Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Blackburn Buccaneer


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 7 Days
  • 234 topics

Posted 23 August 2009 - 03:00 PM

From Spitfire to Eurofighter, 45 years of Combat Aircraft Design by Roy Boot.

'In 1959 serious attempts had been made to sell the NA.39 in its original configuration to the West German Navy'

Does anyone know what the West German Navy thought of the design?

A version of the Buccaneer (the B.113, itself a version of the non wing folding B.112 offered to the RAF) was offered to the RAAF as a strike and all-weather interceptor (not sure when).

Does anyone know what the RAAF thought of the design?


Later on he also says that there were hopes that the US would adopt the Buccaneer in the same way the USAF adopted the Canberra to make the Martin B-57.

What were the chances of this?

#2 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 11 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 23 September 2009 - 01:31 PM

Idly browsing the web looking for an answer to your questions, I came across this excellent site: http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/

In the article on the SAAF Buccaneers, it states:

"Unfortunately, the Buccaneer suffered the first of a wave of politics and would be a victim of politics through out its career. The Royal Air Force showed no interest in the type. This viewpoint severely hampered export sales."

Not really an answer to your questions, but an interesting nugget of info.

#3 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 11 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 23 September 2009 - 02:31 PM

I did find this on the PPrune Forum:


[quote name='http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-48541.html']More Buccaneer tidbits: Drooled over by the US Navy when it first came out, and was evaluated for possible adoption. The only overwhelming reason why the Grumman A-6 Intruder won seemed to be because it was a US design and the Buc wasn't. The M-14 beat the FN-FAL in a similar service test series WRT the replacement for the old M-1 service rifle for the same reason: NIH syndrome. The Federal German Bundesmarine had pushed for the adoption of the Buc as a naval interdiction machine as well. Due to diplomatic pressure from the US, and a push for commonality of equipment with the Luftwaffe, they got the F-104G instead.[/quote]

In fairness though, the entire topic is rather heavily pro-Bucc...

#4 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 7 Days
  • 234 topics

Posted 24 September 2009 - 01:34 PM

Idly browsing the web looking for an answer to your questions, I came across this excellent site: http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/


Yes, that is a good site.

Some nice low flying.....



#5 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 7 Days
  • 234 topics

Posted 24 September 2009 - 01:39 PM

http://warships1disc...ant.html?page=1

http://warships1disc...-Buccaneer.html

http://www.tboverse.....php?f=6&t=3262

#6 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 11 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 24 September 2009 - 02:37 PM

Yes, that is a good site.

Some nice low flying.....


I vividly remember a low-level flypast from a Buccaneer at an airshow - amazing and NOISY! The sea-skimming at 2 minutes into that vid is impressive!

#7 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 11 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:33 AM

One of the things I have found while looking up the Bucc is that it is a real contemporary of the A-6 Intruder. They were designed, built, entered service and even retired within a few years of each other. Both were excellent machines and both had pretty similar performance. For obvious reasons, most Brits say the Bucc was better, and most Americans say the A-6 was better - I was just wondering what you guys though, or if we could come up with a vaguely objective analysis.

#8 Red Admiral

Red Admiral

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 10 Days
  • 31 topics

Posted 25 September 2009 - 09:20 AM

The A-6 and Buccaneer are strange stablemates. Both are fairly similar sized carrier aircraft but look very different with different stats. Really I think the difference comes from the higher emphasis on land attack placed in the USN whilst the Bucc is for destroying Sverdlovs in the North Atlantic and limited ground attack. The A-6 is an all weather bomb truck that can be laden with lots of weapons. The Bucc carries fewer, mostly from the light rated underwing pylons, but offers greater performance with penetration at high Mach and low level instead of medium Mach and medium level.

#9 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 7 Days
  • 234 topics

Posted 25 September 2009 - 09:18 PM

Phantoms and Buccaneers landing on.



#10 Pioneer

Pioneer

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined 9 Years, 11 Months and 16 Days
  • 2 topics

Posted 05 February 2010 - 11:56 AM

A version of the Buccaneer (the B.113, itself a version of the non wing folding B.112 offered to the RAF) was offered to the RAAF as a strike and all-weather interceptor (not sure when).


Althougfh a huge fan of the F-111 and its capability - it is a great pity that the RAAF never adopted the B.113 Buccaneer variant!
If it had of, I think the RAF would have stood a far greater chance of adopting the B.112!

Does anyone know what the RAAF thought of the design?

Unfortunately the Australian government - as much as the RAAF were punch drunk on the technological 'bling' of the likes of the TSR.2 and TFX (and even the U.S. proposed RAAF variant of the A-5 Vigilante!)programs!
They wanted a strike platform which was seen to be years ahead of anything the Indonesian's could ever field or hope to defend against as a deterrent!
The spectacular technological marvel of the likes of supersonic speed and terrain following radar looked to good to be true and would make for a very effective and viable platform.
I have read some where that for the price of the 24 F-111's the Australian government purchased - 100 Buccaneer's could have been purchased and operated!
These would have avoided the delays and complications of the F-111 in RAAF service.
Whilst going by RAF/RN operational history, the Buccaneer's would have been far more cost effective to operate and maintain!

As for the U.S Navy interest in the Buccaneer - one should not forget that it was the U.S Government that financially backed its development (Via military aid)!
With the U.S Navy paying very close attention (including many visits to Blackburn!) to the development and progress of the Buccaneer program.

One advantage the Buccaneer had over the Intruder though, was its less troublesome and complex radar and attack systems!
The Intruder's all-weather, blind attack avionics and systems capability came at a price for a very long time = one of the highest failure rates of any U.S Navy aircraft in history!
Whilst the the Buccaneer was fully operational ready and proving almost from the word go!

Regards
Pioneer

Edited by Pioneer, 05 February 2010 - 11:59 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users