Ark Royal airgroup 1970s

[Navaleye]

Was the division of labour between Phantom and Buccaneer on the Ark an efficient use opf resources? Clearly the Bucc was a very potent strike asset, but with no AD capability. The F4K on the other hand was a very potent AD platform with a very handy strike capability. Would it not have been more practical to adopt an all F4 airgroup of 24 F4s? I'm not knocking the Bucc at all, I'm just curious to hear some informed opinion on the subject.

[cazatou]

Problem is that you are talking about 35 years ago. Anyone who joined at 18 years old and having gone through Dartmouth, Flying Training, OCU etc is long retired - as are the Carriers that carried the aircraft.

Maybe the concept was wrong, but - thankfully - it was never put to the test!!!

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

I know that you are going to think I am being partisan here, but I knew a good few folk who did exchange on 892 or POCU, and the short answer to your hypothesis is that in my experience the light blue thought yes, the dark blue, especially the more senior you got, thought NO!

In the very early seventies the emphasis of the Air group was very much on the strike capability of the Buccaneers on 809, even the squadron establishment at sea reflected this, 16 Buc to 12 FG1, and the maritime strike role was paramount.

As the RN only ever received about 28 F-4’s your question is a very rhetorical one, especially as the Ark was on the way out from the first time it even saw a Phantom, but had things been slightly different, had the Tories kept to their word and upon election in 1969 retained the fixed wing element of the RN, then both Eagle AND Ark with all FG1 Air groups would have been far more cost effective and maybe presented the Government of the time with a way to have kept fixed wing airpower at sea for a little longer, maybe even with the FAA AND the RAF flying off the carriers?

It’s all a very long time ago now………………………………………………..

[soddim]

The capabilities were never there for the F4K because from the beginning of its' naval service it was only used in the AD role.

Obviously the Bucc had some unique capabilities in the SA role but I believe the F4 should have been used multi-role as the RAF did and it might well have been good enough to dispense with the Buccs.

[trap one]

F4 Only Vs Mixture
Although F4's only would have simplified supply, and taken a shorter range attack, the Bucc was needed to obtain the un-refuelled long range strike that the F4 could not offer.
An F4 with 3 Tanks could only carry 6 Bombs on the inboard pylons. This if memory serves me would only have been 500Lb's or 2 good old 1000lb's Whilst Bucc with 2 tanks was 6 x 1000lbs, plus 4 in the bomb bay. In this config Bucc could out range F4. Seem to remember that the F4 could only carry 2 SNEB pods on plyons and Bucc 6 on pylons.
As for refuelling after launch Bucc always had more gas left because F4 always used Reheat. So F4 was no good as tanker whilst Bucc in Tanker role had more gas.
Also the Bucc had the bucket of instant sunshine mounted on the bomb bay whilst the F4 lost the centre line tank, so further decreasing range.
Rember that the Bucc did some extremly long range rangers ie Uk to Gib, with either min air-to-air refuelling or non at all.
As for the more exotic weapons can't remember if FAA Bucc had the Martel capability in TV/ARM know the F4 only had Bullpup but not too sure about the FAA using them?
I think the navy had a plan to configure a second CV to take the F4 but lost out in restructuring don't know which carrier.
I think that the dark blue were looking at long range strike/maritime attack as the CV's primary role and the F4's were there defend the CV after the Gannet detected any inbound raids/enemy surface units whilst the Bucc did the maritme un-supported (there being no Sov CV at the time which was what the Ark going against). But thats my own thoughts.
All the above from open sources.
Trap One

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But better surely than an air group with no air defence aircraft, cf the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152)?

[pr00ne]

soddim,

Are you sure the FAA FG1s were pure AD? I know it was their primary role but I am sure I recall them on various weaponry events, 2mm SNEB type pods and 750lb freefall and retard?

I’m sure that a lot of the light blue exchange types went from RAFG and 38 Group in the days when we only had 43 in AD.

