Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Bucs and Black Buck

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Bucs and Black Buck

Old 7th Apr 2009, 21:01
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 179
I think the 'RN blaming the RAF' came about largely because our political masters had decided our forces would not operate outside the NATO theatre area in future.
'No role East of Suez' marked the beginning of the end.
Hence we didn't need carriers because the RAF coud provide air cover for the fleet locally. This of course ignored the point that in any sort of shooting war in Europe the RAF would have been be more than busy enough trying to defend BAOR, let alone the sea areas.

Perhaps some RAF senior officers saw benefit in supporting this daft idea but I suspect (hope) it was not common.
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2009, 16:54
  #82 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
Originally Posted by biscuit74 View Post
the RAF coud provide air cover for the fleet locally. This of course ignored the point that in any sort of shooting war in Europe the RAF would have been be more than busy enough trying to defend BAOR, let alone the sea areas.
Not quite. The RAF was assigned to support both SACLANT and SACEUR. You can be quite sure that SACLANT would have screamed blue murder if his forward offensive screen had been diverted to SACEUR, which is not to say that that might have happened if the need in ACLANT was negligible.

You could argue of course that splitting what small forces we had between 2 MNC was contrary to 'concentration of force'.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2009, 19:16
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 179
True Pontius. I think you make a very good point about dilution of effort. Also the snag for SACLANT was exactly that - he would not have had his own dedicated force, but would risk diversion to another theatre. Having your own organic force under command is much better. Naval airmen understand naval problems.

The apparently lesser threat gets sidelined by focus on the 'main 'threat'. All organisations suffer that. The RAF showed that before WW". Notionally in charge of Fleet defence, but that got ignored becasue of the much greater threat.
(Note - I'm not bashing the RAF here. This is normal behaviour, hard to avoid. It's one reason why the Captain of HMS Sheffield decided to abandon ship so soon - he was distracting the Task Force)
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2009, 20:53
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Having your own organic force under command is much better.
... for you, parochially, not necessarily for the interests of the whole campaign - and can only be done if there are sufficient air assets to be able to afford to use them in this less-than-optimum way!
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 16:05
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 58
When did the Buccs deploy to Stanley

Does anybody know exactly when the 2 Buccaneers mentioned earlier deployed to RAF Stanley?
AndySmith is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 17:24
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,139
Originally Posted by AndySmith View Post
Does anybody know exactly when the 2 Buccaneers mentioned earlier deployed to RAF Stanley?
The Buccanneers (XV353 and XV868) arrived at Stanley on 5 March 1983, staying several days before returning to the UK .....
See page 17 at following link

http://biblioteka.mycity-military.co...d_Special_.pdf

Mar. 1983
Joined XV353 in detachment to RAF Stanley, Falkland Islands - coded '868'
XV868 - S.Mk.2 Production

Mar. 1983
Joined XV868 in detachment to RAF Stanley, Falkland Islands - coded '353'
XV353 - S.Mk.2D Production
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 18:23
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 58
Thanks TEEEJ.

There seems to be something amiss then, as the Yorkshire Aircraft Museum seem to think that their Bucc, XX901, was part of the detatchment.

Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B - Yorkshire Air Museum

Last edited by AndySmith; 28th Oct 2017 at 18:55.
AndySmith is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 20:29
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
I have a fuzzy recollection that one of the aircraft was damaged by the RHAG and took a while to be recovered.
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2017, 18:49
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,139
Originally Posted by AndySmith View Post
Thanks TEEEJ.

There seems to be something amiss then, as the Yorkshire Aircraft Museum seem to think that their Bucc, XX901, was part of the detatchment.

Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B - Yorkshire Air Museum
No problem, Andy.

I had a further search and found the airborne spare Buccaneer - XW547. Perhaps XX901 was a spare and remained at Ascension?

3 Mar 83 Flew to RAF Ascension from Lossiemouth with Buccaneers XV353 and XV868, in company with Victor tankers and Nimrod SAR, as part of Operation ‘Corporate’, as a spare aircraft. Flight time 10 hours, the longest
ever RN/RAF Buccaneer flight. XV353 and XV868 flew on to Ascension on 5 March 1983, with XW547 as airborne spare. XW547 returned to Ascension, then flew back to Lossiemouth on 7 March 1983 in company with a Victor tanker and Nimrod SAR.
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documen...S.2B-XW547.pdf

I've contacted the Yorkshire Air Museum and passed on the info.

Last edited by TEEEJ; 29th Oct 2017 at 19:26.
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2017, 22:03
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 97
I've just checked my logbook and I was on the 3 March 83 deployment, on one of the Victors. The op was called Latherton.

I flew 7:05 MR to DAK then 2:20 DAK to ASI. Can't remember the details but we probably topped up another Victor which carried on to ASI with the Buccs whilst we dived in to Dakar for a top up.

