British Honduras Buccaneers

Getting back to Buccaneers, you might be aware of this site, http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/0_Contents.html
If not it is well worth taking your time to look through it, the amount of info, illustrations (particularly the individual aircraft & histories), and photos is staggering and is possibly the best single type website about.
I haven’t had time to read through the info to see if there is any specific to the Honduras operation or the history of the aircraft concerned.

Thanks for that Firebird, what a different scenerio it could have been in the early 1980s if Eagle was chosen as the survivor.

Wasn’t there a technical reason why Eagle couldn’t support Phantoms though, something to do with deck thickness?

Only issue was the Eagles jet blast deflectors which couldn’t cope with the reheated Spey’s on launching. This was what the £5m refit was to be for F-4 ops – the retro fitting of a set of water cooled JBD’s.
Govt said no – carriers are finished and as Ark was F-4 operable already, the knackered old Ark was retained and the newer and better nick Eagle went to the scrappy and the other sqn of FAA F-4’s went straight to the RAF.

Buccs

Interesting, this is the second time in a few months that this question has been asked – the book must be selling a few copies!

Anyway, here’s the answer to the original question:

Just looking at my copy of the book, no serials are ever mentionned, only the aircraft numbers 030 and 021. Although there is a photo in the book with the aircrew standing in front of a buccaneer with the clearly visible serial XN977. A bit of research on the web reveals that 030 was XN977 and 021 was XV154. Both were sadly scrapped in 1991 and 1992 respectively. Shame.

Hope that helps

That is a great shame indeed – I figured they had probably long since expired, but sad to have this confirmed. Does anyone know of the status of the two tankers?

Strange to think that it’s now almost 40 years ago, and almost twenty since they were scrapped. How time passes……

G

Indeed. And keeping the knackered Ark going at huge expense compared to spending the £5m on refiiting the much better condition Eagle for F-4 operation as was wanted by the RN at the time…

I know an old deck handler who served on both and he definitely preferred the Eagle to the Ark and often mentioned the state that the latter ship was in.

Wasn’t there a technical reason why Eagle couldn’t support Phantoms though, something to do with deck thickness?

but she wasn’t part of the Government. She was in Opposition

Quite right, David. My mistake. 😮

Oh dear politics has been dragged in, you might need to revise your history though because the cancelling of CVA-01 carriers (might aswel add TSR-2 and P.1154 to that) and the coventional carrier run-down process was actually initiated by Denis Healey and Labour with their White Paper during 1966.
Hermes (1970 as conventional carrier) and Eagle finished by late 1972, leaving the Ark to struggle on in a deteriorating state until 1978.

Indeed. And keeping the knackered Ark going at huge expense compared to spending the £5m on refiiting the much better condition Eagle for F-4 operation as was wanted by the RN at the time, would have meant we would have had a carrier with Buccs and F-4’s at the time of the Falklands, as a refitted Eagle wasn’t intended to have a OSD until 1985.
Keeping the Ark instead would mean an end to cat n trap FAA ops a lot earlier by the mid to late 70’s. Deliberate Lab Govt policy at the time, although that could have been reversed by Heath in 70 before Eagle was totally decommised, but likely the decision was by then too far down the line.

that’s Thatcher still off the hook, she didn’t become an MP until 1959

I wasn’t trying to implicate her in in any case, merely making the observation that it was a Tory government which implemented the most critical Defence Review, post-war.

Interesting, this is the second time in a few months that this question has been asked – the book must be selling a few copies!

Anyway, here’s the answer to the original question:

Just looking at my copy of the book, no serials are ever mentionned, only the aircraft numbers 030 and 021. Although there is a photo in the book with the aircrew standing in front of a buccaneer with the clearly visible serial XN977. A bit of research on the web reveals that 030 was XN977 and 021 was XV154. Both were sadly scrapped in 1991 and 1992 respectively. Shame.

