USN decides to buy The Blackburn Buccaneer....

[BlackBat242]

That "USN never issued the spec that became the A-6" is the only way this can fly as the A-6 spec could never be met in either the bombload or take-off realms by the Bucaneer.

The A-6 spec required short-field capability... which is why the first few YA-6s (YA2F-1 before the designation change) had a downward-tilting nozzle on each J52 exhaust!

An unusual feature was the use of a set of extended jet exhaust pipes which could be tilted downward by 23 degrees in order to improve the STOL performance.
.....
Flight tests also revealed that the tilting exhaust pipes were not very effective in reducing the takeoff distance, unless the aircraft was operating at fairly low gross weights. Consequently, tilting pipes were installed only on the first four aircraft, and provision for their installation was retained only for the next four planes.

These look familiar?








Note the slots in the lower outer fuselage for the tilting nozzles:

 

[bobtdwarf]

That "USN never issued the spec that became the A-6" is the only way this can fly as the A-6 spec could never be met in either the bombload or take-off realms by the Bucaneer.

The A-6 spec required short-field capability... which is why the first few YA-6s (YA2F-1 before the designation change) had a downward-tilting nozzle on each J52 exhaust!

An unusual feature was the use of a set of extended jet exhaust pipes which could be tilted downward by 23 degrees in order to improve the STOL performance.
.....
Flight tests also revealed that the tilting exhaust pipes were not very effective in reducing the takeoff distance, unless the aircraft was operating at fairly low gross weights. Consequently, tilting pipes were installed only on the first four aircraft, and provision for their installation was retained only for the next four planes.

These look familiar?


View attachment 673051


View attachment 673052


Note the slots in the lower outer fuselage for the tilting nozzles:

View attachment 673053

Excellent images!

The "never issued the spec" works just fine for me.

The big point of the thread is what can we do with this platform in USN service?

Will it show we need a platform with a bigger bomb load, which we can safely assume will lead to the A-6 just later down the road OR a Buccaneer with a couple more wing stations. Can we also safely fit a terrain following system in the volume set aside for avionics? I have a feeling we probably could.

The Buccaneer would have no problem operating from an Essex with a useful bomb load, the A-6 really couldn't, at least from how it sounds in the SAC sheet...

 

[CV12Hornet]

Will it show we need a platform with a bigger bomb load, which we can safely assume will lead to the A-6 just later down the road OR a Buccaneer with a couple more wing stations. Can we also safely fit a terrain following system in the volume set aside for avionics? I have a feeling we probably could.

The Buccaneer's four wing stations are just fine in comparison to the A-6, once more thrust is made available. The Buccaneer S.1 can actually carry more 1000-lb bombs than the A-6A, though it has a lesser total bombload; same deal with the S.2 compared to the A-6E.

The bomb bay really makes a difference here. While designed for a 4000-lb weapon, it could just as easily take 4 1000-lb bombs, and while the S.2's triple ejector racks were rarely used they did have that capability.

 

[zen]

Hmmm....with the USN opting for the Buccaneer, then maybe something might come of Green Cheese.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Hmmm....with the USN opting for the Buccaneer, then maybe something might come of Green Cheese.

what was the range on that, and could it also carry a conventional warhead?

 

[SSgtC]

The Buccaneer would have no problem operating from an Essex with a useful bomb load, the A-6 really couldn't, at least from how it sounds in the SAC sheet...

The A-6 could fly from the Essex just fine. So could the Phantom. But they GUZZLED fuel and ate through bomb stocks like there was no tomorrow. So the Navy made the very reasonable decision to lie their asses off to congress and say that the Essex class was too small to operate the types.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The Buccaneer would have no problem operating from an Essex with a useful bomb load, the A-6 really couldn't, at least from how it sounds in the SAC sheet...

The A-6 could fly from the Essex just fine. So could the Phantom. But they GUZZLED fuel and ate through bomb stocks like there was no tomorrow. So the Navy made the very reasonable decision to lie their asses off to congress and say that the Essex class was too small to operate the types.

yeah you are right, I knew they could but got the part about "low gross weights from H8" mixed up

 

[bobtdwarf]

Will it show we need a platform with a bigger bomb load, which we can safely assume will lead to the A-6 just later down the road OR a Buccaneer with a couple more wing stations. Can we also safely fit a terrain following system in the volume set aside for avionics? I have a feeling we probably could.

The Buccaneer's four wing stations are just fine in comparison to the A-6, once more thrust is made available. The Buccaneer S.1 can actually carry more 1000-lb bombs than the A-6A, though it has a lesser total bombload; same deal with the S.2 compared to the A-6E.

The bomb bay really makes a difference here. While designed for a 4000-lb weapon, it could just as easily take 4 1000-lb bombs, and while the S.2's triple ejector racks were rarely used they did have that capability.

excellent info!

