Buccs in red flag.

[effortless]

How did they do? There’s a pic going round of one in red flag paint. I love these aircraft. One passed so low over us back in the day that it warmed us up for a few minutes.

[charliegolf]

How did they do? There’s a pic going round of one in red flag paint. I love these aircraft. One passed so low over us back in the day that it warmed us up for a few minutes.

Gopher strikes were common. I've heard!

CG

[chevvron]

I can remember a clip of a pair of them heading towards one of the yanks' OPs and the female on the sound track said they were so low they couldn't depress their tracking system low enough; meanwhile their wingtip vortices as they weaved about were so low they kicked up a dust trail.
There must have been longer sequences of their flights but were they ever shown on the media; at least I never saw them and it would have really p1$$ed the yanks off for them to be shown.
I don't know how to work Youtube but maybe there are some shots on there.

[teeonefixer]

The film mentioned above from a tracking point, where the watchers were in awe of the approaching Buccaneers, is well known but has disappeared from trace - even the copy at Brough! Their performance at ultra-low level is well documented. In the days before effective look-down radar, the chasing fighters (mainly F-4's) couldn't keep up with them at low-level to get in a shot. Hence on the last day of their first deployment, they went round the range in Diamond 9 formation. There is some youtube video and it is well recorded in various Buccaneer books. There are previous posts on here about them, too, the most recent has lots of links:
Buccaneer Flying Qualities (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/654727-buccaneer-flying-qualities.html)

[megan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYwOEF5xag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24CaLD8l0OE&t=23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFzP6zwp0Y&t=0s

[212man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuYwOEF5xag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24CaLD8l0OE&t=23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvFzP6zwp0Y&t=0s
The first video is reminiscent of the GW1 work-up footage.

[Out Of Trim]

I seem to remember they made the news on the BBC Nationwide programme during Red Flag, but I don’t know if any of the footage would still exist.

[dctyke]

I was at the Red Flag as the Laarbruch Ej Seat representative when we had the tragic catastrophic wing failure. Was took out to the crash site to assist the medics, quite an ordeal for a newly promoted cpl. A lot was said about the low level tactics and its possible effect on the airframe, some aircraft never flew again. Did this have an effect on buccaneer tactics in its last years in the RAF?

[Timelord]

Following the Red Flag accident the investigation revealed that the fatigue test specimen, which was still going strong, was not programmed with loads representing actual usage. The force was grounded for a long time whilst all airframes were inspected and several never made it back into the air. The reduced force did eventually recommence flying and did not change its tactics which, at the time, were the only way of surviving air defences. When it was replaced by the Tornado low flying continued to be the preferred tactic until Gulf War 1 caused a bit of a rethink.
Of course the last few years of Buccaneer service were in the maritime role where low flying was even lower but less fatiguing.

[BEagle]

I recall being told that the RAFG Buccaneers weren't fitted with AAR probes. Airflow disturbance caused by the probe mean that when the screen wash button was pressed, the fluid would cover the whole windscreen very nicely. But without a probe, there would just be a small strip washed. To get over the problem, RAFG crews would apply a few rudder doublets whost the squirt was underway - job done!

Except that this caused additional fatigue which puzzled the engineers until the cause was established!

As I say, that's what I was told and might well be nonsense!

[welshwaffu]

Not red Flag but I can attest to the Bucc’s low flying capabilities while cruising on ‘daddie’s yacht’ Hermes in the Med 74 ish. While sunbathing on the flight deck one afternoon, my eye was caught by a tiny pair of tip vapour trails, banking and heading in from the direction of Mt.Etna.

Seconds later, I was looking DOWN on the magnificent sight of an S2 ‘saying hello’ to our air defence systems – way too fast to see whether light blue or one of ours but it was one of those ‘FU*K ME’ episodes.

Admittedly, over flat sea but hell, top driving!

[teeonefixer]

The fleet wasn't "grounded" but flying was "paused" we were told while investigations were carried out, including flying a fully-instrumented aeroplane (XW986 from memory) out of HOSM. You are right, the Fatigue test loading wasn't up to date (weight increases, effect of extended wingtips etc.), hence a second Full Scale Fatigue Test on a low-flight hours ex-Farnborough airframe. The background is a case study on the MoD Structures course held at Shrivenham.

The Fin attachment bolts would become loose at a lower interval than we could predict, causing regular ream-out and bespoke bolts being manufactured. The additional loading caused by cycling the rudder pedals to clear the screen became clear when some Brough guys were in the bar at Lossie!

