LesBPL
Just a guess here but a lot of squadrons had a “hack” which, although used pretty extensively, didn’t actually count as part of the squadron “working” inventory. In days of yore Ansons were the favourite along with Oxfords, Fairey Battles and the like. 3(F) Sqn, for example, ran a Fairey Battle when they were equiped with Hurricanes, and there’s probably many more such examples. Also in recent times 56 Sqn (Lightnings) had a Canberra T.4 as a runabout, was on strength as a Target Facilities aircraft. Could be wrong of course.
LesBGermany, 1963 – a semi-formal “meet-and-greet” bash between a Canberra Strike Sqn and the USAF F-105 guys from Spangdalem. A USAF Col with a chest full of dangling medals approaches a group of steely-eyed RAF types. “Watch out,” whispers a nav, “here comes magnetic north!”
😎
LesBYour call I think Mark, not my type of Canberra at all. :rolleyes: Seems to me there may be some similarity with a Bucc instrument set, at least back in the coal-hole.
LesB60’s and early 70’s for me – Hunters, Lightnings, Buccaneers, Phantoms, Victors and Vulcans.
Agree with that John but would include many others now only a dim memory in true working form – Beverlys, Canberras, Haystacks, Shacks, Brits, Belfs, Piston Provosts, Bassetts, Chipmunks, Argosys, Comets, Mossies, Marathons, Neptunes, Varsitys, Valettas, . . . We had a proper Air Force in those days, stacks of kites, and a “proper” enemy! Working conditions were Sierra Hotel One Tango for most of the time and the support equip was generally cr@p, but there was a clarity of purpose with no politically correct baggage and overseas postings that made yer teeth itch. I’d give bits of myself to be back there now – with a decent camera rather than the Zenith 3 I had then. :rolleyes:
LesBSaddened to hear of this tragic night-flying event. In offering my condolences to the families and friends of the aircrew I know I will be joined by the thousands of ex-Canberra men world-wide who will be just as shocked as I was to hear the news.
The BBC report shows a picture of a PR.9 but with “three crew” mentioned it would have been a T.4.
LesBBack in May I was contacted by this company regarding Canberras and had some dialogue with their research people. The last mail I had was a few weeks back which said . . .
I’m afraid that we couldn’t pursue the Canberra for various reasons including ownership.
We did however film a Blackburn Buccaneer, English Electric Lightning, L39 Albatross, L39 four man formation team, Mig 15, Cobra Attack helicopter and F104 Starfighter all flying. We went to Cape Town, the US and Canada to do our filming.
The programme will be called “Tycoon Toys: Planes” airing at the end of this year, beginning of next on National Geographic and looks at civilian owners of ex-military classic aircraft.
Thanks for all your help and all the best.
Seems it will be worth watching out for. 😉
LesBHi again loernato
Might as well continue with it although this will be my last on the subject, interesting as it may be. Could continue in private if you see any point, but it’s probably not worth it.
Agree with you on the declaration to SACEUR, that’s obvious really. Not entirely sure about the Valiant connection though but it sounds somewhat plausible – although the timeline seems a tad out, you are obviously coming from a later time than me. My feeling about this is that the Valiant was pretty much already discounted as part of Bomber Command’s Main Force leaving the Vulc and Victor to carry the load under SACEUR. It’s true that the Germany Canberras were originally considered part of the Main Force but were later (early-60s?) independantly declared as tactical nuke strike assets (Main Force was strategic until mid-60s I believe). By the time the Main Force became tactical the Valiant was pretty much out of the loop in nuke delivery terms. But, as you will know, what is declared to SACEUR is not neccessarily what is in place – or used!
Anyway, what you say is broadly true and I wasn’t actually arguing that aspect at all. The reason I first replied to you was to counter your assertion “. . . Canberra B(I) 8 days was purely nuclear, it had no conventional ground attack capability”. This I know to be untrue, at least during my time on the B(I)8s. Granted they may not have been declared as Attack but the role definitely did exist as CAS for Army ops. The majority of singletons I “saw” 😉 were with gunpack fitted and flown under SACEUR requirements for Delta target tasks up until around end of 1964 or so. Live firing missions were generally undertaken as Citrus Grove exercises, LABS (ie nuke) training missions (Orange Grove) were carried out just as frequently but at Idris, (noted that Citrus were sometimes at Idris as well). The actual Mission One training you refer to was, I agree primary, but was more in the way of a NavEx to verify way-points and LABS timings (also to pi$$ off the Sovs I guess), but not as frequent as the typical low level interdictor type sorties in Northern Germany.