Still could not hurt to add two capable of carrying a Shrike or smaller.. usually I figure they would carry AIM 9's, but you would not have to fit the pylons most of the time it might be nice to have the option.

 

[CV12Hornet]

excellent info!

Still could not hurt to add two capable of carrying a Shrike or smaller.. usually I figure they would carry AIM 9's, but you would not have to fit the pylons most of the time it might be nice to have the option.

I mean, the Intruder did just fine with five stations, too, and the Brits pretty easily modified the wing pylons for carrying Martel ARMs and Sea Eagle antiship missiles later on.

what was the range on that, and could it also carry a conventional warhead?

At minimum 10,000 yards (and probably not more than that), and almost certainly with suitable modification. That last, unfortunately, is a bit of an issue: the program seems to have been spiraling out of control by cancellation and with Stalin's death and with him a large Soviet surface fleet the weapon's CONOPS was dead.

Obviously, this is heavily speculation, as information on Green Cheese is extraordinarily scarce, but this is the impression I've gotten from reading the few posts on the subject on this forum.

 

[PMN1]

Given the number in the bomb bay, I assume these are 500lb ers.

 

[Hood]

It might be interesting to compare the entries for M.148 and TS-149:

A.W.168 – 47ft 6in x 59ft 9in; 555sq ft; 40,000lb; 2x 7,000lbf PS.43 Gyron Junior; 674mph SL; 510nm radius full load; Red B/Green C/4,000lb, 24x rockets; jet deflection & blown flaps
B.103 – 42ft 6in x 61ft 6in; 535sq ft; 39,308lb (46,000lb overload); 2x 7,000lbf PS.43 Gyron Junior; 737mph SL; 800nm radius (1,115nm at overload); Red B/Green C/4,000lb, 24x rockets; blown flaps [with 11,400lbf BE.33 M1.05, 15% more range]
Fairey M.148 – 42 x 51ft; 500sq ft; 39,500lb; 2x 7,000lbf PS.43 Gyron Junior; 658mph SL; 1,660 miles (2,130 miles at overload); Red B/Green C/4,000lb, 24x rockets; blown flaps
Hawker P.1108 – 40 x 58ft; 510sq ft; ?x weight; 4x RB.115; ??? speed and range; Red B/Green C/4,000lb, 24x rockets; no special STOL features
Short PD.13 – 38ft 1in x 51ft; 482sq ft; 40,520lb; 2x 12,500lbf Avon RA.19; 758mph SL; ??? range (met spec); Red B/Green C/4,000lb, 24x rockets; jet deflection
Westland M.148 – 43 x 50ft 10in; 863sq ft; 40,915lb; 2x 6,830lbf PS.42 Gyron Junior; 674mph SL; ??? range (met spec); Red B/Green C/4,000lb (8,000lb overload), 24x rockets; jet deflection
Saro P.178 (not tendered) – 37ft 6in x 48ft 9in; 470sq ft; 40,000lb; 2x PS.37 Gyron Junior; ??? speed and range; Red B/4,000lb; no special STOL features

Bell D-2001 – 34ft 10in x 49ft 5in; 200sq ft; 32,384lb; 4x 3,660lbf J85-GE-5 & 4x 2,450lbf J85-GE-1 lift units; 697mph SL (23,000lb); 300-856nm radius; 1x Mk.28/Corvus & 2,000lb; VTOL
Boeing Model 806 – 37ft 11in x 54ft 11in; 400sq ft; 37,086lb (40,411lb max); 1x 12,200-18,600lb J79-GE-X207A; 722mph SL; ??? range (met spec); 1x nuke/5,000lb; no special STOL features
Boeing Model 807 – 41ft 7.5in x 52ft 10in; 290sq ft; 30,728lb (32,768lb overload); 2x 4,050shp T56; 599mph SL; 1,250nm radius (external fuel); 1x nuke/hardpoints total 12,000lb; BLC
Chance-Vought V-416 – 36ft 2.5in x 49ft 10in; 330sq ft; 37,260lb; 2x 9,800lbf J52; 697mph SL; 1,000nm radius; hardpoints total 14,800lb; thrust deflection
Douglas D-715 – 46 x 54ft; 450.7sq ft; 48,660lb; 2x 9,800lbf J52; 656mph SL; 1??? range (met spec); 9,575lb; optional blown flaps
Douglas D-725 (mod A4D-3) – 27ft 6in x 43ft 5in; 272sq ft; 22,599lb; 1x 8,500-9,800lb J52; 654mph SL; ??? range (met spec); hardpoint total 9,155lb; no special STOL features
Grumman G-128 – 51 x 53ft 2.5in; 520sq ft; 42,265lb (52,000lb max); 2x 8,500lb J52; 663mph SL; 1,370nm radius; hardpoint total 18,000lb; thrust deflection
Lockheed CL-364-2 – 46 x 45ft 9in; 340sq ft; 33,275lb; 1x 9,800lb J52; 638mph SL; ??? range (met spec); hardpoint total 12,575lb; no special STOL features
Martin Model 345 – 55 x 55ft; 550sq ft; 48,537lb; 2x 8,500lbf J52; 618mph SL; ??? range (met spec)5x hardpoints; no special STOL features
Martin Model 346 – 43 x 41ft 8in; 365sq ft; 31,821lb; 1x reheated J52; 512kt; ??? range (met spec)1x Mk28/5,000lb; no special STOL features
NA ‘Vigilante’: ??? size; ??? weight; 1x reheated J52; ??? speed and range; 5x hardpoints; no special STOL features