[teeonefixer]

Timelord: The fleet wasn't "grounded" but flying was "paused" we were told while investigations were carried out, including flying a fully-instrumented aeroplane (XW986 from memory) out of HOSM. You are right, the Fatigue test loading wasn't up to date (weight increases, effect of extended wingtips etc.), hence a second Full Scale Fatigue Test on a low-flight hours ex-Farnborough airframe. The background is a case study on the MoD Structures course held at Shrivenham.

BEagle: The Fin attachment bolts would become loose at a lower interval than we would predict, causing regular ream-out and bespoke bolts being manufactured. The additional loading caused by cycling the rudder pedals to clear the screen became clear when some Brough guys were in the bar at Lossie!

[cliver029]

Can some one please tell me what part did ground effect play when choosing to use the ultra low level mode?

[chevvron]

The fleet wasn't "grounded" but flying was "paused" we were told while investigations were carried out, including flying a fully-instrumented aeroplane (XW986 from memory) out of HOSM.
'986 was one of three 'special' S2s produced for MOD(PE) use in 1975 straight from the factory the others being '987 which went to Farnborough and 988 which operated from West Freugh, all three initially being painted a unique green an yellow. Being MOD(PE) they were all low hours airframes and all Bucc qualiifed pilots at Farnborough had to carry out regular C/T with '987 including RHAG engagements; I scored a 'first' with an actual engagement rather than just a practice one when Terry Adcock returned from a trip with nosewheel and hook down but main wheels up. When established in the circuit he re-cycled after a couple of fly-bys to get 4 greens and successfully engaged the approach cable with me as tower controller.

[BEagle]

See https://skybrary.aero/articles/ground-effect

However, even at 50ft agl, a Buccaneer is unlikely to be in ground effect as it has a wingspan of 44ft. The wake vortices at high speed and low level are more likely to upset anything over which the aircraft is flying.

[Timelord]

Can some one please tell me what part did ground effect play when choosing to use the ultra low level mode?

The “ultra low level mode” was chosen, at the time, by all strike and attack platforms (even Vulcans)because of the threat not because of the qualities of any one aircraft type, although the Buccaneer was unusual in that it was designed for that regime (over water anyway) from the outset.

[VP959]

The “ultra low level mode” was chosen, at the time, by all strike and attack platforms (even Vulcans)because of the threat not because of the qualities of any one aircraft type, although the Buccaneer was unusual in that it was designed for that regime (over water anyway) from the outset.

A decision that, inadvertently, led to a career change for me. I was working for SCSHQ (90 Signals Gp) in the early 1970s. Our signals lab was tasked with trying to find out if the TFR fitted to the Vulcan for its low level role was susceptible to Soviet jamming. My boss wanted a volunteer to fly in the trials aircraft to monitor some test gear hooked up to the TFR, whilst my colleagues sat in a Bedford van beaming various jamming signals at the trials aircraft. No one else wanted the job, so I volunteered, was sent away on the flight test course and ended up being the resident flight test bod for the next 20 plus years. Meant I got to fly in lots of different types though, everything from a Whirlwind to a Canberra.

Back on topic, somewhere I have a nice photo of either XW987 or XW988 at low level over Portpatrick. Not Red Flag low level, although there were always low flying noise complaints from one or two living close to West Freugh (always from people that had moved into the area).

[Timelord]

And, to bring the discussion full circle: We used that Vulcan TFR, at night, on Red Flag , November, December 1978.

[VP959]

And, to bring the discussion full circle: We used that Vulcan TFR, at night, on Red Flag , November, December 1978.


FWIW we were never able to get the TFR to even hiccup, despite the best endeavours of the ground trials team, squirting ludicrous amounts of J band power directly at the incoming aircraft. IIRC, the fear at the time was that jamming might cause the aircraft to climb to a "safe" height (for some reason 1,000ft sticks in my head) if the TFR failed. Doing that would have made it pretty vulnerable, even back then. I remember that the ride was far from smooth at low level, surprised me as a very inexperienced bod at the time.

[Timelord]

The TFR was manually flown by the pilot following a director, actually the ILS glide slope indicator so if it failed or was jammed, the pilot would initiate a climb to whatever the crew considered prudent. In war over Russia we probably would have stayed at low level using the mapping radar (H2S) to predict the terrain.

