose up sharply and release the bomb in an ark. Then do a quick U turn and hug the ground at speed. Thus hoping to cover a much ground as possible before the bomb reached the top of the ark and gravity pulled it groundwards. Rather them than me.
-
Message 18
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
It was called toss-bombing I think Grumps. Supposedly the particular forte of the Buccaneer as it had a rotary bomb bay. As you say, after you!
-
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
You have to wonder who came up with it. Most likely a First or Second World War thing, like skip bombing. I have a book that lists every Vulcan ever built where it served and where it finished up. I won a prize and was published in a mag with an idea from it.
-
Message 20
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
GrumyFred,
Did you see the the simulated rolling scramble at Farnborough where four Vulcans took off at short intervals, climbed up into the clear blue sky and each of them rolling off at the top the climb to reverse direction? There was a sight to behold.
A couple of years later I was present at Finningley when they did much the same but this time I was with the press and stood by the dispersal. They moved out with the wingtips almost above my head ... ooer! Lots of throbbing and not a set of ear protectors anywhere. -
Message 21
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
Spruggles, GF
Yes, but do you also remember the filth they used to throw out taking off at full throttle? The classic PR film of a four-ship scramble is remarkable for the fact that you can barely see No.4 get off the ground through the exhaust cloud of the other three.
I believe toss bombing or Low Altitude Bombing System (LABS) was originally developed for the USAF's Super Sabres, who had the task of delivering nukes fast and low, beyong their usual radious of action, and then flying back as far as they could, bailing out and then evading back to NATO lines. There's a mission for real men.
For the RAF, it was first used by Canberras, then adopted for the V Force when they switched from their initial profile of bombing from medium level (which involved a sharp turn after release), to low level.
Incidentally, as the Canberras (the Light Bomber Force) and the initial V Bomber force were intended for roles in support of NATO, they received funding from the US Military Aid Programme. About 50% of the cost of the Valiants was met from such funding. This caused a bit of a row when they were used for OP MUSKETEER.
LW -
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 6th May 2010
S, I did see it done at Liverpool 16 R R engines on full reheat.Pure noise.
-
Message 23
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 7th May 2010
Re the Vulcan's deadly pall. I must say I can't remember it that well, except during the mass fly-by at the 50th anniversary of the RAF ... but then again I have stood close to a couple of rolling B-52s.
-
Message 24
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 7th May 2010
Carbon Monoxide - It's the Smell of Freedom
As the billboards outside USAFE bases didn't used to say.
-
Message 25
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 8th May 2010
I believe there was a time when high altitude bombers would have often got though, prior to the development of effective high altitude fighters and missiles. I think there were plenty of exercises (the first using Canberras) that showed at high altitude some bombers had an advantage over fighters of the day. Its not as simple as comparing top speeds.
I'm sure I remember one of the Vulcan pilots saying that if they were launched for real, there would be nothing to come back to so his adjudant said "just keep flying straight on old chap and settle down with a nice Siberian woman". -
Message 26
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 8th May 2010
There would also be presumably various American bombers heading for Russian targets and ECM would being used so the Russian air defences would be severely tested.
-
Message 27
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 8th May 2010
Absolutely MB - it would not have been an easy job to keep them out in the 1950s and of course if only a few got through....
The B47 could probably fly fast enough and high enough to be difficult to intercept, ditto with Victor and Vulcan. The B36...thats another matter entirely. -
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 8th May 2010
one bomber that is never mentioned and that is the B58 Hustler. Top speed of over 1000 miles an hour.
-
Message 29
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 8th May 2010
"one bomber that is never mentioned and that is the B58 Hustler. Top speed of over 1000 miles an hour. "
Expensive to make, expensive to maintain, short range, accident prone and could not fly at low level but apart from that .... -
Message 30
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 8th May 2010
SS,
You are right about the Canberra. It was used for high altitude recon over Eastern Europe but only for a vary limited period. The Canberra was soon outdated by Soviet counter-measures. -
Message 31
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 21st May 2010
Spruggles GF et al
Belatedly, have come across a bit more information.
From this, it looks as if toss bombing (loft bombing to the RAF) NOT a V Force technique, although as I have posted previously, it was used by the Canberras. Someone out there might know if the Vulcans later adopted loft bombing for their Theatre Nuclear role?
When the Force switched to low level, the initial profile was "pop-up". The aircraft penetrated at low level but climbed to medium level on approach to the target to deliver the weapon (which meant the existing bombs could be used unmodified). This profile is known as Lo-Hi-Lo, and was incidentally the profile adopted for the conventional Black Buck missions against Port Stanley airfield in 1982.
