Have the Blackburn Buccaneer be more successful

Riain

Banned
If Britain retained the 4 strike carrier fleet, building CVA01-03 etc to keep it, how many Buccaneers would they need? IIRC they wanted 140 Phantoms, and they ordered 96 Buccaneer S2 but only got 84. If the RN had 4 strike carriers surely they'd need more than 84 S2s, even more than 140 Phantoms given their use as tankers and they don't need foreign exchange to buy.
 
If Britain retained the 4 strike carrier fleet, building CVA01-03 etc to keep it, how many Buccaneers would they need? IIRC they wanted 140 Phantoms, and they ordered 96 Buccaneer S2 but only got 84. If the RN had 4 strike carriers surely they'd need more than 84 S2s, even more than 140 Phantoms given their use as tankers and they don't need foreign exchange to buy.
Most sources say the air group was to have been 18 Phantoms and 18 Buccaneers plus ASW and AEW so my guess is 140 Buccaneers. Plus more to replace the Mk 2s lost to attrition before the Phantom entered service and less the surviving Mk 1s which were used by the training squadron.
 
If Britain retained the 4 strike carrier fleet, building CVA01-03 etc to keep it, how many Buccaneers would they need? IIRC they wanted 140 Phantoms, and they ordered 96 Buccaneer S2 but only got 84. If the RN had 4 strike carriers surely they'd need more than 84 S2s, even more than 140 Phantoms given their use as tankers and they don't need foreign exchange to buy.


I was thinking something similar, Riain,

The 1952 carrier is approved, two enter service around 1958-1960. The older smaller carriers are sold off (no Victorious conversion) or converted to commando/LPH use, except Hermes.

In 1965, the CVA-01 program begins to replace Eagle and Ark Royal. One enters service in 1970, one in 1972 and one in 1974. Hermes is sold to Australia to replace Melbourne.

All five RN carriers utilize Buccaneers for Strike, plus training squadrons, and Australia orders Buccaneers for Hermes. Buccaneers are sold to India in 1976 in anticipation of the sale of one of the 1952 carriers in 1978. The second 1952 carrier is sold to India in 1982.

With so many Buccaneer users around the world, a supersonic version of the aircraft is proposed in the '70s and enters service with the RN in 1981, with Australia in 1983, with India in 1985.

Regards,
 
All five RN carriers utilize Buccaneers for Strike, plus training squadrons, and Australia orders Buccaneers for Hermes. Buccaneers are sold to India in 1976 in anticipation of the sale of one of the 1952 carriers in 1978. The second 1952 carrier is sold to India in 1982.
In principle, that's 133 Buccaneers in active squadrons, which works out to around 200 S.2s. That's not overmuch of an increase from the OTL production of 149 S.2s, though most of them would be ordered much sooner and there'd be proportionately more flying at any given time. Tossing in the 36 South African S.2s helps, but you'd probably want a large RAF or IAF order to get the supersonic Buccaneer funded. Unfortunately, while the supersonic Buccaneer fits well in replacing either the Canberra or MiG-27 in Indian service, I'd expect the Indians to prefer the significantly cheaper Su-7 and Ajeet in the late 60s timeframe they'd consider buying the S.2. That leaves basically the OTL RAF order of around 50 airframes, presuming the rolling fiasco that was British deep-strike aircraft development in the 60s and 70s continues, and I don't think that quite moves the needle enough.

Then again, get the Indian Air Force on board and that would get the supersonic Bucc off the ground on its own. They bought a lot of MiG-27s.

Also unfortunately, the Buccaneer isn't suitable for the RAAF requirement that led to the F-111C. Besides the speed issue the Bucc just doesn't have the legs required.
 

Riain

Banned
Most sources say the air group was to have been 18 Phantoms and 18 Buccaneers plus ASW and AEW so my guess is 140 Buccaneers. Plus more to replace the Mk 2s lost to attrition before the Phantom entered service and less the surviving Mk 1s which were used by the training squadron.

IIUC the 140 Phantoms were for 4 operational squadrons, and OCU/HQ sqn and a trials unit. I don't know if S1s would be fully suitable for the OCU and Trials units.

