You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure. But valves v transisitors, no. Blue Steel's guidance system might have predated the serious use of the transistor, which were "invented" in 1947. The first prototype Vulcan flew in 1952. Blue Steel was called for in 1954 and entered service in 1964.
charles wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@charleshope.demon.co.uk:
I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried and tested modules - hence valves.
Well we do have a carrier, but it only carries choppers, no fast jets. That was the mistake - selling the remaining harriers to the Yanks.
AIUI, there was also some chance that the Argies, having seen that we could mount a bombing raid from 8000 miles away, became nervous that we might attack Buenos Ares, and so held some of their fighter-bombers up north just in case.
No, I think was the B-36.
Regards
Syke
What sort of things were they complaining about?
It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers - almost than anything else, defence-wise.
But, regardless of anything else, did you listen to R4's History of the Royal Navy?
Most likely true, Interstingly, the wiki page on Blue Streak suggests the guidance system was more advanced that that of either the Vulcan or Victor.
Of course, Beyond The Fringe suggested that it would be delivered by a team of highly trained runners and renamed "Greased Lightning".
I heard that the bomber pilots could somehow link into the missile navigation system because of its better performance.
I don't know about valves but we were told it used germanium transitors. (The RAF bod seemed not to have cottoned on that would not impress teenagers whose trannies were in regular use for Radio Caroline.)
Why you sceptical about that?
Not yet but I'm downloading them one by one.
Apologies for poor focus:
Every year or so our army Black Hawks do training over Melbourne city centre, flying between the skyscrapers and hovering over target buildings. Very impressive.
Tim Streater scribbled...
Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out of action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to provide limited CAP over the landings.
Yes, indeed. Flightradar24 came in very useful.
Tim Streater scribbled...
Only if we keep on going to war.
Had a similar experience driving past Manston when they were rehearsing the air show. I was driving down the road just outside the perimeter - with the sunroof open.
Then a Harrier did a vertical takeoff just inside the perimeter - the "sit on its backside and let loose" sort.
I nearly went off the road.
Not sure if it still does, but a Tornado used to show at the British Grand Prix at Silverstone. The near supersonic level flight in towards the track, then the almost instantaneous transition to vertical, followed by it climbing at an amazing rate to almost out-of-sight was awe inspiring and deafening. It was so loud that car alarms across the car parks went off in unison!
In article , Robin scribeth thus
And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse released by a nuclear explosion...
Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..
Typhoon demo at East Fortune Air Show had it standing still in the air, on its tail with the dancing diamonds in the afterburner glow, almost as noisy as the Vulcan....
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required