F/O Bloggs

The info came from the RAF History webpage under 1987 - RAF - RAF Timeline 1980 -1989

My suggestion is to dig out log-books and the old F540s and/or write to the Air Historical Branch! That way you can rewrite the history books.

LJ :ok:

Lol!! Thanks,Leon, maybe when I have bugga all else to do!!

Bloggs. ⛄️⛄️⛄️⛄️:D

There may have been another reason. I am not aware of any V-force target in the '60s to the west of the WPC eastern boundary, when the MRCA was being considered.

Basically Bomber Command and SAC would operate the deeper strategic plans and the ATAFs would be deconflicted in space. You may also remember that there was an upper yield limit on SACERs 7,000 nukes.

JF

Don't doubt your experience for a moment but are you sure about a ferry range for a GR1? If memory serves, the ac burnt about 4000lbs /hr in transit so to cover 2000 nm would need about 16000 lbs plus the arrival fuel and that's not even allowing for any climb. Again, IIRC the latest Harriers only carried about 15klbs and did not fly for the 4 hours needed.

Blogs are we sure that any Buccs referred to did not use buddy/buddy AAR?

LJ I am slightly dubious about the source document that claims that 23 VC10s were to be converted to K2/K3 there aren't that many different serial nos in my logbook!

Wasn't there a TW3 sketch about the range/radius of action of the then MRCA, and that despite the inability to get to Russia and back it was not a suicide mission

Vasco, buddy/buddy only works so far. Assume two Buccs, only one arrives. It would have to wait for the tanker etc etc.

I know the RN flew a Bucc, Goose to UK (Lossie?). I can't remember if it was a Mk 1 or Mk 2, I think it was a Mk 1.

The aircraft was fully fuelled. Having taxied to the marshalling point it was manually topped up to full. I seem to recall that there was a problem restarting and engine that burnt most of that extra fuel.

It made the flight unrefuelled but I believe the 'clouds were full of tankers.'

PN am fully aware of the limits, it does of course depend which AC you need to get thru etc. As far as an AC like the Buccaneer is concerned a top up at TOC (to more than one AC ) could be all that is needed to achieve the result. A lot would depend on the exact conditions on the day eg wind component and min fuel needed at destination. I don't actually remember any unaccompanied direct transits in 82 or 83 hence the question.

vascodegama

Hi. Sometimes spec points can be a little like the small print in insurance policies or other docs.

As I recall the ferry range spec was met using a then light single seater complete with the ferry tips (nothing like a bit of aspect ratio to reduce induced drag) and with the slim 330 tanks - not the fat ones that the RAF eventually bought. The cruise was very carefully flown to produce a fuel flow (for about 30 mins or so as I recall) that showed there was enough left to go the required distance. There were no reserves required and the idle descent distance counted. Such things can make a big difference!

Mind you another spec point for 6g at 400kts, 16,000lb and 10,000ft was a really meaningful operational case which took a lot of wing dressing schemes and mid flap before we hacked it. (Dumping nozzle made it easy to get 6g but the Dunsfold pilots refused to allow the company to meet the spec that way for obvious reasons - which caused a bit of internal company aggro at the time.... )

JF

Vasco,

Germany squadrons, eg 16, were not fitted with AAR probes nor were the crews trained/practised in AAR therefore I am confident that no buddy/buddy AAR or (any other AAR) was conducted crossing the Pond. I was there, I led the leg from Azores to Gander! 23,000lbs of gas on board - a dawdle!

Although we never flew it because RAFG said that we couldn't take 2 Buccs around the World as our RAFG Bucc swansong when Tornado (our replacement) couldn't even get to Cyprus in one hop - we DID plan to do so and it could have been done as described in my previous post and without AAR of any sort!

Bloggs:}

Vasco, I was addressing the transatlantic case. For 2ATAF, FO Bloggs gives one definitive answer. Another, from a friend of mine, gives the aircraft/weapon matching for the end-game although pre-release operations would have reduced the number of weapons carriers.

The trans Atlantic sortie in the F3 in 1987 was flown by a BAe crew and had nothing to do with Boscombe (although they frequently flew ZE755/AS11 on trials). I am not sure where it took off from (Goose Bay or Gander at a guess) but I recall that it landed at Macrihanish. It was flown with 2 x 2250l plus 2 x 1500l tanks. I suspect that it probably was not carrying missiles.

In the early 1980s just after IX Sqn formed as the first Tornado GR1 squadron they flew an airfield attack on Akrotiri from Honington using Victor and Buccaneer tankers. The Bucc was the tanker for the bracket closest to Cyprus and when the crew asked if, after the bracket, they could follow the Tornado through Akrotiri they were politely told to p**e off! I think that it was a sortie of about 12 hours for the GR1 crew.

I presume that was a return trip (no duty free).

The F2 did a flight, again probably a BAe crew, to Akrotiri 5hr 50min unrefuelled, that would have been mid-80s.

I remember having to ferry a spare Victor out to Palermo for that trail. The ac was described as having a realistic weapon load (4 external fuel tanks!) and if memory serves they had to scramble a Buccaneer tanker from Akt when the airborne ac was unable to trail its hose.

LOMCEVAK,

The GR1 that did the Akrotiri mock attack was fitted with 4x1500l fuel tanks (with BOZ and SKyshadow pods on the outboard wing pylons). It therefore could not have carried any weapons. We all wondered what, exactly, the sortie was meant to prove and to whom.

Quote 1.3Vs,
"It therefore could not have carried any weapons."

I think 2 x 27mm, 2 x AIM9 and, last but least, 2 x Browning 9mm:ok:.

OAP

A few years ago TriStar tankers showed how to support long-range attacks from the UK to North Africa and back. A record for RAF UK based attacks I believe. Not trumpeted much as they are old hat and, a capability soon to be lost.:ugh:

OAP

OAP

And I suppose there was no VC10 involvement , indeed the entries in my log book must be false! I am also struggling to see how the capability will be lost, for all its faults , Voyager could certainly support such a mission. In fact as a casual observer I would say it is a far better platform (2 hoses, lower fuel burn etc)

And those faults are?

Bearing in mind that the Voyager programme is costing the tax payer over £1.2M per day, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that, by now, it actually met the Indicative Statement of User Need which was written at least 10 years ago....:rolleyes:

BEagle,


"....it wouldn't be unreasonable......"

OH YES IT WOULD!!

Well, it is Panto season, and sometimes you have to either laugh or cry, and laughing is preferable! :)

How did we go from "never enough range" to another snipe-fest (yawn) against the A330 ?? The contract terms aren't the aeroplanes fault and it's unlikely, even if a different type had been substituted, that the finance arrangements would have been any different.