Caveats:
- for the TS-149 entries I've omitted the weights for the 300nm sortie
- for the TS-149 entries the hardpoint total is given but max loads may not have been carried on every hardpoint
- for the M.148T entries the weaponry is that listed for the spec, some of the entries also had additional external bombs

Immediate take away facts:
- the US aircraft were slightly lighter and had more thrust but often lacked special STOL features though several of the entries had them
- internal carriage was essential to M.148T and probably pushed up size and weight
- the US aircraft had wider provision of guided missiles including Sidewinder in some design from the outset
- only two engines; Gyron Junior and J52 were really in contention for these designs

 

[PMN1]

What was the max radar dish size for both aircraft?

 

[Hood]

What was the max radar dish size for both aircraft?

M.148T called for a monopulse radar, lightweight Doppler and a search radar. Most of the entries had a double-dish layout for ASV-21A and Radar Ranging Mk.4 (see this post here)

TS-149 called for search and track radars and Doppler navigation. The YA-6A had DIANE (Digital Integrated Attack/Navigation Equipment) with AN/APQ-88 search radar (the A-6A got the AN/APQ-92), AN/APG-46 tracker and AN/APN-122 Doppler.

So they were similar, of course whether volume was similar for all the boxes I'm not sure, not to mention power and cooling requirements etc. is another factor.

 

[kaiserd]

The US systems in the A-6 were aimed at being much more capable than those in the Buccaneer. There is a clear significant difference in size, etc of the radar arrays in the respective aircrafts noses. The A-6’s avionics were in the same class as those of the F-111s (and had similar teething problems etc that like the F-111 weren’t fully resolved until later variants).
The Buccaneers avionics weren’t really ever competitive in this type of company and it wasn’t until the Tornado that the RAF stopped being at significant disadvantage in this regard.
The Buccaneer may have some advantages if the mission was with a weapon load entirely within its bay, the flight path was entirely over the sea and/or relatively flat terrain and it’s was day and/ relatively good weather and the target was relatively easy to find. In that type of scenario the Buccaneer would get the chance to stretch its legs and use its higher penetration speed etc.
Otherwise most other scenarios appear to pay to the Intruders advantages and given that the US Navy and Marines (at least versus the Buccaneer’s initial user, the RN) had a greater emphasis on attacking ground targets these differences in capabilities really mattered.
I understand the affection for the Buccaneer, it was a high quality aircraft and one of the few British aircraft of its era to survive defence cuts and not be notably inferior to its US equivalents. However it has picked up a bit of a halo effect and some of the actual advantages and anecdotal claims are either also shared with the Intruder (e.g. both could probably outrun or at least outlast/ survive against a lot of their supersonic interceptors contemporaries in many scenarios because low-level high subsonic speed was what they were designed for) and/ or are perhaps somewhat over stated (the buccaneers ability to effectively operate at very low level was more tied to excellent pilot training and cooperative weather than the Intruders was).

 

[zen]

It's instructive to note that only a few years later, Vickers Supermarine tender Type 571 Single Engine to GOR.339, possessed higher performance on similar levels of thrust.

And equally instructive to note the next development for the USN was the A5 Vigilante. Which the USN opted for in 1956.

 

[bobtdwarf]

As I understand it a lot of the avionics of the Buccaneer were in the aft fuselage and not the nose, so we may have as much if not more volume as the Intruder for them.

So far I have heard that the Buccaneer is going to be weaker on ground attack/close support.. likely true.. More close attack capacity in the single seat fighters can compensate for that either in the form of that "attack crusader" that was posted in another thread(which would also carry a crap ton more AIM 9's if need be), or retention of an upgraded F-11... A-4 is retained and upgraded in OTL with the Intruder and nothing changes in this ATL.

Kaiser brings up good points on how things would diverge

 

[Hood]

There is a good deal of overlap in these specifications, although their intended rationales were different.
NA.39/M.148 was for an anti-ship aircraft with a Green Cheese or a Red Beard with a secondary conventional attack role. TS-149 was in the USN's "Attack" category and much more of a strike platform, supporting the USMC for example and there was little specific anti-shipping use beyond nuclear weapons, the planned ASM-N-8 Corvus was an anti-radar weapon.
Use of the ASM-N-8 probably decided external carriage as the best idea, ironically since Green Cheese had an active radar and needed to lock-on before launch the bomb bay was a poor choice with cumbersome trapeses or the rotating bomb bay required to be effective.