Hope that helps

This is how I have it, Wilson/Labour 1964-1970, Heath/Tory 1970-1974, Callaghan/Labour 1974-1979.
And 70-74 wasn’t even a Thatcher government, it was a Heath one, two very different beasts idealogically.
With the best will in the world Mr Creasote I can’t see how you can pin this on Thatch when she was an education minister for those four years of Ark Royal’s time, and not even in government at all during the last four years of its life.
Irrespective of that no government in power at the time of her decomissioning could have done much about it, the run-down was well and truely under way, the Ark was getting tired, and it wasn’t something that could be turned around quickly.
Mrs T was a supporter of the Royal Navy (remember the Admiral of the Fleet Lewin advisory connection) in a period that saw great changes for and when it was in the early years of VTOL carriers and Sea Harrier operations – no mean feat at the time.
Just to show I’m not being biased here I do remember that some hefty defence cuts were made to the RAF in her and John Knotts office (mainly in 1981).

but she wasn’t part of the Government. She was in Opposition

Oh dear politics has been dragged in, you might need to revise your history though because the cancelling of CVA-01 carriers (might aswel add TSR-2 and P.1154 to that) and the coventional carrier run-down process was actually initiated by Denis Healey and Labour with their White Paper during 1966.
Hermes (1970 as conventional carrier) and Eagle finished by late 1972, leaving the Ark to struggle on in a deteriorating state until 1978.
Where does the Thatcher governement fit in, or does she just get the blame for everything?
I was under the impression that she was incredibly pro-Navy?

I was merely pointing out (with no political bias intended) that “pro-Navy” Thatcher apparently didn’t remember that she was once part of a Govt that oversaw the scrapping of the Ark. Labour may have begun the carrier run-down, but the Conservatives did nothing to reverse it.

that’s Thatcher still off the hook, she didn’t become an MP until 1959

That is true but it was really the Conservative 1957 Defence White Paper which did it for the RAF, wasn’t it? And didn’t the RAF turn down the Buccaneer at some stage in its development?

quite correct Pagen01. And of course Thatcher came to power in May 1979, a year or so after the Ark had gone

Says in the book that when Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, Margaret Thatcher wanted to know how long it would take to send the Ark with her Buccaneers and Phantoms, even though she was part of the Govt that scrapped her.

Oh dear politics has been dragged in, you might need to revise your history though because the cancelling of CVA-01 carriers (might aswel add TSR-2 and P.1154 to that) and the coventional carrier run-down process was actually initiated by Denis Healey and Labour with their White Paper during 1966.
Hermes (1970 as conventional carrier) and Eagle finished by late 1972, leaving the Ark to struggle on in a deteriorating state until 1978.
Where does the Thatcher governement fit in, or does she just get the blame for everything?
I was under the impression that she was incredibly pro-Navy?

Says in the book that when Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, Margaret Thatcher wanted to know how long it would take to send the Ark with her Buccaneers and Phantoms, even though she was part of the Govt that scrapped her.

Pity the government didn’t read the book, might not have been so hasty scrapping our carriers.

Seems to be something the Brits are good at – taking an aircraft only months away from their withdrawal from service and sending them on missions of a length double that for which they were intended.

They were still fresh in ’72, as a type they were half way through their service life and had another six years of FAA service (only curtailed that early due to carrier retirement), and another twentytwo years with the RAF!
This, The Lebanon, and the Gulf missions just go to show how good the aircraft and crews were at being adapted for these different missions.

Have looked through Air-Britain’s “Fleet Air Arm Fixed Wing Aircraft since 1945”. It seems that 030/R at that time was XN977. The other aircraft in the strike pair, 021/R, was most likely XT275. Perhaps Lee Howard, one of the co-authors of that excellent tome, can provide more info.

Have also browsed through ‘Phoenix Squadron’ again but can’t find any reference to the codes of tankers. Anyone know what they might be? Might be able to trace a serial number then.