Regarding conventional stocks – we seemed to have enough 20mm, 250/500 lbs for everybody whenever it was needed, had dump full of the stuff (and “shapes”) at Geilers. Exception was during Confrontation at Kuantan for some reason, but that’s another story. 😡
Whether the TSR.2 could have done the job is, and will always be, debatable. Talking with Bee Beamont left me with the understanding that he certainly thought so, but then he was biased I guess. Agree with John Farley about the limitations of the beast but still tend to think that the episode pulled the heart out of the UK industry at the time.
Right leornato, this has been interesting if not a tad indulgent – to others? Who knows? Maybe P-51’s should be mentioned? :rolleyes:
LesBHi leornato
Dealing with your last point first – I agree the appearance of the Phantom/ Buccaneer/Harrier force significantly lifted the capabilities of what was 2 TAF. The Buccaneer taking over the tactical nuke requirement while the FGR.2s and GR.1s assumed the attack side – all jobs previously carried out by one aircraft type, the Canberra B(I)8. To touch on the subject of this thread, these three types were neccessary to fill the gap caused by the cancellation of the TSR.2. The Canberra Strike Sqns had been eagerly awaiting this aircraft’s arrival which would mean that the aging B(I)8s could be phased out (fatique life was getting to be a problem with all that LABS flying – also over the absence of a nav ejector seat which was pathetic). Didn’t happen though, so the 8s had to soldier on until 1972 (from arrival in 1957)! Arguable about the Buccs being nuclear though as they arrived in Germany in 1972 by which time (in 1969) the V Force had handed strategic responsibility to the Navy (Polaris) and become, themselves, tactical rendering the Bucc somewhat superflous in this role.
Regarding your main point “The Canberra strike Squadrons in RAFG only had a conventional capability for out of area overseas reinforcement tasks,. . . “. This is simply untrue. Maybe by the time you arrived in Germany (1972 or so?) it came to be true but in my day five/six years earlier the Strikes Sqns not only had a nuke role (two/three a/c from each of four sqns) but also had a significant GA, CAS and Interdictor role (guns, rockets, bombs, etc). In fact as the V Force came up to scratch from the mid 60s onwards the Canberra was almost solely devoted to this strike role, the majority of sorties were singletons in strike configuration. Neither is it true that they had conventional purely for overseas reinforcement, this was largely the task of the Akrotiri Strike Wing and 45 Sqn in Singapore. The 8’s only went “out” three times in 15 or so years – British Honduras (Belize) for three days, Sharjah (Kuwait crisis) for a week and Kuantan (Confrontation) for five weeks – at none of which did they fire their guns in anger.
Regarding the Hunters. Notwithstanding Sandy’s cuts, as I recall (early 60s) there were more that two sqns – 4, 26, 3, seemed a lot more. Maybe not so many when you got there of course. And for FR(?) sqns they surely moved a lot of mud at Nordhorn – almost every week! Don’t have a lot of background on the Hunter dispositions though. If they were as sparse as you say, maybe that’s why the B(I)8s were roled as GA as well as nuke.
Your point about the UK industry is arguable too. The Harrier is the only fully British enterprise in your list. The Jag, Tornado, EAP were/are JOINT programmes – and re-engining the F-4 (to make it slower!) is not, in my opinion, “considerable involvement”.
I stand by my assertion that the cancellation of the TSR.2 project (as with the Canadian Avro Arrow project) pulled the heart out of the UK aerospace industry causing the innovative personnel and teams to disperse world-wide (to the benefit of the Americans).
Anyway, this is not the place to discuss such things as there is zero “P-51” content in our posts. Hope you had a great time on 14 Sqn at Bruggen, I’m sure you did. 😉
LesBThere would have been no RAF F-4 Phantoms or Buccaneers, all very capable aircraft with a useful amount of work for UK Plc. RAF Germany in the Canberra B(I) 8 days was purely nuclear, it had no conventional ground attack capability, . . .