Trap1,

RN Buccs were only ever 4 pods I think you’ll find, same as the FG1 but with a lot less air to air goodies than the mighty toom (like none!)
I am sure the RN FG1 could haul an awful lot of 750lb freefall, something like 13?

(I'll stop saying 'sure'now)

[Magic Mushroom]

Trap One,
AGM-12A Bullpups (250ib warhead) were procured for the RN but not the larger B (1000lb or nuke) model. Up to 4 Bullpups could be carried on a Bucc and both the S1 and S2 variants carried the weapon. However, the missile's reliability nor accuracy were ever viewed with confidence. I believe that the USN didn't like it much either.

The RN Buccs had both the TV-guided and ARM variants of Martel in it's latter years at sea. However, the Bucc only had 2 hard points under each wing, so 4 SNEBs must have been the max.

As far as 892's role, there are plenty of pics of RN F-4s carrying SNEBs and bombs, but I think it was normally configured for air-air and it's crews trained accordingly.

WEBF,
If you hi-jack this thread for yet another SHAR monologue, I may be forced to consult the 'Hit Men' section in my Yellow Pages.

Kind Regards,
MM

[soddim]

As sure as an ex-multi role RAF F4 man can be. Can't remember any commonality with RN except in the AD role. I also doubt if the RN F4 ever carried SNEB - it was not cleared for use on the Ark's successor but the equivalent rocket (2-inch?) was and that is what was by used RAF Harriers in the Falklands war.

As far as the F4 bomb load was concerned, yes, it could haul 3 per TER on 5 stations but we referred to that at Coningsby as the Boston and back warload. Against typical targets a more workmanlike load was 4xSparrows with either 4x1000lb plus 3xtanks or 4x1000lb plus 2xtanks and a SUU-23.

[Tomcat51]

I always thought of the Buccaneer having a similar capability as a USN A-6. I flew F-4Js off the Saratoga and we carried bombs on occasion but did not have near the capability of the A-6s. They could carry a lot more and a much longer distance than we were able. Plus the A-6s and probably the same with the Buccaneer had a night low level capability that we did not. We met up with the Ark Royal several times in the Med and I never saw the RN F-4s with bombs.
When we put on an airshow for visiting DVs, on A-6 would do the "wall of water" - 36 live MK 82s (500 pounders) a half mile off the port side. One time the smoke was dropped a little too close and a lot of shrapnel dropped on deck, luckily on the downward trajectory!
We could only lug 6-12 Mk 82s any distance.

[foldingwings]

Following an Under The Lobe descent with a bucket of sunshine tucked away indoors at 580 knots sustained at ULL over the 'ogg using 120lb per minute aiming for a Sverdlov wins it for me! That's what it was designed for and that is what it did best (amongst many other things that the Bucc excelled at).

Don't think the 'Tomb would have matched it! Flown in both, albeit a USAF F4, and with external stores the F4 became a dragmaster with very much less range than a Bucc.

[jindabyne]

FW

Not to mention vast quantities of Cyprus 'n Malta loopy juice etc - oh, and all of OC 208's completed F1369s which he (or rather his front-seater) deposited over Wainfleet range at 540 kts... DON'T roll the bomb bay - S**T, too late!

[mystic_meg]

........nostalgia ain't wot it used to be!

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/c12-1389-11.jpg

(Boeing (!) photo)

[Magic Mushroom]

Looks like that F-4 has got triple (albeit empty) bomb racks on the inboards.
Regards,
MM

[Archimedes]

Just for interest (or perhaps not...) Michael Burns' book on the F-4K/F-4M (in the Osprey Air Combat series) has a small pic on p168 of an FG1 leaving the deck of Ark Royal carrying ten (yes, ten) 500lb bombs (three per inboard TER and 2 per outboard pylon TER), although I assume that the range for this would have been ...ahem.... rather short(?).