I don't doubt that the A-6s avionics were far better than the original M.148 equipment before Blue Parrot came along. And even after that the A-6 probably had the edge for overland use. Both were fine aircraft, but realistically only the S.2 came close to the A-6 and it never had the constant upgrades and improvements the A-6s got.

Of course had the NA.39 types not had internal bays the result I guess would have been a beefed up two-seater Scimitar-esque aircraft.

 

[bobtdwarf]

There is a good deal of overlap in these specifications, although their intended rationales were different.
NA.39/M.148 was for an anti-ship aircraft with a Green Cheese or a Red Beard with a secondary conventional attack role. TS-149 was in the USN's "Attack" category and much more of a strike platform, supporting the USMC for example and there was little specific anti-shipping use beyond nuclear weapons, the planned ASM-N-8 Corvus was an anti-radar weapon.
Use of the ASM-N-8 probably decided external carriage as the best idea, ironically since Green Cheese had an active radar and needed to lock-on before launch the bomb bay was a poor choice with cumbersome trapeses or the rotating bomb bay required to be effective.

I don't doubt that the A-6s avionics were far better than the original M.148 equipment before Blue Parrot came along. And even after that the A-6 probably had the edge for overland use. Both were fine aircraft, but realistically only the S.2 came close to the A-6 and it never had the constant upgrades and improvements the A-6s got.

Of course had the NA.39 types not had internal bays the result I guess would have been a beefed up two-seater Scimitar-esque aircraft.

A sizable amount of that avionic advantage may be usable in the S2.. but I don't know the volumes, and I don't think any of us do so the best we can do is say that a coop development might be able to fit a better terrain following system on top of the existing OTL Bucc and as electronics get smaller over the years upgrades will be deployed by the USN and likely filter to the RN.

I do find it odd that one of the later avionic upgrades for the A-6 would have given it AMRAAM capability

 

[zen]

Wasn't the TSR.2 TFR set based on Blue Parot?

 

[Hood]

Wasn't the TSR.2 TFR set based on Blue Parot?

Yes it was, I don't know the full extent of the changes though and I think it wasn't directly referred to as Blue Parrot, which makes me suspect there were enough changes for to it have gained a new name (not that Rainbows were a thing then but they might have come with with a groovier name than 'TFR').

 

[CJGibson]

I think it was called AIRPASS II at one point.

Chris

 

[Hood]

I think it was called AIRPASS II at one point.

I take it all back, they couldn't find a groovier name...

The Bucc went mono radar dish much sooner than the A-6 (BP 1962 versus AN/APQ-148 1970). Presumably they had reasons to persevere with with APQ/APG setup?

 

[bobtdwarf]

I think it was called AIRPASS II at one point.

I take it all back, they couldn't find a groovier name...

The Bucc went mono radar dish much sooner than the A-6 (BP 1962 versus AN/APQ-148 1970). Presumably they had reasons to persevere with with APQ/APG setup?

I think it had to do with the DIANE system or the terrain following. Was doing some reading on that and TBH couldn't figure it out, though I did note that at some point AMRAAM capability was built into the system for some reason

 

[kaiserd]

The AMRAAM capabilities was associated with the abandoned A-6F (mid-late 80’s A-6E replacement until displaced by plans for the A-12) so of zero relevance to any discussions even tangentially related to the Buccaneer.

 

[JFC Fuller]

There is a good deal of overlap in these specifications, although their intended rationales were different.
NA.39/M.148 was for an anti-ship aircraft with a Green Cheese or a Red Beard with a secondary conventional attack role. TS-149 was in the USN's "Attack" category and much more of a strike platform, supporting the USMC for example and there was little specific anti-shipping use beyond nuclear weapons, the planned ASM-N-8 Corvus was an anti-radar weapon.
Use of the ASM-N-8 probably decided external carriage as the best idea, ironically since Green Cheese had an active radar and needed to lock-on before launch the bomb bay was a poor choice with cumbersome trapeses or the rotating bomb bay required to be effective.

I don't doubt that the A-6s avionics were far better than the original M.148 equipment before Blue Parrot came along. And even after that the A-6 probably had the edge for overland use. Both were fine aircraft, but realistically only the S.2 came close to the A-6 and it never had the constant upgrades and improvements the A-6s got.

Of course had the NA.39 types not had internal bays the result I guess would have been a beefed up two-seater Scimitar-esque aircraft.

This is very much the key point and is why people casually throwing around phrases like "notably inferior", in posts notable themselves only for their lack of any specific data points, aren't contributing anything.

