DBWI: No Avro 730 in the Falklands War

OOC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_730

Were the Avro 730 bomber raids in the Falklands war militarily useful? (most people seem to think not, but they were mainly a political signal to the Argentine junta that Britain would fight?)

What difference would it have made if they had never taken place?

Given that this was the only combat the Avro 730 saw, if the British had cancelled this expensive program - for example in the 1957 defence review - saving money, and perhaps investing in civil aviation, would that have not been economically useful?

Imagine if, for example, if the British government had invested in developing a supersonic airliner in the late 50s and 60s. I hear the aircraft industry had plans for such an aircraft on the drawing board, and the French were even interested in collaborating... surely such as supersonic airliner would have gone on to dominate the world's airways - and would have been a much better investment than a military white elephant than only ever flew a handful of missions in a bizarre colonial war?

(If such a scenario, with the British aircraft industry dominating the world, and a better balance of payments - surely the Royal Navy would have been more powerful, perphaps keeping Eagle and Hermes in service along with the Ark Royal,... and thus no Falklands War in the first place, or an easier win during the war).
 
I think there are good reasons why never a supersonic airliner was build. Its not technical imossible after all, just no nation had seen it economical useful till know.
The Avro 730, like the american B-70, was constructed for a war that, for the mercy of God, never happend. Like any Weapon in the Cold War you can questions his usefullness, but it helped Britain to keep his own independent nuclear force and through his opend the door to stronger british-french nuclear cooperation, which led to the joint "European Deterrence Force".
 
Could the British manned space programme have been successful ITTL? The Black Arrow is still a very popular satellite launcher, but the Black Tempest manned rocket got cancelled just before the first flight.

Could we have maintained a credible deterrent with just the subsonic Vulcans? Possibly- after all, by the early 70s, the Vigilant* and B-70 forces were relying on stand-off missiles like Skybolt anyway due to Soviet developments in SAMs, as (I gather) were the Soviets with their Su-23s**. Perhaps we would have gone to an ICBM system based on the Black Arrow, but where would we launch it from?

You mention carriers- it would certainly be useful to have more than 1 in service now. Furious is the only non-US nuclear carrier, and the most powerful outside the USN, but it seems to spend half its time in refit. I heard that the French were considering nuclear power for theirs before we showed them how badly it could turn out. The new HMS Queen Elizabeth will be gas-turbine-powered- seems odd for a ship that size, especially given what's happening with oil prices. Perhaps with more money so we could design a carrier-sized reactor rather than having to use a ridiculous number of PWR1s, it would work better- and 2 or 3 carriers would be excellent.

*OOC: The 730 would have got a name before it entered service, just like the Lancaster (Avro 683) and Vulcan (Avro 698) did. I suggest Vigilant, continuing the V-bomber theme.

**OTL Sukhoi T-4.
 

Riain

Banned
If you've got it flaunt it. The bombing raid results may have been questionable but they were results and the Argies had to respond to the threat.
 
If you've got it flaunt it. The bombing raid results may have been questionable but they were results and the Argies had to respond to the threat.

Completely missing the airfield and dropping a string of bombs onto British civilians is a tad worse than questionable I'd think. How the RAF thought they could accomplish precision bombing by dropping thirty year old bombs from a Mach 3 aircraft at 70,000 feet is beyond me.
 
Completely missing the airfield and dropping a string of bombs onto British civilians is a tad worse than questionable I'd think. How the RAF thought they could accomplish precision bombing by dropping thirty year old bombs from a Mach 3 aircraft at 70,000 feet is beyond me.
The results were a tactical disaster, I give you that, but they forced the Argentineans to move their F-108s to defend Buenos Aires, thus keeping them off Ark's Buccaneers and Saro Ospreys*...

*SR.177
 
The results were a tactical disaster, I give you that, but they forced the Argentineans to move their F-108s to defend Buenos Aires, thus keeping them off Ark's Buccaneers and Saro Ospreys*...

*SR.177

Only in the desperate fantasies of the RAF trying to pretend they did something useful during the war. The Ospries were quite safe within the SAM cover of their ships and the Buccaneers were escorted by F-4K(VG) with Red Hebe. Rapiers would have been slaughtered if they had tried to come out against those.
 
Top