How did the performance of the Bucc compare to the tomcat during the first Gulf conflict?
How come they were withdrawn within a few years of being upgraded? Has nayone noticed a trend to spend billions upgrading airframes which then up as spares recovery, museum or gate exhibits?
Would the buccaneer still be in service now if it wasnt for defence cuts?
What chance of Duxford getting a Tomcat?
By: Bager1968 - 4th February 2006 at 18:59
True, the Intruder’s strongest point was always its avionics systems. The large fuselage, which did place limits on maneuverability and speed, was what gave it the ability to carry all of those systems.
As for the engines, I believe the USN made a big mistake when they did not include a more powerful engine in the A-6E model improvements. The A-6E still used the 2 – 9,300 lbst J52-P-8B engines of the A-6A & EA-6A models, while the EA-6B used the 11,200 lbst J52-P-408 (also used in the USMC’s A-4M Skyhawk II).
This engine was available in 1971, when the A-6E was being developed, and should have been installed. The resulting 20% thrust increase would have solved that Captain’s complaint nicely!
By: fatnav - 4th February 2006 at 11:46
Bucc v Tomcat
It’s impossible to judge between the Bucc and F-14 as they were intended for totally different roles. Whereas the Bucc was the ultimate low level weapons platform, the F-14 was porobably the ultimate Fleet defence fighter. As a former Bucc back-seater I came across the F-14 on Red Flag in 1978 when we flew 2 sorties against them and TA-4s (from Miramar). To my mind, the F-14 was the most difficult fighter I ever flew against.
As far as the comparison between the Bucc and the A-6E is concerned I’ll quote a USNavy Captain who was on exchange with 12 Sqn, and had previously been on A-6Es. When I asked him about how they compared he said the Bucc airframe and engines left the A-6 for dead, but the trouble with the Bucc was that he spent half his time over the North Sea wondering where ‘the Hell I’m at’.
By: XN923 - 2nd February 2006 at 09:13
Well, this Marine says to compare the Bucc to my “Sky Pig”… the A-6E Intruder!!
It was the USN/USMC direct counterpart to the Bucc… entering service at nearly the same time [A-6A first flight Dec. 1960, Bucc first flight April 1958], upgraded to similar capabilities (my job was to repair the FLIR/Laser turret in the 1980s), both served in GW 1, and both were retired shortly afterward!!
In my opinion, either aircraft could do the same job to nearly identical success, in virtually identical ways.
I would have had no problem if the USN had bought the Bucc instead… and the Intruder would have served the RAF & FAA very well, I am sure!
One of Blackburn’s initial design studies for the NA.39 (later Buccaneer) looked quite similar to the A-6 – very similar layout in any case. Both companies were obviously thinking along similar lines before going down slightly different routes. I suppose side-by-side vs tandem seating is the major difference for the aircrew (the Bucc actually has the seats offset to give the observer a better view – pilot slightly to port, observer slightly to starboard).
The Bucc is better looking though IMHO!
By: Bager1968 - 1st February 2006 at 17:06
Well, this Marine says to compare the Bucc to my “Sky Pig”… the A-6E Intruder!!
It was the USN/USMC direct counterpart to the Bucc… entering service at nearly the same time [A-6A first flight Dec. 1960, Bucc first flight April 1958], upgraded to similar capabilities (my job was to repair the FLIR/Laser turret in the 1980s), both served in GW 1, and both were retired shortly afterward!!
In my opinion, either aircraft could do the same job to nearly identical success, in virtually identical ways.
I would have had no problem if the USN had bought the Bucc instead… and the Intruder would have served the RAF & FAA very well, I am sure!
By: Camlobe - 31st January 2006 at 18:42
Thinks ‘wonder how the F14’s would have coped down Beruit high street?’
By: JetBlast - 31st January 2006 at 16:11
No bother! As privately run ‘fan’ sites go, it’s amazing. The guy who runs it is a top bloke, very friendly and knowledgeable.
Hear, hear, darn fine fellow is Andy.
By: RPSmith - 31st January 2006 at 15:33
Why not fundraise millions for an American Naval Museum at Duxford too 😀 !
Go tell that to the Marines…. 😉
Roger Smith.
By: XN923 - 31st January 2006 at 15:33
The Buccaneer website you linked to is SUPERB! Thank you.
No bother! As privately run ‘fan’ sites go, it’s amazing. The guy who runs it is a top bloke, very friendly and knowledgeable.
I’m not sure what the point of this is…the Buccaneer was a dedicated strike machine…the Tomcat was an interceptor which was later adapted to do limited strike roles…while retaining its interceptor equipment. A bit “chalk & cheese” if you ask me.
I given its basic design and upgrades, I would expect a Bucc to excel the strike role.
The Tomcat was a great interceptor & air to air fighter.
The Buc was a great strike aircraft.
Can’t disagree with anything there.
By: J Boyle - 31st January 2006 at 14:44
I’m not sure what the point of this is…the Buccaneer was a dedicated strike machine…the Tomcat was an interceptor which was later adapted to do limited strike roles…while retaining its interceptor equipment. A bit “chalk & cheese” if you ask me.
I given its basic design and upgrades, I would expect a Bucc to excel the strike role.
The Tomcat was a great interceptor & air to air fighter.
The Buc was a great strike aircraft.
By: Papa Lima - 31st January 2006 at 14:19
The Buccaneer website you linked to is SUPERB! Thank you.
By: XN923 - 31st January 2006 at 14:02
How did the performance of the Bucc compare to the tomcat during the first Gulf conflict?
How come they were withdrawn within a few years of being upgraded? Has nayone noticed a trend to spend billions upgrading airframes which then up as spares recovery, museum or gate exhibits?
Would the buccaneer still be in service now if it wasnt for defence cuts?
What chance of Duxford getting a Tomcat?
I won’t pretend that I am not hugely, hugely biased in this (my nom de forum and avatar might give that away slightly) but the Bucc wins it hands, feet and any other appendages down.
Actually, I’m not sure what to compare here as the Tomcat was surely a fleet fighter where the Buccaneer was used as a laser designator for Tornado strike aircraft, then as a strike aircraft in its own right – and excelled in both roles.
There is a fantastic article about the use of Buccaneers in Operation Granby on www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk as of last week, with details of the C-130 and An-12 and numerous bridges and airfields that were attacked and destroyed by Buccaneers. From this (although the author, Andy White is about as objective as I am when it comes to the Buccaneer) it is possible to discern that the Buccaneer was a highly effective attack aircraft even four decades after it was conceived.
Not sure about the Tomcat in Gulf War 1 I’m afraid.
As for the retirement of the Buccaneer Binbrook 01 has it right – although the airframe life on most of the existing aircraft was getting low. Still, an extensive refurb programme plus an avionics upgrade could have kept the aircraft in the air for another decade or so. It was by no means past it.
By: TempestV - 31st January 2006 at 13:55
Tomcat for Duxford.
Why not fundraise millions for an American Naval Museum at Duxford too 😀 !
By: Binbrook 01 - 31st January 2006 at 13:36
SADSACK
The Buccaneers retirement was part of Options for Change, the first in a long line of post Cold War cutbacks, announced in 1990. (they joined the Phantoms and most of the Canberras) amongst others..
As for Duxford getting a Tomcat, where do you put it?
AAM is full……
me thinks :dev2: ….
Tim
Sign In
January 31, 2006 at 12:50 pm