As you point out form follows function, the A-6 was designed to provide the US Navy with an all-weather attack aircraft with an emphasis on land targets. The Buccaneer, which flew two years prior to the A-6, was intended to attack large armoured warships in all weathers, either by tossing tactical nuclear weapons at them or by launching a large anti-ship missile with an armour piercing warhead. Had the Buccaneer been intended for significant overland operations at its conception it is highly unlikely it would have survived to 1957/58, such was the hostility to using carriers against land targets in UK defence policy circles outside of the Navy.

Perhaps uncharacteristically, to meet this requirement Blackburn designed a superlative airframe, one that in the S.2 was coupled to a superlative engine. In the spirit of providing facts, Roy Boot describes a flight by Buccaneer S.2 XN974 in which it covered 1950 miles from Goose Bay to Lossiemouth without inflight refuelling whilst the S.2's ferry range with slipper tanks and the bomb bay tank is usually given as 2,300 nautical miles. Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork, former Buccaneer pilot, describes unrefuelled Hi-Lo-Hi TASMO missions at 600 miles radius, it seems reasonable to assume that these were nautical rather than statute miles and that 4 x 1,000lb bombs would have been the minimum armament. When it comes to the A-6, scans of the Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheets are hosted on the alternate wars site:

A-6A
A-6E

For comparison, the A-6E ferry range when retaining tanks is given as 2,380miles, given the Buccaneer S2 would retain its slipper and bomb-bay tank that is a fair comparison and suggests two very closely matched aircraft in terms of range/payload. Similarly, the closest matches to the TASMO mission described above would be the following:

Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi with 1 x B43 (approx. 2,000lbs ordnance) - 763nm combat radius
Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi with 4 x Mk.55 mines (approx. 8,000lb ordnance) - 454nm combat radius

A Buccaneer with 4,000lbs at 600nm (assuming they are nautical) would fall almost equally between those in terms of both range and ordnance load which again suggests the A-6 and Buccaneer S2 were relatively close in terms of those rather crude and variable (overload fuel, exact ordnance configuration, environmental conditions etc.) measurements. Perhaps the Buccaneer traded some range for some speed but it hardly seems decisive. Hawker Siddeley did test the Buccaneer upto a full 16,000lb bomb load too.

The Royal Navy did consider a significantly improved nav-attack system for the Buccaneer in the early 1960s as discussed here. This never went anywhere and nether did RAF thoughts of a much improved solution in late 1960s when they took the aircraft over. To answer the original question, which is a rather fun one, an integration of a US nav-attack system would go a long way to remedying the Buccaneer's biggest weakness. Be it a system derived from that in the A-6 or the Vigilante, just as examples. If more fuselage volume is required the US Navy has the advantage of bigger lifts and stronger catapults so a B.108 fuselage might be workable for them.

 

[Hood]

Re-using my fuel data from Jane's 1990/91 from the MRCA Cancelled thread:

Buccaneer S.2
Fuel - eight integral tanks in upper part of central fuselage, total capacity 7,092 litres (1,873 US gal; 1,560 Imp gal), with provision for cross-feed of all fuel to either engine. In addition, a 1,932 litre (550 US gal; 425 Imp gal) bomb door fuel tank can be fitted, without detriment to the aircraft's bomb-carrying capability. Provision for additional 2,000 litre (528 US gal; 440 Imp gal) auxiliary tank in weapons bay, and/or two 1,136 litre or 1,955 litre (300 or 516 US gal; 250 or 430 Imp gal) underwing drop-tanks on the inboard pylons. Detachable probe standard. In tanker role (max capacity 12,797 litre; 3,800 US gal; 2,815 Imp gal) the starboard inboard pylon is occupied by a 636 litre (168 US gal; 140 Imp gal) Mk 20B or 20C refuelling pod which is fed continuously from the main fuel system.
Typical strike range 2,000 nm (3,700 km; 2,300 miles)
Endurance, with two in-flight refuellings 9 hrs

A-6
Internal fuel 8,873 litres (2,344 US gal; 1,952 Imp gal), up to five external drop-tanks each of 1,135 litres (300 US gal; 250 Imp gal) or 1,514 litres (400 US gal; 333 Imp gal). Refuelling probe.
Range with max military load 878 nm (1,627 km; 1,011 miles)
Ferry range with max external fuel 2,380 nm (4,410 km; 2,740 miles) or if tanks dropped when empty 2,818 nm (5,222 km; 3,245 miles)

 

[zen]

USN involvement in development of the Buccaneer had all sorts of implications.
For instance it might forever be hampered by use of developments of the Gyron Junior or other such turbojet. Which had higher s.f.c than the Spey and consequently a reduced range.
Granted some of the more advanced alternative turbojets to the Gyron Junior might have made similar s.f.c figures to the Spey. But Gyron Junior is what was funded, and could meet the desired 10,000lb dry thrust level.