I've also read that the mix might have been 12 Phantoms and 24 Buccaneers, to maximise the offensive power of the 2 carrier Tactical Air Unit.
 

Riain

Banned
I was thinking something similar, Riain,

The 1952 carrier is approved, two enter service around 1958-1960. The older smaller carriers are sold off (no Victorious conversion) or converted to commando/LPH use, except Hermes.

In 1965, the CVA-01 program begins to replace Eagle and Ark Royal. One enters service in 1970, one in 1972 and one in 1974. Hermes is sold to Australia to replace Melbourne.

All five RN carriers utilize Buccaneers for Strike, plus training squadrons, and Australia orders Buccaneers for Hermes. Buccaneers are sold to India in 1976 in anticipation of the sale of one of the 1952 carriers in 1978. The second 1952 carrier is sold to India in 1982.

With so many Buccaneer users around the world, a supersonic version of the aircraft is proposed in the '70s and enters service with the RN in 1981, with Australia in 1983, with India in 1985.

Regards,

There is a bunch of combinations where this can happen with the 1952 carrier, Eagle and Ark Royal and the CVA01 class, even with the Vic thrown in there as well if it's rebuild wasn't done twice. In any case a run of the mill Britwank using well established plans conformed with established Defence Policy could easily see the RN get ~150 Buccaneer S2. However such a Britwank would also likely see the TSR2 built, so the Buccaneer merely breaks even in such a scenario in terms of build numbers.
 

marathag

Banned
The short range of the Lightning is overblown, the big belly tank of the F2A and F6 had am endurance of 1 1/2 hours, which isn't too bad for the time.
Now see the endurance at Mach2.
Not so great anymore.
It the same thing that killed the F-104 with the USAF
 

Riain

Banned
Now see the endurance at Mach2.
Not so great anymore.
It the same thing that killed the F-104 with the USAF

What is the endurance of the F4 and F106 ar Mach 2?

A Prius gets worse fuel economy than a BMW M3 when being flogged around a racetrack.
 
In which case, rather than have the RAF buy the standard S.2, have them buy the P.150 variant. It would have been a viable and cheaper alternative to the TSR.2. Not to mention closer in capabilities to what the RAF actually needed by the late ‘60s. That variant would then potentially be available for export to users like the RAAF.
P150 was essentially a new aircraft with all the risks and costs that involve and inevitable delays that would entail
 

marathag

Banned
What is the endurance of the F4 and F106 ar Mach 2?

A Prius gets worse fuel economy than a BMW M3 when being flogged around a racetrack.
The F-106 was also a very fast aircraft which featured a supercruise ability as Mark Foxwell, another former Delta Dart driver, explained: “I recently visited the 27 Fighter Squadron at Langley, flying the F-22. They touted the Raptor’s supercruise capability, where they use AB to take it well supersonic and then cruise supersonic in military. Well I/we did that routinely on the Six (as the F-106 was called its pilots); I would take it in full AB to 49,000 and Mach 1.5, then go to full mil and cruise supersonic for 500 miles or more.”
 
What is the endurance of the F4 and F106 ar Mach 2?

A Prius gets worse fuel economy than a BMW M3 when being flogged around a racetrack.
I don't have straight endurance figures, but an F-106 flying at 40,000 feet had a combat radius of just under 600 nautical miles at Mach .9 and around 225 at Mach 2. I do not have similar figures for the Phantom, as I only have Navy data for that plane and they calculate things differently.

Compared to the Lightning, the F-106 does have significantly greater supersonic endurance. A max-range supersonic Lightning intercept at Mach 1.8 and at 36,000 feet gives it a combat radius of 135 nautical miles; doing the same for an F-106 produces a combat radius of about 275 nautical miles.
 
Last edited:
IIUC the 140 Phantoms were for 4 operational squadrons, and OCU/HQ sqn and a trials unit. I don't know if S1s would be fully suitable for the OCU and Trials units.
The Buccaneer S Mk 1 was phased out of the front line squadrons in 1966 but was used by the OCU and Trials units until 1970.