Also, on page 61 of Tony Thornborough and Peter Davies' The Phantom Story , there's a photo of 001 of 892 Squadron leaving the Ark's catapult carrying four bombs under the inboard pylons, three on the centreline and two tanks on the outers.

I also seem to recall that Sharkey Ward makes some reference to flying a sortie in an 892 Sqn F-4 and lobbing LEPUS flares in the direction of the target - but the book's on my shelf at work, so can't check right now.

[Navaleye]

I remember the para in Ward's book, he did a low level lepus reversionary attack on a Frigate in a Phantom at 250 miles without a working radar, guided by a Gannet at night. Apparently every other a/c was US at the time.

Many thanks to Pr00ne, MM, Soddim, Archimedes and others for making this an interesting thread. Keep it coming :O :p

[Magic Mushroom]

Further to Archimedes' comments, somewhere I've seen a pic of a USN F-4 loaded up with 8 Sparrows (2 under each wing and 4 in the usual places)! Vaguely remember that the caption said it had been done to show off a static display jet at an airshow and that it couldn't fly in that fit! I certainly doubt if the outboard wing pylons were ever wired for AIM-7s. If they were, I suspect it was as much use as the F-14 6xPhoenix fit (ie it couldn't launch or recover from a CVN but looked good for the cameras).

Regards from anorak heaven!
MM

[Archimedes]

I remember reading something about outboard AIM-4s or perhaps AIM-7s, and managed to come up with this (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/f-4e.htm) site.

If the info is correct, it would see that there was, at some point, a capability to carry missiles on the outboard pylons.

The link also contain an er.... rather interesting picture of the F-4 that appears to be experimenting with a slightly reduced wing span.

[John Eacott]

I've got a few photos of Buccs and F4K's on my website, with a number of different weapon loads on the the F4's here. (http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/gallery/phantom/gallery-phantom.htm)

I'll see if I can enlarge some original shots and post them later. re the CVA discussion earlier, my understanding was that the Phantom upgrade was always scheduled for Eagle but was cancelled when defence cutbacks dictated only one carrier. Ark had already begun its conversion, so Eagle went on to be scrapped although it was the better hull and had substantially better facilities and accommodation. Odd items in Eagle's favour were the radar, workshops, hull integrity (Ark was forever leaking) and much improved accommodation.

Anyone who joined at 18 years old and having gone through Dartmouth, Flying Training, OCU etc is long retired

Be nice, we're still a long way from retirement, thank you :p

[mfaff]

Forgive me if I'm wandering too far OT but the F-14 could take off from a CV with 6 x AIM54....but it could not recover with the same.......

In peace time that's a real problem unless on scheduled firing mission.

Its also not a problem for land based ops...which the F-14 was also able to carry out.

The same could be said for the F-4. There are doubtlessly configurations not suited for CV operations but were possible when launched from land.

[Lower Hangar]

I agree with John Eacott...some of us are near retirement but certainly not 'long retired'. On the subject of Bucc bomb carrying and endurance I have to admit the light blues incorporation of the BDT (Bomb Door TanK) into the RAF Buccs was a great innovation. We didn't have it and had to make do with the BBT (Bomb Bay Tank) which obviously precluded use of Stns 5-8 ( Bomb Bay points) and also were very very leaky ( Speedy Dry dams in Arks lower hangar !!). We did configure an S2B (RAF Martel Bucc) once with an Mk 25 IFR pod plus BBT & BDT and it carried an awesome amount of fuel and would have made a great non diversion alert tanker. My fading memory of an S1/S2 with no tanks was something like 12124 lbs of fuel on the veeder counters ...but with Internal fuel , BDT, BBT, 1 Slipper and ( I think) 35 gals in the FR pod you had to set the veeders to something in excess of 50000. .....but I'll check. !!