Beg to differ leornato but the Canberra Strike Squadrons were not “purely nuclear” and there was a pretty significant ground attack capability in Germany at that time, apart from the obvious Hunter squadrons. The Canberra Strike Squadrons of B(I)8s (and B(I)6s) had the BP Gunpack which, when fitted, gave them a very powerful GA/Interdictor role (the “I” in B(I)8 stands for Interdictor). The B(I)8, with gunpack fitted, was a very capable bit of kit at ground attack, I’ve seen it in use. Also you might want to check with the Indian Air Force who used them to good effect in the India/Pakistan conflict (and in the Congo).
As for not having the Phant or Bucc, the Navy had them already I believe so they were already part of the UK air assets. The Bucc was originally envisaged as a nuclear bomber anyway but under natural design progression in use it evolved into the capable machine it became (with it’s final day of glory amongst the rooftops of Beruit). The F-4 similarly developed during it’s service life (as you in particular may well know) and that development was not only effective but continuous, especially for the AD machines.
If you then apply this “continuing development” concept to the TRS.2 you would have got a worthwhile UK plc asset. Also, such development would have produced off-shoot designs which may actually have been better for the UK plc than all the hassle there was over multi-country projects. In fact, in my opinion the UK aerospace industry would have continued as an innovative design and concept authority for many years. The same industry that gave us three quantum leaps from the Lincoln to the V’s in just 6 or 7 years, the same industry whose personnel had the vision to produce the Canberra, Lightning, Vulcan, Victor, Valiant, Comet, Nimrod, Harrier and many more.
All aircraft have a natural life-in-service span and no doubt the TSR.2 would now be out of service (and used as Gate Guards?). But the sudden cancellation produced a trauma in the UK aerospace industries which eventually led to years of stagnation. Think how useful it would have been in the current Typhoon program if the UK industry had decades of supersonic fighter production and development experience behind it instead of the case where the last bit of true supersonic kit we built was the EE Lightning!
LesB25p! LOL.
I know it was 25p (5/- in old money) because that’s my kids in the foreground, my boy is counting his change to see if he had enough. 🙂
LesBHappens to me as well. That plus the feeble “search” function and the increasingly more frequent “can’t resolve url” is beginning to get in the way. 😡
Still, never mind, the site looks really pretty now on the new kit. :rolleyes:
LesBThanks Les. Always interested in any JP photos, especially of XW289.
Another couple for you then. First is at Finningley’s (very wet) 1980 Battle of Britain airshow, the nearest is XW287 I think. They were charging kids 25p to sit in the things and doing a roaring trade. Second is another 5 at Kemble a few years back, don’t know the number (or the blokes).
LesB1. JP taxying out at Kemble – 2000. 2. JP at Brunty last weekend.
Are these any good Mark? The “Brunty” JP is a Mk 3 though I think and the Kemble sample is a Mk.5?.
LesBTSR.2 was the one most people know about of course, but do a little reading into the SR-177 project and you’ll find that it was just as debilitating (if not more so in the context of the times) to the UK aircraft industry. The project did produce the famous SR-53 of course (a couple of them) and was headed by Saunders Roe. Personally I think the rot set in when the Miles Aircraft Co were scuppered. 😡
BTW BuccS, was with Roger & Arthur this weekend – a good, sunny day as well.
Ah! Sorry about that BuccS, posted the above about the SR-177 before I saw your mention of it in another thread. 😮
LesBSeems so DB. It was only delivered on the 21st so, looking at my other pictures now, I’d reckon that it’s still being put together by the crew. There are plastic bags containing “bits” hanging in various places (see pic bleow). I certainly hope the museum has the nozzels as well, but as I said in the other post “. . . unless these things are in the “pack-up” kit”. Going to be a huge hole where the engine was though, I mean, the Peggy is pretty obvious when you look at a SHAR from the front. 😀 Nevermind 😉 .
It’s a good effort by Flixton and NAM for acquiring these two newly “historic” aircraft. Now. . . who’ll be the first to get a PR.9? :rolleyes:
Sign In