[VP959]

It was the glide slope signal that I was recording and monitoring as an indication that the TFR was being spoofed. The idea was to look at the signal (on a paper chart recorder), convert it to height, mentally time delay it and compare it with the rad alt height that was also being recorded.

As it turned out, the design of the TFR made it inherently immune from interference, as any spoofed jamming return had to come in during the expected return window, and align with the antenna axis at that instant, which was a pretty narrow window. Although I wasn't involved with the ground equipment side, I think the jammer they'd come up with (supposedly based on intelligence from the Soviets) was a receiver to detect the TFR transmission pulse, with the jammer then transmitting a much stronger signal to try and get the TFR to assume the terrain ahead was higher than it really was.

I think there was a secondary requirement as a part of the trial to look at TFR reliability. Can't now remember what drove that, but I think it may have been related to an accident where there was suspicion that the TFR might have played a part.

There is a Buccaneer connection to this trip down memory lane, as my boss at the time had worked on the TFR fitted to a Buccaneer trials platform, as part of the TSR.2 programme (and I'd previously worked with two Elliot 920B suitcase computers salvaged from the scrapped TSR.2s for another lab project). Anyone know why they never fitted TFR to the Buccaneer in service?

[The Oberon]

It's a long time ago but the Vulcan TFR was secured to the fore and aft axis. It looked for ground returns at, 8000yds.(?) so the beam angle was altered to give 8000 dependant upon the height set. Being secured to the F&A axis it could only see along Heading and the beam width was such that with any reasonable crosswind component, it could miss terrain anomalies along Track. As an Avionics Tech. I understood that TFR looked after the Heading terrain and H2S kept an eye along Track should there be any great difference between the two.

[VP959]

It's a long time ago but the Vulcan TFR was secured to the fore and aft axis. It looked for ground returns at, 8000yds.(?) so the beam angle was altered to give 8000 dependant upon the height set. Being secured to the F&A axis it could only see along Heading and the beam width was such that with any reasonable crosswind component, it could miss terrain anomalies along Track. As an Avionics Tech. I understood that TFR looked after the Heading terrain and H2S kept an eye along Track should there be any great difference between the two.

It's a long time ago (about 50 years) since I fleetingly looked at one up close, so my memory might not be accurate. IIRC the reflector bobbed up and down through a small angle (6 degrees?), so changing the downward-looking angle of the beam, with the horn feed being fixed on a frame at the front. I thought it worked by correlating the measured angle of the beam (did it have a synchro on the reflector?) with the direct line distance, to produce what was, in effect, a 2D terrain profile of the ground ahead, but only on the aircraft horizontal axis.

IIRC, the whole thing was a cylindrical self-contained unit, with the antenna, Tx, Rx and processing electronics all in the one assembly. There was an analogue computer in the processing section at the back that converted the angle and distance to height (did it also have a ground speed input?) and fed that out to the go up/go down display output.

I believe the beam was symmetrical, so would have been as narrow in azimuth as it was in elevation, partly due to it working up in in J band (which seemed an impossibly high frequency at the time) which enabled the antenna to be small enough to fit in the available space. That 2D (vertical axis only) profile meant that it couldn't detect obstacles slightly off-axis, just as you say, which was both a plus and a minus.

One reason (probably the primary one) that I think it was relatively immune from jamming was due to the way it correlated individual pulses and returns with the instantaneous measurement of the depression angle of the beam. To spoof it into producing a false terrain profile would mean getting a jamming pulse return into the antenna whilst it was off-axis, because of the constant bobbing motion. I believe that the Soviet intelligence that created the need for the trial I was involved with was based on an assumption that it may have been possible to inject such an off-axis spoofed pulse into the receiver, so fooling the processing into thinking that a ground return had been picked up with the beam at a higher elevation, where there shouldn't have been a ground return. My memory is hazy, but I think the receiver was gated to ignore returns beyond the maximum expected range at any depression angle (most probably that 8,000 yards you mention). As we found, even with as much power as we could create, together with a narrow beam horn on the jammer mast looking directly at the aircraft, the TFR receiver still always picked up the proper ground return rather than the jamming signal.

All the above could well be complete rubbish as my memory might well be flawed. I was a young Assistant Scientific Officer at the time, still in awe at being allowed to play with aeroplanes and get paid for it (my flying pay was a lot, about £5 per hour, or part of hour, flown at the time)! This was more than my regular pay. At that time I think my salary was around £500, so a few hours trials flying was a very worthwhile bonus. Truth be told, I'd have done the flying for free!