[ORAC]

Same Osprey book, looks like the secondary role of the F4s was CAS:

In June 1969, No 892 Sqn began training in their secondary role, attack, as part of their role would be the close-support of amphibious landings. They would use the same weapons as No38 Group Phantoms, SNEB, retarded bombs and BL755, but where not equpped to carry the SUU-23A.

Ark CAG:

Her lower hanger accommodated 8 Buccaneers, and her upper hanger 8 Phantoms, 6 Sea Kings and 3 Gannets; until it became an additional store, the upper hanger extension housed 2 Wessex.....The remaining aircraft, 4 Phantoms, 6 Buccaneers and 1 Gannet....had to be parked on deck.....

Her CAG's component units and numbers remained the same between recommissioning in 1970 and paying off in 1978. Her CAG comprised 12 Phantom FG1s, 14 Buccaneer S2s, 4 Gannet AEW3s, 7 ASW Sea King HAS1s, later 3s, and 2 SAR Wessex and a COD Gannet..

This enabled the carrier to defend herself and the fleet against all forms of attack at sea, to seek and destroy enemy forces at great distances at will, and to support operations ashore.

---------------------------------------------------------

Eagle:
It had earlier been intended that Eagle would also be converted to operate a Phantom squadron. She was in several respects better suited than the Ark Royal, with a fully angled flight deck incorporated in her 1959-64 reconstruction and more hull life. However, the decision to fully modify only Ark Royal to embark Phantoms operationally and to modify Eagle only for their operation in an emergency or for short detachments was political. Moreover, Eagle had just completed a refit. As a result, only one operational naval phantom squadron was formed, No 892, and the Phantoms for the unformed second squadron were passed to the RAF......

Edward Heath's new Conservative government of 1969 was expected by many to revise the Labour government's plans for withdrawal from the Far East and the Gulf, and to reconsider phasing out carriers. However, the Supplementary Statement on Defence of 28 Oct 1970 not only stated that Eagle would serve until 1972, operating Sea Vixens and Buccaneers, but that her life would not be extended in view of the manpower problems and the cost of refit....

[foldingwings]

Taking LH's post on fuel capacity I doubt 50K was an accurate veeder setting. The actual total fuel capacity for a Bucc with BBT, UWT and BDT was 23K lbs; the UWTs took 1500 lbs each and I believe, but never flew with, that the IFR pod held less than an UWT.

What could 23K give you? Well at 100 lb per minute at 420 kts low level, significant range. However, believe it or not, at high level 23 K would allow you to circumnavigate the globe with favourable met conditions and without AAR. The 16 Sqn Bucc Farewell plan in Germany (although never flown sadly, thanks to HQ RAFG's concern that we were replacing an aircraft that could with an aeroplane that couldn't) was to take 2 ac around the World without AAR over 30 days supported by a VC10 (stacked with Speys!). The longest leg was Hickom to McLellan at 2300nm (IIRC); achievable with 23K, a fair wind and a decision to divert taken, if required, as you approached San Francisco International.

Great days, great jet and a much better ride at low level than the 'tomb or the Tornado.

[Navaleye]

Looking at John Eacott's site has forced me to do this (http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=hermesmp4)

Be patient it will load... and there's no sound (you can probably figure out why).

I was there but BEagle had a much better view than me !:O :ok:

[Gainesy]

Well, waited & waited & made a cuppa and still nothing.:confused:

[John Eacott]

Naval,

11mb download on dial up, & a black screen presentation! Oh well ;)

An F4K shot, nearly all those I have on file seem to show this configuration, or one centreline tank without wing tanks.

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/F4K%20finals.jpg

[Navaleye]

OK, tyo be more precise its an 8Mb download, I have tried it it does work but will take a while on dial-up. I ddn't anyone still used it !

[johnfairr]

Absolutely outstanding - real aircraft doing real flybys! Where was it and I assume it was the CAG of Eagle or Ark Royal?

jf

[Navaleye]

Actually it was Hermes airgroup beating up Farnborough 66, filmed in Super 8 by me. BEagle was in one of the Sea Vixens. I'll let him tell you what it was like.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just out of interest - if the conventional carriers had been retained, what what have replaced the Phantoms and Buccaneers in the 80s/90s?