According to Paul Beaver's Encylopaedia of the Fleet Air Arm since 1945 the Buccaneer S Mk 1 units were:
700 - 1961-63​
736 - 1965-70​
800 - 1964-66​
801 - 1962-65​
809 - 1963-65​

It was phased out of service in December 1970.

As I have the book open the Buccaneer S Mk 2 units were:
736 - 1966-72​
800 - 1966-72​
801 - 1965-70​
803 - 1968-69​
809 - 1966-78​

I thought that Roy Boot's From Spitfire to Eurofighter included details of a proposal to convert the surviving Mk 1s to Mk 2. However, all I could find was: P.148 Retrofit of Spey Engine to Buccaneer Mk 1 1967: in the appendix at the back. I think the surviving Mk 1s would have been converted to Mk 2s if the Royal Navy had been allowed to keep the strike carriers for longer.
I've also read that the mix might have been 12 Phantoms and 24 Buccaneers, to maximise the offensive power of the 2 carrier Tactical Air Unit.
I read that too. It would have reduced the number of Phantoms required by about a third and increased the number of Buccaneers by about a third. Say 90-100 Phantoms and 180-190 Buccaneers.
 
Last edited:
I like the plan.

So in the late 70's early 80's the RCAF has to replace their fleet of aging:
Arrows (very long in the tooth)
Lightings
Buccaneers

If there was a lot of cooperation between the RAF and the RCAF would you see a single type for replacement?
At which point there will be no Tornado in this TL, so the RAF will buy first F-15C as Arrow and Lightning replacements and then F-15E as Buccaneer replacements. This will kill later British interest in the Typhoon.
The German and Italians, having jointly built the AMX in large numbers as an F-104/G-91 replacement, will now team up to build an alternate lighter Eurofighter.
 
Last edited:
Here is the deal: Buccaneer is never going to be an affordable aircraft unless it can be rolled out in hundreds. So let's make most of it. Just like the UK made a fighter Tornado out of the bomber Tornado, let's outfit the Bucc with fighters' bits & bolts (radar-assisted fire control system - mostly controlled by the backseat guy - along with Skyflash missiles), with engine section featuring afterburning Avon or Spey.

Bucc was carrying a lot of fuel, the 'legacy' Mk.2 carried 16000 lbs (~7300 kg) of fuel if the bomb-bay was used to carry the fuel - more than F4B or F-15A, and almost as much as F-14. The Mk.50 (export model, S. African) was capable of carrying ~19500 lbs of fuel (almost twice of what F-18A/C had), plus two drop tanks under wing. Buccaneers were also outfitted with in-flight refueling.
 

Riain

Banned
The F-106 was also a very fast aircraft which featured a supercruise ability as Mark Foxwell, another former Delta Dart driver, explained: “I recently visited the 27 Fighter Squadron at Langley, flying the F-22. They touted the Raptor’s supercruise capability, where they use AB to take it well supersonic and then cruise supersonic in military. Well I/we did that routinely on the Six (as the F-106 was called its pilots); I would take it in full AB to 49,000 and Mach 1.5, then go to full mil and cruise supersonic for 500 miles or more.”

I don't have straight endurance figures, but an F-106 flying at 40,000 feet had a combat radius of just under 600 nautical miles at Mach .9 and around 225 at Mach 2. I do not have similar figures for the Phantom, as I only have Navy data for that plane and they calculate things differently.

Compared to the Lightning, the F-106 does have significantly greater supersonic endurance. A max-range supersonic Lightning intercept at Mach 1.8 and at 36,000 feet gives it a combat radius of 135 nautical miles; doing the same for an F-106 produces a combat radius of about 275 nautical miles.

These arguments are what I mean by the Lightning/Buccaneer=hate/love relationship.

Nobody seem to have a problem with supersonic Buccaneers able to take on the world but the merest suggestion that the Lightning isn't a total dud needs to come with a trigger warning.

The contention wasn't supercruise, it was Mach 2 endurance. I'm not saying the F106 and F4 don't have longer legs than the Lightning, just that when full afterburner is used nothing has long legs and if the Lightning has the shortest range in that profile it has the highest climb rates as a compensation. The Lightning 135nm interception can be done in 10 minutes from brake release; can the F106 react as quickly, or does it need that extra range because it's too slow in the climb? More importantly, given their operating environment does it even matter?
 