Once a suitable bomb had been developed (the WE177B), which had a retarded delivery version (i.e. it was slowed by parachute after being released, allowing the aircraft to make its escape), the profile could switch to Lo-Lo-Lo, which furtehr enhanced survivability.
LW -
Message 32
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 22nd May 2010
LongWeekend,
I think the lob-bombing technique was just a stop gap until the SoB were introduced into service. As I said the Buccaneer was really the only suitable delivery as it had a rotating bomb-bay or perhaps fighter-bomber with the range. Imagine the stress on the Vulcan's structure to attempt the manoeuvre - but I suppose the thinking might have been that only one trip was viable anyway. The NATO diagrams of the technique were illustrated with amorphous aircraft so were (deliberately?)ambiguous.
If I recall correctly, the Israelis' were the first to use the parachute assisted delayed bomb was it in the Seven Days War? But I'm not sure who was responsible for the development of the weapon but a clever concept nonetheless.
Spruggles. -
Message 33
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 22nd May 2010
Off subject. Some years back we were driving through the Highlands of Scotland when two Bucaneers came screaming up the valley behind us. I swear they were so low the flashed to pull over so they could get past. Two years back we were up in the Lake District and again two C130s flew across Lake Windermere. They were so low their props were leaving a trail in the water, and the ferry boat we were on rocked as the nearest one lifted up slightly to pass us.
-
Message 34
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 22nd May 2010
Off subject. Some years back we were driving through the Highlands of Scotland when two Bucaneers came screaming up the valley behind us. I swear they were so low the flashed to pull over so they could get past. Two years back we were up in the Lake District and again two C130s flew across Lake Windermere. They were so low their props were leaving a trail in the water, and the ferry boat we were on rocked as the nearest one lifted up slightly to pass us. We had the same thing happen on a road in South Dakota with a couple of B2s only it was our car that rocked.
-
Message 35
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 22nd May 2010
GrumpyFred,
I have a photograph I took of an F104 while stood on a bump by the side of the airfield and its looking down into the canopy. -
Message 36
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 23rd May 2010
We had a Phantom arrive at RAF Woodvale some years back. The new CO had been with the aircraft until they were withdrawn and upon finding out the station did not have a gate guardian asked if he could take one across. As it was the planes last ever flight, he did things with it that would have never been in the book of instructions, including an inverted flight across the field with the tail almost cutting the grass. Sadly nobody filmed it.
-
Message 37
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 25th May 2010
Spruggles
Having found one of my old reference books, I find that "loft" and "toss" are two different techniques, not just different terminology (so much for my infallible memory).
A "loft" attack does not involve pulling extra "g", while a "toss" profile is sharper and does involve extra "g". This makes a "loft" attack possible for Vulcan (the stress of low-level is pretty high, anyway; Vulcan was better able to withstand this than Victor, one reason for curtailing Victor B2 procurement). I have not found any reference to Vulcan "loft" profiles, though.
You're a bunch of sad spotters, incidentally. As a cadet, I was in a 4-tonner that a Gazelle used as cover while moving from one treeline to another on the Plain (which was cheating, because we weren't part of his "exercise reality"). He was about two feet off the ground, and flying sideways. Don't think you get much lower than that, even if he wasn't doing 400 knots
Cheers
LW -
Message 38
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 25th May 2010
I was told once of a Vulcan taking part in an exercise or "competition" in the US and winning by flying low level with a Buccaneer hiding from radar under each wing then popping out to take on the US attackers.
Is it an Urban Legend? -
Message 39
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 26th May 2010
LW,
Thanks, that does seem to clear the situation somewhat. The Victor's crescent wing whilst being very useful in certain conditions made it very vulnable to turbulance at low level. The Vulcan was only marginally better suited and I remember the raised eyebrows when it appeared in its new role but with the new defence counter-measure - different camoflage.
Oh well, if it's a competion for low level stuff ... I got a pickie of a Gnat doing a low pass over the crowd(I hope it was a genuine pilot error as he emerged fromm the downward bomb-burst)and his a/c is above the crowd but underneath the top of a windsock! AND ... I witnesed a B-17 during filming I think for the 'War Lover' squeezing between two hangers. I think that was at Bovingdon - not sure. It was one of those 'why did I leave my camera at home' moments.
Anyone remember the 'Roger Bacon column in the 'Flight'? It did have a 'How low can you get?' feature which displayed some pretty hairly moments as I recall. My favourite was one of a sideways veiw of a De Haviland Hornet(everyone say 'Ahhhh')doing a pass with the tips of its propellers about three feet off the ground and the pilot is looking sideways at the cameraman! Nerves of steel some people.