[Archimedes]

'How long is a piece of string' would seem to be the answer to that, WEBF. I assume that you're working on the premise that the CVA-01 was purchased, rather than some of the interesting alternatives that were considered and rejected (obtaining two Essex-class from the USN, plus one completely unsubstaniated suggestion that the Franklin Roosevelt might have been a useful addition to the fleet)?

If so, I suspect that HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh wouldn't have been big enough to operate F-14s, so you'd probably have seen something similar to the approach taken with the USN's Midways, with an F/A-18 purchase in the mid-80s to replace the Phantom.

Alternatively (and this might be more likely) the EFA programme could have taken a very different direction, driven by the need for both French and UK carrier variants (which would have seen an F/A-18 lease in the mid-90s while we were waiting...)

As for the Bucc - build new ones with improved avionics would appear to have been the answer there.... If not, then I'd guess that an abortive attempt to buy A-6Fs would have been followed by the purchase of the Super Hornet (assuming that could be launched from the CVA-01); the alternative would have been to standardise on one type. This assumes that we wouldn't still be operating 40-year old A-5s in the strike-recce role! (mooted briefly as a CVA-01 aircraft).

[trap one]

MM
The F4 and Bucc used TER's to mount the 2inch (my mistake re SNEB) so Bucc could have 6 on the two outboard pylons whilst still taking the slipper tanks. As for the 1000lb's have seen Bucc with 3 on each TER(4) whilst Inboard pylon on F4 was weight limited to 2x1000lb. It could carry 3x500lb on the TER but believe that there was a problem with clearance if the lower station on the TER was used with 2 inch RP.
Archimedes
The 8 x AIM7 was part of the original F4H-1 (F4B) Fit and was designed for Fleet Defence role. Ie commit off deck rather than CAP fire all 8 AIM 7 at Sov Bombers and take 1 down with each missile. Rather than using AIM9B which would no way take out a Bear if used one on one.
MFAFF
The F14 used 6 AIM54 only when operating from ashore as it couldn't get down to landing weight on a CV with all six left on board.
Max afloat Air-to-Air load was 4xAIM 54 under the belly 2XAIM9 on side glove pylons and 2xAIM7 on base of Glove pylon.
Archimedes
I remember the French retiring the Crusader in 96/7? so if we referbished the F4's and the Buccs with new engines for the F4 updated the avionics then both airframe would have been good until Naval Typhoon.

[BEagle]

Yes, Navaleye, I was indeed there! And thanks for your super 8 to DVD copy!

I was a mere CCF cadet (army section - we didn't have any others) in 1966 and the RAF hadn't even been able to agree to me flying in an AEF Chippie at Chivenor because I was a 'brown job'.

But the good old FAA was far more accommodating; my father was a good pal of the boss of 892 (Nigel Anderdon) and so I was promised a trip in an RN aircraft. He picked me up from home in his ancient Austin Seven, complete with shotguns and cartridge belts in the back. We rattled over to Yeovilton, whereupon I learned that my 'trip' which I thought might have been in a Sea Vampire, was actually going to be in the looker's coal hole in a Sea Vixen - at the 1966 Farnborough Airshow! I did the instant bang seat/dinghy/clear your ears OK? check in the morning, then lunch in the wardroom with the guys who would be in the formation. Then into kit and over to the aircraft; I was in the 1st a/c in right echelon. Off we went, I moved the only switch I'd been briefed to move (MASS?), then watched as everyone else formed up and we joined the Buccs. Bouncing around at low level, my lunch made a surprise reappearance, but what the hell! Over to Farnborough, lots and lots of knots, much G and AoB. Absolutely effing marvellous. On the way back we did the same rocket attacks over Hermes in harbour, then back to Yeovilton. Utterly unforgettable - all thanks to the 'Fly Navy' attitiude.