Riain

Banned
The Buccaneer S Mk 1 was phased out of the front line squadrons in 1966 but was used by the OCU and Trials units until 1970.

According to Paul Beaver's Encylopaedia of the Fleet Air Arm since 1945 the Buccaneer S Mk 1 units were:
700 - 1961-63​
736 - 1965-70​
800 - 1964-66​
801 - 1962-65​
809 - 1963-65​

It was phased out of service in December 1970.

As I have the book open the Buccaneer S Mk 2 units were:
736 - 1966-72​
800 - 1966-72​
801 - 1965-70​
803 - 1968-69​
809 - 1966-78​

I thought that Roy Boot's From Spitfire to Eurofighter included details of a proposal to convert the surviving Mk 1s to Mk 2. However, all I could find was: P.148 Retrofit of Spey Engine to Buccaneer Mk 1 1967: in the appendix at the back. I think they surviving Mk 1s would have been converted to Mk 2s if the Royal Navy had been allowed to keep the strike carriers for longer.

I read that too. It would have reduced the number of Phantoms required by about a third and increased the number of Buccaneers by about a third. Say 90-100 Phantoms and 180-190 Buccaneers.

Interesting, apart from the engines how different were the S1 and S2?

I've read 110 Phantoms as another number for the RN, and 70 before the final 2 prototypes and 48 production models. 110 would fit the 12-24 TAU, 48+7 options + 2 prototypes likely the period between the 1966 white paper where Eagle and Ark were to service until 1975 and Jan 1968 when Eagle was to be scrapped and Ark to only serve until 1972.
 
These arguments are what I mean by the Lightning/Buccaneer=hate/love relationship.

Nobody seem to have a problem with supersonic Buccaneers able to take on the world but the merest suggestion that the Lightning isn't a total dud needs to come with a trigger warning.

The contention wasn't supercruise, it was Mach 2 endurance. I'm not saying the F106 and F4 don't have longer legs than the Lightning, just that when full afterburner is used nothing has long legs and if the Lightning has the shortest range in that profile it has the highest climb rates as a compensation. The Lightning 135nm interception can be done in 10 minutes from brake release; can the F106 react as quickly, or does it need that extra range because it's too slow in the climb? More importantly, given their operating environment does it even matter?
I am pretty sure I have much less time than you logged on discussion forums for Cold War aircraft. But at least in my more limited experience I haven’t seen the Lightning hate you mention. I here EE Lightning and I think “only plane possibly able to intercept a U2”.

That seems like a pretty solid claim to fame for me.
 
These arguments are what I mean by the Lightning/Buccaneer=hate/love relationship.

Nobody seem to have a problem with supersonic Buccaneers able to take on the world but the merest suggestion that the Lightning isn't a total dud needs to come with a trigger warning.

The contention wasn't supercruise, it was Mach 2 endurance. I'm not saying the F106 and F4 don't have longer legs than the Lightning, just that when full afterburner is used nothing has long legs and if the Lightning has the shortest range in that profile it has the highest climb rates as a compensation. The Lightning 135nm interception can be done in 10 minutes from brake release; can the F106 react as quickly, or does it need that extra range because it's too slow in the climb? More importantly, given their operating environment does it even matter?

If I may.
Nobody will say that Lightning was not a performer. It was, but it fell between two stools - one that offered BVR and all-weather capability with suitable radar and missiles, with second crew member and endurance (= F-4), and the one that required just one engine to buy, maintain and fuel, while still having Mach 2 capacity and IR missiles (Mirages + F-104 mostly for the 'West'). In other words, Lightning combined the shortcomings of a 2-engined fighter (high cost to buy and maintain) with the shortcomings of an 'affordable' fighter ( low-capability of the weapon system). All-weather capability is needed to kill Soviet bombers attacking the UK in bad weather.

To me, a Lightning with crew of two (like the trainer versions were), with side intakes so a bigger radar can be installed, and Skyflash capability should've been a good return of investment, and probably interesting for the foreign buyers.
 
Top