Regards to all,
S -
Message 40
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 26th May 2010
Oppps,
My last effort seems to have gone off in my hand.
I meant to add a postscript to;
MB,
I recall that this was certainly reported in the press - it was supposed to have occurred during one of those combined NATO tests(war games)and was full of those stories of panicky Yanks ducking and screaming 'The Reds are coming' as the Buccs flew round their skyscrapers.
I shortened epistle was recorded in the 'Flight' which also said that the American defences were penetrated by British aircraft. -
Message 41
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 26th May 2010
JB, not likely as the Bucks carried no offensive weapons. I remember seeing a documentry on the aircraft and a pilot saying that as the aircraft carrier they were on was going through the canal, they had the groundcrews fit mock Sidewinders to the Bucks to give the Russians (Who were sitting on the banks watching) the impression that the aircraft was carrying offensive weapons.
-
Message 42
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 26th May 2010
It was a requirement of the "Red Flag" exercises back in the days of Vulcans and Buccs that fighter-bombers simulated a gun and at least IR armament, even if they didn't actually have them. Otherwise the defending fighters were not facing a realistic self-defence capability in their opponents, so weren't getting the full training value.
For everyday encounters in NATO, the Buccs also pretended to have an air-to-air capability.
Of course, after the Falklands, the Harriers, Jags, Tonados and Buccs got Sidewinder. The Buccs definitely had them by the time of OP GRANBY, and the Jags that remarkable "X-Wing Fighter" arrangement.
Haven't heard the Vulcan/Bucc combo story. But more likely the idea was that the sudden appearance of the extra aircraft would so complicate the intercept that they would get through, rather than shoot down the opposition (although that would be nice, too).
The big Soviet bomber-launched ASMs used to be simulated by a Canberra flying with a Hunter or two in close formation, then the Canberra pulling away and the Hunters charging in as the ASMs (which were big missiles).
If you haven't read them, it's worth looking out for Robert Prest's "F4 Phantom: A Pilot's Story", which came out in 1979. It is practically unique as an account of RAF fast-jet flying in the '70s - it includes his embarrassment, as a Phantom FGR2 pilot, at being "bounced" by two Banana Bombers, and how difficult is was to catch the Italian anti-shipping F104s.
Also, Alfred Price's "Air Battle Central Europe", from 1986, is a series of interviews with senior officers and squadron commanders about how the various aircraft types in AAFCE were to be used if the Fantasians ever crossed the IGB.
Jet Noise: It's the Sound of Freedom! etc, etc -
Message 43
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 27th May 2010
Jet Noise: It's the Sound of FreedomΒ
If only...
More likely it is the consequence of a pilot who has confused a QFE for a QNH when flying IMC. -
Message 44
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 27th May 2010
"Have you flown solo?"
"That depends. How low is so low?" -
Message 45
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 28th May 2010
Listen to the jet noise! I have - no confusion with instruments either.
Ever had nights with Nimrods on finals scrapping over yer chimney pots and with there nice bright landing lights illuminating your bedroom? Or Victor tankers taking off and drowning out for minutes on end every known artificial and human method of communication known to mankind?
(Loved every minute of it)
Low is low when you can tell a tell a narcissus from a daffodil at ninety knots(from a Tiger Moth). -
Message 46
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 28th May 2010
There was a book (Fiction) but supposed to based on a fact of a squadron of Vulcans doing a low level raid onto the US mainland to prove that their airspace could be penetrated. In the book, it almost leads to WW3 as the person who was supposed to advise the US that the attack was coming didn't. Can't for the life of me remember the title, but then again it was in the late 60s.
GF -
Message 47
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 28th May 2010
To GF
The novel (later, film) "Fail Safe" had a similar plot in that a low level simulated attack triggers WW3 by accident, but I don't remember anything about Vulcans, in particular...
ring any bells? -
Message 48
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 28th May 2010
I remember the film Failsafe, but this was a British story. The senior officer also realises how the Russians could attack the US and not be caught until it was to late. The plot was Russian bombers would fly at low level to the mid Atlantic, and there intercept and destroy west bound passenger aircraft before they could signal they were under attack. (This was before the mid Atlantic was covered by sats.) The bombers would then take the place of the passenger planes and by the time the US realised, it would be to late. Not a bad plot.
GF -
Message 49
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 29th May 2010
GF,
Could be "The Penetrators" by Hank Searls[writing as Anthony Grey] -
Message 50
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 29th May 2010
Could be, I'll look it up.
GF
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.