[effortless]

Well I guess the answer to my original question is “Pretty well!” :)


I’m glad I asked. The thread has been wonderful. Thanks to you all.

[CAEBr]

I recall being told that the RAFG Buccaneers weren't fitted with AAR probes. Airflow disturbance caused by the probe mean that when the screen wash button was pressed, the fluid would cover the whole windscreen very nicely. But without a probe, there would just be a small strip washed. To get over the problem, RAFG crews would apply a few rudder doublets whost the squirt was underway - job done!

Except that this caused additional fatigue which puzzled the engineers until the cause was established!

As I say, that's what I was told and might well be nonsense!

BEagle, almost right.

RAFG Buccs did not generally have the probes fitted, with limited requirement for tanking in their usual profiles.
The issue of a "bootfull of screenwash" became more apparent in the later Sea Eagle operations which had a much greater need for windscreen cleaning due to the overwater operations. We had a number of issues with fin bolts and fittings that we couldn't identify a real reason for until we found out about the use of rudder. Some evidence was seen on OLM traces but the full picture wasn't available as there was no identifier placed on the tape when screen wash was used, and had we asked the aircrew to manually add one, they probably wouldn't have done it to the same extent.
Although it was binned with the subsequent withdrawal from service, we did some work on what modification would be most cost effective - revised fin fittings or a new windscreen wash system !

CAEBr

[West Coast]

BEagle, almost right.

RAFG Buccs did not generally have the probes fitted, with limited requirement for tanking in their usual profiles.
The issue of a "bootfull of screenwash" became more apparent in the later Sea Eagle operations which had a much greater need for windscreen cleaning due to the overwater operations. We had a number of issues with fin bolts and fittings that we couldn't identify a real reason for until we found out about the use of rudder. Some evidence was seen on OLM traces but the full picture wasn't available as there was no identifier placed on the tape when screen wash was used, and had we asked the aircrew to manually add one, they probably wouldn't have done it to the same extent.
Although it was binned with the subsequent withdrawal from service, we did some work on what modification would be most cost effective - revised fin fittings or a new windscreen wash system !

CAEBr

Was it a matter that they were plumbed for it but just didn't have the probe attached or it didn’t come from the factory with AAR capability?

[The Oberon]

It's a long time ago (about 50 years) since I fleetingly looked at one up close, so my memory might not be accurate. IIRC the reflector bobbed up and down through a small angle (6 degrees?), so changing the downward-looking angle of the beam, with the horn feed being fixed on a frame at the front. I thought it worked by correlating the measured angle of the beam (did it have a synchro on the reflector?) with the direct line distance, to produce what was, in effect, a 2D terrain profile of the ground ahead, but only on the aircraft horizontal axis.

IIRC, the whole thing was a cylindrical self-contained unit, with the antenna, Tx, Rx and processing electronics all in the one assembly. There was an analogue computer in the processing section at the back that converted the angle and distance to height (did it also have a ground speed input?) and fed that out to the go up/go down display output.

I believe the beam was symmetrical, so would have been as narrow in azimuth as it was in elevation, partly due to it working up in in J band (which seemed an impossibly high frequency at the time) which enabled the antenna to be small enough to fit in the available space. That 2D (vertical axis only) profile meant that it couldn't detect obstacles slightly off-axis, just as you say, which was both a plus and a minus.

One reason (probably the primary one) that I think it was relatively immune from jamming was due to the way it correlated individual pulses and returns with the instantaneous measurement of the depression angle of the beam. To spoof it into producing a false terrain profile would mean getting a jamming pulse return into the antenna whilst it was off-axis, because of the constant bobbing motion. I believe that the Soviet intelligence that created the need for the trial I was involved with was based on an assumption that it may have been possible to inject such an off-axis spoofed pulse into the receiver, so fooling the processing into thinking that a ground return had been picked up with the beam at a higher elevation, where there shouldn't have been a ground return. My memory is hazy, but I think the receiver was gated to ignore returns beyond the maximum expected range at any depression angle (most probably that 8,000 yards you mention). As we found, even with as much power as we could create, together with a narrow beam horn on the jammer mast looking directly at the aircraft, the TFR receiver still always picked up the proper ground return rather than the jamming signal.

All the above could well be complete rubbish as my memory might well be flawed. I was a young Assistant Scientific Officer at the time, still in awe at being allowed to play with aeroplanes and get paid for it (my flying pay was a lot, about £5 per hour, or part of hour, flown at the time)! This was more than my regular pay. At that time I think my salary was around £500, so a few hours trials flying was a very worthwhile bonus. Truth be told, I'd have done the flying for free!