RAF opposition might actually increase if the Buccaneer is gaining improved A6-like levels of overland attack capability. As it puts it even more in conflict with their desired GOR.339 and much quicker to service.

It also exerts influence on the process of CVA-01, especially as the A5 proves less than hoped for. Though arguably it's TFX that is the stronger US influence. So maybe not.

The likelihood of variants, inclusive of Electronic Attack is a possible outcome.

And use in Vietnam. Which might expose and prove that low level attack, even with a Buccaneer isn't all it's sold as.

The much wider variety of weapons integrated and cleared for use is a major outcome.

 

[bobtdwarf]

USN involvement in development of the Buccaneer had all sorts of implications.
For instance it might forever be hampered by use of developments of the Gyron Junior or other such turbojet. Which had higher s.f.c than the Spey and consequently a reduced range.
Granted some of the more advanced alternative turbojets to the Gyron Junior might have made similar s.f.c figures to the Spey. But Gyron Junior is what was funded, and could meet the desired 10,000lb dry thrust level.

RAF opposition might actually increase if the Buccaneer is gaining improved A6-like levels of overland attack capability. As it puts it even more in conflict with their desired GOR.339 and much quicker to service.

It also exerts influence on the process of CVA-01, especially as the A5 proves less than hoped for. Though arguably it's TFX that is the stronger US influence. So maybe not.

The likelihood of variants, inclusive of Electronic Attack is a possible outcome.

And use in Vietnam. Which might expose and prove that low level attack, even with a Buccaneer isn't all it's sold as.

The much wider variety of weapons integrated and cleared for use is a major outcome.

If the US goes with a J-52 in their version you run into a similar problem with the additional twist that the J-52 has just a bit more thrust than the stock Gyron JR. but still not quite enough at 8500 lbs. thrust putting it in a. gray zone of "meh".

Figured in my head when I posted the thread that we are still going the Spey route because the SFC is just to sweet to pass up.

 

[apparition13]

That "USN never issued the spec that became the A-6" is the only way this can fly as the A-6 spec could never be met in either the bombload or take-off realms by the Bucaneer.

The A-6 spec required short-field capability... which is why the first few YA-6s (YA2F-1 before the designation change) had a downward-tilting nozzle on each J52 exhaust!

You could wind up with both. The initial concept of the A-6 was for an all weather CAS aircraft*, a Skyraider replacement (based on Korean experience where weather and night limited the A-1s use), rather than a long range strike aircraft. Although the Buccaneer did fine as a CAS aircraft for South Africa, so there may be too much overlap in performance for both to be produced. Both aircraft wound up in roughly the same niche, but coming from different directions, the A-6 from CAS to strike and the Buc the other way around. With a bit more niche optimization there could be a role for both, in which case the A-6 (with a gun) would replace the A-4 (on the large carriers), and the A-7 would never happen, while the Buccaneer would take the role the A-6 had in naval and land attack once it gets TFR and other relevant avionics.

*This is why using USAF A-10s rather than Marine A-6s for SCUD hunting in the Gulf War made no military sense. The A-10s wound up using the "drinking straw" IR seekers on their missiles since it was all they had, while finding and killing mobile targets at night is what the A-6 and it's avionics were designed for.

 

[bobtdwarf]

That "USN never issued the spec that became the A-6" is the only way this can fly as the A-6 spec could never be met in either the bombload or take-off realms by the Bucaneer.

The A-6 spec required short-field capability... which is why the first few YA-6s (YA2F-1 before the designation change) had a downward-tilting nozzle on each J52 exhaust!

You could wind up with both. The initial concept of the A-6 was for an all weather CAS aircraft*, a Skyraider replacement (based on Korean experience where weather and night limited the A-1s use), rather than a long range strike aircraft. Although the Buccaneer did fine as a CAS aircraft for South Africa, so there may be too much overlap in performance for both to be produced. Both aircraft wound up in roughly the same niche, but coming from different directions, the A-6 from CAS to strike and the Buc the other way around. With a bit more niche optimization there could be a role for both, in which case the A-6 (with a gun) would replace the A-4 (on the large carriers), and the A-7 would never happen, while the Buccaneer would take the role the A-6 had in naval and land attack once it gets TFR and other relevant avionics.

*This is why using USAF A-10s rather than Marine A-6s for SCUD hunting in the Gulf War made no military sense. The A-10s wound up using the "drinking straw" IR seekers on their missiles since it was all they had, while finding and killing mobile targets at night is what the A-6 and it's avionics were designed for.

like how we got the A-6 and A-7.. also the A-7 avionics don't totally suck, they have a terrain following radar in that thing...

 

[SSgtC]

like how we got the A-6 and A-7.. also the A-7 avionics don't totally suck, they have a terrain following radar in that thing...

