AHC Buccaneer NATO Standard
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
F104G local production deals
The F104G was extensively built in the countries that bought it, and helped set up the German Italian fighter building industry. Would the British Governement be willing to sell the Bucc in the same manner, or would they want to sell finished aircraft off the shelf?
A late model F104S with 2 Karmoran missiles is a very capable antiship aircraft, and probably a lot cheaper than a Bucc. The Bucc is unbeatable as a long range low level strike aircraft, but when the LW bought the F104G it wanted an aircraft to fly mostly short range tactical nuclear strikes on soviet armoured forces.
A comparison btw an F104G and an early model S1 Bucc would not be as one sided as might appear, if cost, licensing manufacturing deals and rapid delivery are factored in. Countries that got the F104 later, with MB ejection seats and the bugs, operating routines worked out, like Spain and Turkey, had a lot less crashes/fatalities (Spain had 0 crashes with their 21 Starfighters)
The F104G was extensively built in the countries that bought it, and helped set up the German Italian fighter building industry. Would the British Governement be willing to sell the Bucc in the same manner, or would they want to sell finished aircraft off the shelf?
A late model F104S with 2 Karmoran missiles is a very capable antiship aircraft, and probably a lot cheaper than a Bucc. The Bucc is unbeatable as a long range low level strike aircraft, but when the LW bought the F104G it wanted an aircraft to fly mostly short range tactical nuclear strikes on soviet armoured forces.
A comparison btw an F104G and an early model S1 Bucc would not be as one sided as might appear, if cost, licensing manufacturing deals and rapid delivery are factored in. Countries that got the F104 later, with MB ejection seats and the bugs, operating routines worked out, like Spain and Turkey, had a lot less crashes/fatalities (Spain had 0 crashes with their 21 Starfighters)
Against an aircraft going 600 knots plus that has to climb to get over power lines as it generally flies below treetop hight? That doesn't leave much time to get on target.
they got majorly caught in the Netherlands, bribing prince bernhard and nearly causing a constitutional crisis. Pretty hard to get caught bigger than that.
But that wouldn't influence buying the buc, the trouble was about the notorious widowmaker aka the flying iron, the F-104. if lockheed gets caught you might see a chance for the grumman F11F super tiger though (Much better aircraft in my opinion anyways). to get the buc accepted you need a doctrine that calls for the kind of aircraft the buc is, a low level attack aircraft, or a doctrine that relies less on multi-role aircraft and more on fighters (with some strike capability) and bombers/attack aircraft.
but i would say also bonuspoints if you manage to get it accepted as BLACKBURN Buccaneer instead of hawker siddeley.
Light AA tends to get fired as a barrage over likely approach/egress routes to/from targets. The Thundercheif was just as fast as the Bucc at low level but the USAF had to fly it above 3000ft because of the veritable curtain of small AA fire in and around target areas. This situation was repeated for the RAF in 1991 when the Tornados kept getting shot down by flying through clouds of small calibre rounds at low level.
If the US Navy really, really, wanted th Bucc instead of the Intruder then you could see some kind of licence agreement along the lines of the Harrier later on. It would make it easier to sell the aircraft to West Germany etc. The Americans may well develop it further. And of course, Buccaneers operating from US carriers would see service in Vietnam.
the canberra licence agreement pre dates the Bucc doesn't it so it wasn't totally unheard of ...
U.S. service for the Buccaneer was not very likely: in those days, if an aircraft like the A-6 (and later on, the F-111) had been accepted for service, and problems developed, it was simple: TMA (Throw Money At It) and get the kinks worked out. And in those days, if Grumman says they can fix whatever problems ail the A-6, there's no way the Navy is going to look elsewhere. Ditto for the AF (which was actually directed by Congress to evaluate the A-6 if the F-111 wound up being cancelled entirely-and not just the F-111B program for the Navy). The AF did the same thing the Navy did re: the A-6: threw money at GD and got the problems solved.
If the US Navy really, really, wanted th Bucc instead of the Intruder then you could see some kind of licence agreement along the lines of the Harrier later on. It would make it easier to sell the aircraft to West Germany etc. The Americans may well develop it further. And of course, Buccaneers operating from US carriers would see service in Vietnam.
This is the only way it gets into U.S. service, if the A-6 fails. That is exceptionally unlikely. Grumman was pretty solid.
The USAF will not want to operate it, it was WAY too slow for USAF tactical thought of the era (hell, MACH 2 was barely acceptable), and by the time the 'Nam changed things around the U.S. was using the also superb F-4 Phantom in ground attack, along with the F-105 and had the A-7, which was already in series production to draw on for the sub-sonic attack role.
Then, of course, you have the Aardvark. MACH 2, terrain following radar, double the bomb load, double the range. Game, Set, Match.
Agrreed: both services were committed to the A-6 and F-111 programs.
ISTR the article on the Buccaneer that World Air Power Journal did a while back: the author quoted an old Jane's article from the '60s where Blackburn was hoping that the S.2 version of the Buccaneer "would be available to the U.S. Navy as an A-6 replacement." Wishful thinking there, fellas.
ISTR the article on the Buccaneer that World Air Power Journal did a while back: the author quoted an old Jane's article from the '60s where Blackburn was hoping that the S.2 version of the Buccaneer "would be available to the U.S. Navy as an A-6 replacement." Wishful thinking there, fellas.