I then flew another Op Latherton trip on 5 Mar 83, ASI-ASI which was 10:10, so we must have gone a fair way south with the Buccs then.
farefield is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 12:41
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Goose Bay
Posts: 56
https://www.facebook.com/keith.evans...1106806531067/
knarfw is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 13:16
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the heathen lands
Posts: 352
this may be a very silly question, so forgive my ignorance, but why did anyone think it a good idea to send Buccs down to the FI in March 83?

there were already 4(?) Phantom FGR2 in the FI, and while they were AD orientated, the Phantom was still a handy strike/CAS aircraft - so why send another aircraft type with all the duplication of the logs/spt train that entailed rather than just bump up the number of Phantoms?

certainly the Bucc was a far more capable bomber than the Phantom, but was it really worth the effort of getting it down there and supporting it over the flexibility of having another couple of multi-role (ish) Phantoms?
cokecan is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 15:02
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 966
the Phantom was still a handy strike/CAS aircraft
Not at that point in it's life. The capability to drop bombs had not been maintained and fell in to the far too difficult to reinstate bracket. It was thoroughly investigated at the time.
beardy is online now  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 15:19
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,436
...the Phantom was still a handy strike/CAS aircraft...
It certainly wouldn't have been used for strike missions! After the war we did a bit of strafe, but that was about it. Apart from the centre station selector for the gun, no-one with any sense ever touched the rusty old mud-moving crap in the centre pedestal. The wiring hadn't been checked for years and legend has it that when someone did move one of the switches, the tanks fell off...

It would have been one heck of a challenge, both in engineering and training terms, to have resurrected any A/G capability of the F-4 in 1982. Had there been a serious A/G requirement beyond the ability of the SHAR, the Buccaneer was the obvious choice.

But if we'd had CVA-01, perhaps even with P.1154...ah well
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 15:31
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,359
the Phantom was still a handy strike/CAS aircraft
What Beagle said..

By early 83 It has been a while since the UK's F4s had been used in any strike/CAS/mud moving role so heaven knows what state the wiring was in for any of the air to ground functions (though as Beags said the cockpit switches were still in situ, gathering dust..).

Obviously the centreline SU-23 hardware had been maintained for air to air purposes and before deploying south we did a limited strafe work up. I was down south for the first time late 82 - March 83 and some of us did the odd strafe "currency"" session against some surplus to requirement Pucaras but I'm not sure how well the profile we flew would have worked in anger against a grunt armed with a SAM 7 or Blowpipe....

The wiring hadn't been checked for years and legend has it that when someone did move one of the switches, the tanks fell off
I heard that one...someone supposedly couldn't resist playing with a certain selection and lost the centerline tank...not sure if it's really true but it's a good story.....

Last edited by wiggy; 30th Oct 2017 at 17:10.
wiggy is online now  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 15:38
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
The Bucc also had the MARTEL system for anti shipping use
engineer(retard) is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 15:58
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,436
Obviously the centreline SU-23 hardware had been maintained for air to air purposes and before deploying south we did a limited strafe work up.
'Limited' indeed! I did a dual trip with the QWIL but the harmonisation wasn't good - as was confirmed by one of the Flt Cdrs. Next day I went on my one and only ever trip to Donna Nook; we were late off as the previous crew had been late back. Wattisham to DN at 500KIAS+, one dry pass then a couple of hot passes which was all we had time for. The NRL 'Griggles' was in the back reminiscing about his mud-moving days, then we waxed my Flt Cdr on his Tac check having timed our briefed bounce to occur right in the middle of his frequency change from Eastern to Neatishead.. One of my few really enjoyable F-4 trips, made doubly so after I was told I'd scored 52% on the range!
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 20:07
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Wiggly, the centreline drop did happen. It was the last of the pre-80-update FG1s on 43(F). The nav had recently completed the QWI course and both he and his pilot were working with the Navy up north with little happening. The nav remarked that all of the jets had had the special wiring removed which meant that if his pilot selected master arm on, 'special' on the pedestal, and if the nav were to make the consent switch, nothing would happen if the pilot pickled. There was a sickening thud and they came home. Great pair of guys, not so lucky a year or so later. RIP
grobbling about is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 22:12
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 616
In October 1989 we flew a trial at Boscombe to increase the maximum take-off weight of the Phantom from 58 000 lbs to 60 000 lbs. We used a FG1 that had a high basic weight and flew with 3 tanks and 4 x 1000 lb bombs. I suspect that we must have still had the jettison facility available for the bombs (but cannot be certain), and as it was a standard squadron airframe that capability must still have existed in the fleet even then.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2017, 22:50
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 53
Posts: 762
The Bucc also had the MARTEL system for anti shipping use
That's if they would have worked after a 8 hour very cold soak at 40,000 feet for the transit down there. Supposedly one of the reasons the Shrike was used instead for the anti radar Black Bucks.
MAINJAFAD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.