Interestingly, the A-7 was considered the more accurate bombing platform over the A-6. AFAICT, this was down mainly to the Corsair's advanced HUD combined with the HOTAS controls. Unlike the A-6, this allowed the pilot to keep his hands where they needed to be and his eyes out of the cockpit.

 

[bobtdwarf]

So it seems we can come up with a hybrid avionics suite (edit corrected spelling error) that would give a proper terrain following unit and some other features in at least the S2 unit.

 

[bobtdwarf]

like how we got the A-6 and A-7.. also the A-7 avionics don't totally suck, they have a terrain following radar in that thing...

Interestingly, the A-7 was considered the more accurate bombing platform over the A-6. AFAICT, this was down mainly to the Corsair's advanced HUD combined with the HOTAS controls. Unlike the A-6, this allowed the pilot to keep his hands where they needed to be and his eyes out of the cockpit.

came across something indicating that the HUD was licensed from the UK.. so it may have had something like air pass 2 which was what was in the S2 buck

 

[SSgtC]

like how we got the A-6 and A-7.. also the A-7 avionics don't totally suck, they have a terrain following radar in that thing...

Interestingly, the A-7 was considered the more accurate bombing platform over the A-6. AFAICT, this was down mainly to the Corsair's advanced HUD combined with the HOTAS controls. Unlike the A-6, this allowed the pilot to keep his hands where they needed to be and his eyes out of the cockpit.

came across something indicating that the HUD was licensed from the UK.. so it may have had something like air pass 2 which was what was in the S2 buck

AIUI, it was. It was based on the HUD in the Lightning

 

[CJGibson]

like how we got the A-6 and A-7.. also the A-7 avionics don't totally suck, they have a terrain following radar in that thing...

Interestingly, the A-7 was considered the more accurate bombing platform over the A-6. AFAICT, this was down mainly to the Corsair's advanced HUD combined with the HOTAS controls. Unlike the A-6, this allowed the pilot to keep his hands where they needed to be and his eyes out of the cockpit.

came across something indicating that the HUD was licensed from the UK.. so it may have had something like air pass 2 which was what was in the S2 buck

AIUI, it was. It was based on the HUD in the Lightning

The earliest mention I've seen of a HUD-like device is from 1959 on the Argosy
This from On Atlas' Shoulders:

'One system under consideration was ‘Windscreen presentation’ using a ‘collimated flight director’, well known today as a head up display, HUD, (which should never be called a ‘heads-up display’). Some at the Air Staff and Air Ministry considered Autoland and its HUD unnecessary ‘Is this an extravagance i.e. aren’t we cluttering the flight deck?'

Note that I have included some advice for car salesmen.

Chris

 

[bobtdwarf]

like how we got the A-6 and A-7.. also the A-7 avionics don't totally suck, they have a terrain following radar in that thing...

Interestingly, the A-7 was considered the more accurate bombing platform over the A-6. AFAICT, this was down mainly to the Corsair's advanced HUD combined with the HOTAS controls. Unlike the A-6, this allowed the pilot to keep his hands where they needed to be and his eyes out of the cockpit.

came across something indicating that the HUD was licensed from the UK.. so it may have had something like air pass 2 which was what was in the S2 buck

AIUI, it was. It was based on the HUD in the Lightning

Well then! We can say with some safety that the USN S2 would be as good if not better than the A-7 in terms of avionics.

Damn I like this

 

[BlackBat242]

For instance it might forever be hampered by use of developments of the Gyron Junior or other such turbojet. Which had higher s.f.c than the Spey and consequently a reduced range.
Granted some of the more advanced alternative turbojets to the Gyron Junior might have made similar s.f.c figures to the Spey. But Gyron Junior is what was funded, and could meet the desired 10,000lb dry thrust level.

If the US goes with a J-52 in their version you run into a similar problem with the additional twist that the J-52 has just a bit more thrust than the stock Gyron JR. but still not quite enough at 8500 lbs. thrust putting it in a. gray zone of "meh".

Figured in my head when I posted the thread that we are still going the Spey route because the SFC is just to sweet to pass up.

The J52-P-6 of 1960 did have a thrust of 8,500 lb.s.t., however by 1963 this was 9,300 lb.s.t. (J52-P-8, both A-4E & A-6), and 11,200 lb.s.t. by 1968 (J52-P-408, A-4M).

The Gyron Jr. DGJ.2 (mk 101) of the Bucc S.1 put out a measly 7,100 lb.s.t. - the only version that made 10,000 lb.s.t. (dry) was the DGJ.10 (& DGJ.20), which was specifically optimised for high flight Mach number use... not for subsonic flight.

 

[zen]

the only version that made 10,000 lb.s.t. (dry) was the DGJ.10 (& DGJ.20), which was specifically optimised for high flight Mach number use... not for subsonic flight.

