The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Vulcan Bomber
ambush    2/22/2008 6:29:29 PM
Anybody have an idea of what type of radar cross section it had? relatively large, small, semi-stealthy?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
JWCook       2/22/2008 6:47:12 PM
very very stealthy - if you consider the flight profile.. but fairly large at high level.
But it could out turn most fighters at height.

Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/22/2008 7:08:01 PM
It could out manoeuvre most 1950/60 aircraft at high altitude.  In the original medium-high altitude nuclear weapon role it had a large radar profile, it being a huge hunk of flying metal - I obviously have no idea as to how good its ECM was.  Radar wise though I doubt it would be that much harder to detect than the much larger B52 or Bear.

In the low altitude role it obviously is far stealthier due to the lay of the land, but as with the Tornado's in the Gulf War, I think it fair to assume they would have taken losses.

I always feel a bit sorry for the Valiant and Victor.  The Valiant if anything deserves a greater claim to fame, having participated in bombing Egypt in the Suez crises of 1956, and I believe it also took part in Malaya.  
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/22/2008 7:09:04 PM

As stealthy as a metal barn door.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       2/22/2008 8:33:04 PM
Thanks all.
 
Quote    Reply

kensohaski       2/24/2008 9:12:50 AM
Ahh nice to see a mention of one of the keepers of freedom!
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       2/24/2008 1:15:16 PM

It could out manoeuvre most 1950/60 aircraft at high altitude.  In the original medium-high altitude nuclear weapon role it had a large radar profile, it being a huge hunk of flying metal - I obviously have no idea as to how good its ECM was.  Radar wise though I doubt it would be that much harder to detect than the much larger B52 or Bear.

In the low altitude role it obviously is far stealthier due to the lay of the land, but as with the Tornado's in the Gulf War, I think it fair to assume they would have taken losses.

I always feel a bit sorry for the Valiant and Victor.  The Valiant if anything deserves a greater claim to fame, having participated in bombing Egypt in the Suez crises of 1956, and I believe it also took part in Malaya.  
As to the ECM, I was told by an RAF officer at the time (mid 60's) that it was very good. He told me that a flight flew across the US on a goodwill tour and went undetected as soon as the ECM was switched on. If it could defeat US radar, it was falet that it was sure to defeat Soviet radar.

As to the shape affecting its radar cross section, all those rounded lines meant that the airframe had a natural low radar profile. Of course, the engines would have been very radar visible. Compare the front view of a Vulcan with the front view of a B2.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/24/2008 1:48:15 PM
It was my understanding that, at least in recent times, US military radar only looked outward beyond the shores of the North American continent. As such, intra-continental air traffic was handled by civilian radar.

Defeating civilian radar is somewhat easier than military grade radar, and that should in no way be indicative of the capabilities of the U.S.S.R..
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/24/2008 2:56:04 PM


As to the shape affecting its radar cross section, all those rounded lines meant that the airframe had a natural low radar profile. Of course, the engines would have been very radar visible. Compare the front view of a Vulcan with the front view of a B2.




I have always understood that rounded metal deflects radar waves everywhere, and so always back to the emitter, while angled lines reflected radar waves in certain directions, and so away from the emitter.  Making angular aircraft such as the F117 very stealthy, and rounded aircraft like the Vulcan very visible (and better looking).
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       2/24/2008 3:39:28 PM

 ...and rounded aircraft like the Vulcan very visible (and better looking).


Better looking?  The Vulcan?!?  Ugh!


 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       2/24/2008 5:06:52 PM
I don't see too many flat surfaces on the F22 or B2. 

No,

Its sharp edges that give the biggest returns, hence why stealth aircraft try to hide their turbine blades. Have you ever seen the radar reflector carried by yachts that would otherwise give off tiny radar reflections? It looks like a flat plate about a foot square with triangular plates welded to the flat sides at 90degrees. It makes the yacht highly visible.

When Northrop made their flying wing aircraft in the 50's a side effect of the design was that it was very difficult for radar to spot them. Northrop never threw away their test results from those programs and thats why the basic plan of the B2 is the shape that it is. If you look at a Vulcan, it resembles those early and contemporary flying wing designs, but with a conventional tail fin and forward fuselage added.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       2/24/2008 5:07:32 PM
I don't see too many flat surfaces on the F22 or B2. 

No,

Its sharp edges that give the biggest returns, hence why stealth aircraft try to hide their turbine blades. Have you ever seen the radar reflector carried by yachts that would otherwise give off tiny radar reflections? It looks like a flat plate about a foot square with triangular plates welded to the flat sides at 90degrees. It makes the yacht highly visible.

When Northrop made their flying wing aircraft in the 50's a side effect of the design was that it was very difficult for radar to spot them. Northrop never threw away their test results from those programs and thats why the basic plan of the B2 is the shape that it is. If you look at a Vulcan, it resembles those early and contemporary flying wing designs, but with a conventional tail fin and forward fuselage added.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/24/2008 5:43:16 PM


As stealthy as a metal barn door.

Get rid of the knobby bits, that vertical slab of a tail and make the aeroshell out of a modern composites or a RAM as well as redesign the wingroot inlets to be true radio offset baffles and you reduce  that RCS a great deal. The shape is quite workable. It needs shape tweaking and materials redesign to work.

Why is it ugly? Its actually a CUTE aircraft.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

TrustButVerify       2/27/2008 3:28:43 PM
I agree- t' hell with you Vulcan haters, that bird was prettier than anything the U.S. has put in the air since the B-36 was retired.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       2/28/2008 11:01:20 AM
Aw. C'mon, any heavy strategic bomber that could go wheels up and into a barrel roll inside the take off distance of a Buff had to be admired :)

Stealthy? Not very. Probably a lower RCS than many of it's contemporaries - the Bear with multiple contra-rotating props probably had an RCS bigger than a whole *formation* of Vulcans. At least the Tin Triangle had a nice series of gradual curves, recessed engine mounts, that sort of stuff.

Maybe an RCS the size of one barn door as opposed the entire farm.

Ian
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       2/29/2008 8:39:27 AM
I can attest to the Vulcan's flight capabilities - a Vulcan performed at an airshow at Dulles during the 1970s - it did loops, rolls, a cuban eight and fly bys so low that if you were standing in a foxhole it would have hit you in the face.  It had excellent low altitude and low speed performance.
 
Not so sure about the radar cross section - just looking at it gives one the impression the RCS had to be smaller than other bombers of the day (e.g. B-52, Bear, B-58).
 
The B-52 is always impressive, the B-58 was a screamer with four afterburning turbojets but the Vulcan was a pretty sight and very graceful.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy