WI Buccaneer as a Hunter replacement?

Riain

Banned
The saga to replace the 9 sqns of Hawker Hunter FGA9/FR10 went from P1154 to a mix of Spey Phantoms (more or less) and P1127 Harriers. I have a bee in my bonnet about the Lightnings ground attack capability being developed and used instead of the Phantom as the supersonic, heavy hitting, runway dependent part of that mix. But what about, in a world where the TSR2 enters service in numbers, the Buccaneer is bought by the RAF to equip maybe 5 former Hunter squadrons instead of OTL Spey Phantoms and my pet Lightning FGRs?

The Buccaneer is rugged, very heavy hitting, can be equipped with modern avionics and bought without US dollars. However it is firmly subsonic and the RAF was adamant about supersonic speeds in the 60s, for good reason.

Thoughts?
 

Gunnarnz

The subsonic Buccaneer might be close to Phantom performance in practice. Could a Phantom loaded for a ground-attack mission go supersonic, or would all the ordnance hanging off it slow it to a subsonic speed?
Also, wasn't there a proposal for a supersonic area-ruled Buccaneer?
 
Last edited:
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

Peg Leg Pom said:
The Jaguar is a trainer with teeth. Its chief advantage is it's relatively cheap to buy and run. Buccs are real bombers.
Click to expand...
Cheaper and supersonic, sounds like a good deal. Fewer bombs per sortie sure, the OP said this is a TL where TSR2 is in service so cheaping out on the low portion of the high-low matrix is acceptable if not mandatory.
 

Riain

Banned
Gunnarnz said:
The subsonic Buccaneer might be close to Phantom performance in practice. Could a Phantom loaded for a ground-attack mission go supersonic, or would all the ordnance hanging off it slow it to a subsonic speed?
Also, wasn't there a proposal for a supersonic area-ruled Buccaneer?
Click to expand...

I think the loaded Phantom could touch mach 1 at low level for a minute or two, and certainly it could during egress after the ordnance was dropped.

There was a proposal for an area ruled Lightning P.8 that was far more achievable than the area-ruled, supersonic Buccaneer, but Britain never goes crazy with such projects. In any case the RAF has 3 or 4 wings of TSR2 for the really tough stuff.
 

Riain

Banned
SealTheRealDeal said:
No way to move the timeline up on them?
Click to expand...

Not really, it was a joint project with France which means conflicts over detailed requirements delay progress and those delays lead to more requirement changes. At heart the Jaguar is a supersonic Hawk or Alpha Jet that morphed into a reasonably sophisticated attack aircraft with a carrier fighter tangent thrown in for good measure. The Hunters need replacing from 1967, the agreement that lead to the Jaguar wasn't initiated until 1965 and ITTL likely won't even happen at all.
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

Riain said:
Not really, it was a joint project with France which means conflicts over detailed requirements delay progress and those delays lead to more requirement changes. At heart the Jaguar is a supersonic Hawk or Alpha Jet that morphed into a reasonably sophisticated attack aircraft with a carrier fighter tangent thrown in for good measure. The Hunters need replacing from 1967, the agreement that lead to the Jaguar wasn't initiated until 1965 and ITTL likely won't even happen at all.
Click to expand...
Drat.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Riain said:
The Hunters need replacing from 1967, the agreement that lead to the Jaguar wasn't initiated until 1965 and ITTL likely won't even happen at all.
Click to expand...
The Buccaneer isn't only in production in 1967 but the RN is running down its carrier fleet so there are surplus aircraft available. You could even replace some of the Hunters earlier than that if you use the old Buccaneer S1s. They may be underpowered for carrier and hot and high areas but they'd do for Germany with its long runways.
 

Riain

Banned
SealTheRealDeal said:
Drat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I see the Jaguar as a sign of policy failure despite it being a good aircraft. The RAF should never had to morph an advanced trainer into a nuclear capable strike aircraft after the P1154 and Phantom.

It would be much smoother, simpler and perhaps most importantly cheaper just to replace the Hunter with 4 sqns of P1127 Harriers and 5 sqns Lightnings or Buccaneers.
 

Riain

Banned
Peg Leg Pom said:
The Buccaneer isn't only in production in 1967 but the RN is running down its carrier fleet so there are surplus aircraft available. You could even replace some of the Hunters earlier than that if you use the old Buccaneer S1s. They may be underpowered for carrier and hot and high areas but they'd do for Germany with its long runways.
Click to expand...

The idea of all this gumpf I'm going on with is to strongman a wank in which CVA01 & 02 get built as does the TSR2, so the RN will need 3 Buccaneer squadrons for sea service as well as an OCU and Trials sqn/flt. So if the RAF uses them to replace the Hunter it will be a new buy of maybe 80 aircraft alongside the big RN and small SAAF buy.

If the Buccaneer was chosen to replace 5 sqns of Hunters 2 sqns would be allocated to Transport Command in Britain tasked with rapid deployment, 1 sqn would be in Bahrain alongside a Lightning sqn and 2 in Singapore or the Far East alongside 2 Lighting and 1 TSR2 sqns according to the early 1964 plan which would no doubt change. This is perhaps a disadvantage to choosing the Buccaneer over the Lightning, because if the Lightning was chosen the FGR and Fighter sqns could work seamlessly in wings whereas Lightnings and Buccaneers are very different types.
 

Rickshaw

Buccaneer was a good bomber/strike aircraft but it was not a maneuverable fighter replacement. I was once told of a RN carrier equipped with Buccaneers and Sea Vixens visiting Borneo during the Konfrontration. My friend said they demonstrated the two aircraft to them and he was very uncomplimentary about the Buccaneer's manourvrability. There was no aircraft available at the time or in development to replace the Hunters. The RAF had effectively killed most aircraft in 1957, apart from the Lightning. The Lightning had potential but the RAF wasn't interested.
 

Riain

Banned
Rickshaw said:
Buccaneer was a good bomber/strike aircraft but it was not a maneuverable fighter replacement. I was once told of a RN carrier equipped with Buccaneers and Sea Vixens visiting Borneo during the Konfrontration. My friend said they demonstrated the two aircraft to them and he was very uncomplimentary about the Buccaneer's manourvrability. There was no aircraft available at the time or in development to replace the Hunters. The RAF had effectively killed most aircraft in 1957, apart from the Lightning. The Lightning had potential but the RAF wasn't interested.
Click to expand...

The only reason why the Buccaneer could even be considered as a Hunter replacement was because it was decided by about 1960 that Britain would have virtually no air defences, In 1958 it was assumed Fighter Command would have 20 squadrons but by 1960 that was down to 12 and only 4 or 5 would be retained in Britain and sqns were pushed out to the Far East, Germany and Cyprus. A Buccaneer sqn would have to operate under the protection of fighters, it couldn't be stationed alone the way a multirole Lightning sqn could be.
 

Finbarr the Fair

I think the Harrier is the more likely Hunter replacement. With the Buccaneer a replacement for the short/medium range bomber and interdiction roles of the Canberra. TSR2 to replace Canberra PR and Vulcans.

Buccaneer Mk 2s can enter service in the mid-60s and supplement the Hunters in the way the Phantoms were first used in that role before being replaced by Jaguars and in turn taking over from Lightnings.

A Buccaneer Mk. 3 with some of thr TSR-2 avionics & ECM capabilities would be feasible for the 1970s.
 

Riain

Banned
Just for comparison.
An F.6 based mutltirole Lightning would be able to tote 6 x 1000lb bombs out to about 250-300 miles.
An S.2 Buccaneer could tote 8 x 1000lb bombs out to about 500 miles.
An FGR.2 Phantom could tote 6 x 1000lb bombs out to about 500 miles.
A GR3 Harrier could tote 3 x 1000lb bombs out to 200 miles.

Obviously the Phantom is the best, but it's super expensive, bad for British industry and very hard bad for foreign exchange balances.
 

Riain

Banned
Finbarr the Fair said:
I think the Harrier is the more likely Hunter replacement. With the Buccaneer a replacement for the short/medium range bomber and interdiction roles of the Canberra. TSR2 to replace Canberra PR and Vulcans.

Buccaneer Mk 2s can enter service in the mid-60s and supplement the Hunters in the way the Phantoms were first used in that role before being replaced by Jaguars and in turn taking over from Lightnings.

A Buccaneer Mk. 3 with some of thr TSR-2 avionics & ECM capabilities would be feasible for the 1970s.
Click to expand...

Until it's cancellation in 1965 the RAF was to get 168 P1154, then the RAF ordered 118 Phantom FGR.2 and 60 Harrier GR.1 as 'replacements', although by the time the Phantom entered service only 3 Hunter sqns converted to Phantom FGR.2 while all 4 Harrier sqns were converted from Hunters.

Unfortunately, like the Buccaneer, the Harrier cannot totally replace the Hunter because it too requires fighter cover so the RAF likely does need the Lightning and Harrier rather than Buccaneer and Harrier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top