There are couple on EBay.

[BANANASBANANAS]

This vid, admittedly of Buccs over the sea, gives some idea of how low you can go! Music is pretty good too.

The 'low' stuff starts at about the 2:15 mark.

https://youtu.be/lteL18wd15Y

[BEagle]

Was it a matter that they were plumbed for it but just didn't have the probe attached or it didn’t come from the factory with AAR capability?
The plumbing was there, but not all aircraft had the probe fitted. It was a fixed, non-retractable probe, so actually fitting it wasn't a great deal of work.

[pmills575]

I am fairly sure that the TFR range was 9,000 yds, TFR on the Vulcan (when I worked on Akrotiri Wing) was a very unserviceable beast. It occasionally gave a fly down when it should have been up. (or so the crews reported ). It has an odd cooling system. Outside air was passed into the pod and passed over the electronics directly, OK when it was dry. Having poured the water out of a removed pod after a sortie over Greece in severe wet conditions, I can confirm this state. I later went to work for MEL and was surprised just after I started to find that they provided manufacturer support, having walked past the test section.

[BEagle]

I was just starting my 300ft TFR check flight in March 1979 when we had a 'main warning - amber' with various annoying lights illuminating. Followed closely by the check captain asking the AEO what the heck was going on! Back came the reply - we'd lost the entire no.3 busbar! So we diverted to RAF Leeming and repaired to the OM bar whilst a bus came up from RAF Scampton to collect us. It later transpired that something hadn't been properly connected in the power compartment and that the buffeting at low level shook it loose!

Oh well, tried again a couple of days later, but the TFR was U/S. Then came Double Top and Giant Voice, so it was nearly a year before I was finally able to complete TFR training!

[MPN11]

This vid, admittedly of Buccs over the sea, gives some idea of how low you can go! Music is pretty good too.
The 'low' stuff starts at about the 2:15 mark.
Having seen that lovely vid before, I was reminded about the somewhat sporting raising of the landing gear. Do I recall correctly that the pilot selected gear up while still in the roll, and let the WoW switch decide when to retract?

[BEagle]

Having seen that lovely vid before, I was reminded about the somewhat sporting raising of the landing gear. Do I recall correctly that the pilot selected gear up while still in the roll, and let the WoW switch decide when to retract?
See: https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/598511-buccaneer-s-deck-takeoff-button-seeking-details.html

[TURIN]

This vid, admittedly of Buccs over the sea, gives some idea of how low you can go! Music is pretty good too.

The 'low' stuff starts at about the 2:15 mark.

https://youtu.be/lteL18wd15Y
Fantastic video, thanks, made my day.
King's of Leon: Sex on Fire.

[Krystal n chips]

How did they do? There’s a pic going round of one in red flag paint. I love these aircraft. One passed so low over us back in the day that it warmed us up for a few minutes.

Is this the one at Tatenhill, was formerly at B'thorpe because if so, I understand there are plans to relocate it from the far side of the airfield to the public side given it also works as well so you should be able to see it close up.

Nice little cafe there as well.

[ex-fast-jets]

I fly at Tatenhill fairly regularly and I will be there next week - I don't know if the folk I see there know what is going on with that particular Bucc, but it looked very good last time I saw it in its desert camouflage sitting on the South side of the runway. It used to be on the North side when it came from Brunt (I think) but the new cafe building has been delayed a bit so maybe that it was why it moved to the other side of the airfield.

If I can find any useful info when I am next there, I will share it with you all.

[Brewster Buffalo]

I fly at Tatenhill fairly regularly and I will be there next week - I don't know if the folk I see there know what is going on with that particular Bucc, but it looked very good last time I saw it in its desert camouflage sitting on the South side of the runway. It used to be on the North side when it came from Brunt (I think) but the new cafe building has been delayed a bit so maybe that it was why it moved to the other side of the airfield..

The Tatenhill Bucc is XX 900. When I saw it there in Oct 21 it was still in the green and grey scheme. Looked like it needed a repaint.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

There are couple on EBay.

Michel's lab (https://youtube.com/@lelabodemichel5162?si=Qe6g9-Gs3yH3Zxma) on YouTube has done a few teardowns of Bucc avionics recently if you're interested. Also VC10 and SeaKing plus a bunch of other bits.