Then another perilous journey back through the lanes in Nigel's Austin Seven - I didn't come back down to earth for weeks!

[pr00ne]

WEBF/Archimedes,

The long term plan if the RN had continued fixed wing airpower after the Phantom/Buccaneer era was for their replacement with a single type that would have been a variant of AFVG/UKVG/MRCA series of design studies.

We would have seen a Tornado variant on the CVA-01 and 02 eventually, though it would undoubtedly have been a different beast to what eventually DID become Tornado.

BEagle,

What a terrific tale! Perhaps the fact that there is no way on earth that the present MOD would ever condone such activities says a lot about the state of the gits in charge.

What WAS that coal hole like in the Sea Vixen? It always struck me as one of the more ridiculous eccentricities of the British aircraft industry of the time that you would design a primarily air to air type and put the Nav/Obs where they did!!

[Magic Mushroom]

Trap One,
I stand corrected; I too had used 'SNEB' in the generic (ie any pointy looking rocket pod thingy).
Regards,
MM

[Archimedes]

pr00ne, I considered the AFVG/UKVG plan, but the role of the French rather bothered me - I can't see the AFVG saga ending differently to what actually happened; UKVG would have been hard to afford as a national project, and might MRCA not have run into difficulties given that the demands of making the aircraft carrier compatible could have made the programme less attractive to the other partner nations? I'd have thought that carrier compatibility would have been a compromise too far for the Germans?

Moot point, anyway, but an interesting one.

[Jackonicko]

We can think of 177 reasons.

One of them is that a huge part of the 'point' of the UK carriers back then was to offer a strike capability East of Suez, augmenting the somewhat paltry arrangements at Tengah.

The Buccaneer could carry the appropriate (UK) weapon. The Phantom FG.Mk 1 could not.

[pr00ne]

JN,

Maybe, but the Phantom could and did carry a rather effective US equivalent, at least the F-4M did in RAFG.

[Jackonicko]

At least two, and perhaps even three US equivalents.

Not one of which could be used outside a US dual key arrangement which would have been difficult at Tengah (FOL for nukes in theatre) and impossible aboard the boat.

In an FAA context, therefore, the Phantom had no nuclear capability, and hence was irrelevant to the primary role.

[pr00ne]

JN,

Did the Ark with FG1s aboard spend ANY time out in the Far East? Was it 69/70 they entered service? UK withdrawal from the Far East complete in 71 apart from ANZUK.

[Jackonicko]

It's when and why the F-4/Buccaneer mix was decided upon that's important, not when it entered service.

[John Eacott]

Pr00ne,

Ark (to the best of my recollections) never went East with F4K's. Eagle did the last CVA Far East cruise in 71 going as far as NZ, paying off on return. I left Ark in 75, and we were allocated to NATO North Atlantic for much of that time, with one cruise down to South America in amongst the normal Caribbean/USA West Coast deployments. North Sea came in somewhere, but is best forgotten :p

Tough life, but someone had to do it ;)

[foldingwings]

Jacko,

Yep, I'm with you!

I can just see it now! Jackbooted live-armed American guards stomping all over Ark making NLZs everywhere and shooting anybody that entered them! Far more pragmatic to have a Brit Weapon on a Brit ac with Brit guards and Brit release authority!

Anyway, would the US President of the day (or any day), know where the Far East was? GWB used to thinks it was New York until 9/11!

[pr00ne]

foldingwings,

I think the US president of the day most certainly knew where the Far East was in those days, seeing how many Americans were dying and being mained there on a daily basis. The area was THE policy topic of the time.

[foldingwings]

And here's me trying to be light-hearted and contemporary!

Sheeesh, you guys!!

[jindabyne]

fw

Must be the wig 'n gown (no, not that one!).

Sheeesh too --