Not sure about that, since the figures are all sea level static thrust.
There is an argument on weight, and presumably those flown on the Bristol T.188 might be heavier because of supersonic requirements.
You presumably do grasp how limited numbers of Gyron Junior were and how little funding was put into them?
Because in a scenario of US licensing, that situation changes and DH were quite confident of the performance increases they could achieve.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The US systems in the A-6 were aimed at being much more capable than those in the Buccaneer. There is a clear significant difference in size, etc of the radar arrays in the respective aircrafts noses. The A-6’s avionics were in the same class as those of the F-111s (and had similar teething problems etc that like the F-111 weren’t fully resolved until later variants).
The Buccaneers avionics weren’t really ever competitive in this type of company and it wasn’t until the Tornado that the RAF stopped being at significant disadvantage in this regard.
The Buccaneer may have some advantages if the mission was with a weapon load entirely within its bay, the flight path was entirely over the sea and/or relatively flat terrain and it’s was day and/ relatively good weather and the target was relatively easy to find. In that type of scenario the Buccaneer would get the chance to stretch its legs and use its higher penetration speed etc.
Otherwise most other scenarios appear to pay to the Intruders advantages and given that the US Navy and Marines (at least versus the Buccaneer’s initial user, the RN) had a greater emphasis on attacking ground targets these differences in capabilities really mattered.
I understand the affection for the Buccaneer, it was a high quality aircraft and one of the few British aircraft of its era to survive defence cuts and not be notably inferior to its US equivalents. However it has picked up a bit of a halo effect and some of the actual advantages and anecdotal claims are either also shared with the Intruder (e.g. both could probably outrun or at least outlast/ survive against a lot of their supersonic interceptors contemporaries in many scenarios because low-level high subsonic speed was what they were designed for) and/ or are perhaps somewhat over stated (the buccaneers ability to effectively operate at very low level was more tied to excellent pilot training and cooperative weather than the Intruders was).

This is going to be the largest sticking point. What weapons could a Buccaneer carry compared to the A-6? Dumb bombs aren't the issue, but rather guided ones, PGM's, etc., that require specific wiring harnesses, electronics, and other components on the plane to support. For example, the A-6 could carry Sidewinders, but rarely if ever did. Could a Buccaneer? What other weapons could or couldn't without modification the two carry? This is a big deal. It could become very costly to modify one or the other to carry some weapon they currently aren't configured for.

The other thing would be could the Buccaneer be modified into something like the EA-6 for electronic warfare? I don't doubt it could fit the electronics, but cramming two more seats into one is another thing entirely... Or, how would it perform in the tanker mission?

 

[CV12Hornet]

This is going to be the largest sticking point. What weapons could a Buccaneer carry compared to the A-6? Dumb bombs aren't the issue, but rather guided ones, PGM's, etc., that require specific wiring harnesses, electronics, and other components on the plane to support. For example, the A-6 could carry Sidewinders, but rarely if ever did. Could a Buccaneer? What other weapons could or couldn't without modification the two carry? This is a big deal. It could become very costly to modify one or the other to carry some weapon they currently aren't configured for.

Besides dumb bombs, Buccaneers were rated, at various points in their career, to carry and launch:

- SNEB rocket packs
- Bullpup missiles
- Martel missiles
- AS.30 missiles
- BL-755 cluster bombs
- Red Beard and WE-177 nuclear gravity bombs
- Sidewinder missiles, including the all-aspect L
- Sea Eagle antiship missiles
- Paveway-series laser-guided bombs

Both the Martel missiles and Paveways required carriage of a guidance pod and modification to the back seat. However, they also required the same modifications, so Martel-capable Buccaneers could utilize Paveways as-is.

Generally speaking, both early and late Buccaneer loads were comparable to their nearest Intruder counterparts. Early A-6As were similarly only rated for dumb bombs, Bullpups, Sidewinders, and rocket pods. And the only weapons TRAM A-6Es carried that Buccaneers couldn't carry something comparable were sea mines - the Martel and Sea Eagle were fairly comparable to the Shrike and Harpoon.

The other thing would be could the Buccaneer be modified into something like the EA-6 for electronic warfare? I don't doubt it could fit the electronics, but cramming two more seats into one is another thing entirely... Or, how would it perform in the tanker mission?

I can't speak to the electronic warfare mission, but yes, the Buccaneer could and did act as a tanker. British fits were a refueling kit with an extra slipper tank; between them they could carry about 3000 lbs of fuel for transfer, which is obviously much lower than the KA-6D's 15,000 lbs but also a fit that could be bolted onto any Buccaneer in the fleet instead of needing a dedicated plane. Given the South Africans managed to fit much bigger slipper tanks and the bomb bay could also house an auxiliary tank, I'm fairly confident a dedicated Bucc tanker would be at least as good as the KA-6D, if not better.