Replacing the Canberra

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,642
Reaction score
5,537
Surprisingly we have not had a thread devoted to how the RAF should have replaced its Canberras?
The Canberra was such a success that it was even bought by the USAF as the Martin B57.
With the benefit of hindsight it ought to have been simple. The Buccaneer S2 did the job for a while with 2 RAF Germany squadrons.
But Canberras also served in Cyprus and Singapore.
The main war role of Canberras was to deliver either conventional bombs or 1 nuke on to targets. At the end of its career two AS30 asms were added to its warload.
Canberras could only operate from vulnerable airfields.
A twin engined replacement could be
-supersonic
-able to operate from unprepared strips
-able to attack pinpoint targets in atrocious weather
Or did it? The US developed the Grumman A6 which could be the last one but not the other two.
This is not intended to be a thread about TSR2. We have plenty of those already.
In the early 1960s Vickers came up with an ambitious VG design to replace Buccaneer in the 1970s. But that would still have left Canberras struggling on through the 60s.
The presence of growing numbers of Soviet supplied Migs and Sams in the 60s made its replacement, especially in Germany, vital.
Buccaneer S1 was not a suitable Canberra replacement. It had to be replaced asap by the S2.
Two manufacturers were well placed to deliver a sensible Canberra replacement:
English Electric had developed the Lightning and could be relied on to do a good job as P17 shows.
Hawker Siddeley focussed on a non existent requirement with its beautiful 1121. But it could have delivered a design like 1129.

If US funds were available the Republic F105 Thunderchief might look good. Though only single engined it was deployed by the USAF in a similar role to nuclear Canberras.
France of course had its own Canberras to replace. The Sud Vautour would give way to the Mirage IV.

So there is plenty of choice (except for TSR2 of course).
 
So firstly this does ask the right question and hits home. In effect the success of Mosquito and Canberra cast a long shadow. Big boots to fill so to speak.

Secondly some if the assumptions ought to be questioned.
Does it need to be supersonic?
Later on the conclusion was this didn't deliver enough protection for the enormous cost of going supersonic at low level. A difference between Mach 0.9 compared to 1.2 was just not good enough.

Did it have to be a twin seater?

Did it have to be twin engined?

Did it have to be one design with swappable equipment for every role?

Did it have to have a radius of 1,000nm?

Why not 1,500nm as per the Target Marker Specification the Valiant B.2 met?

On the Buccaneer....had this been fitted with the BE.33 engines. It would never have lacked the thrust that the Gyron Junior delivered.
Consequently much more close to a solution.
 
Secondly some if the assumptions ought to be questioned.
Assumptions need to be questioned, yes; but also, mission creep needs to be reined in.
A souped-up Buccaneer with better engines than Gyron Junior and next-generation avionics is clearly good enough to be a Canberra inheritor, but not when more and more is being asked all the time.

The biggest assumption everyone makes is that the Government actually wanted TSR.2. It didn't; it wanted a means by which to amalgamate the aerospace companies and reshape the industry.
 
Mission creep certainly was part of the problem. Had they stuck to the lower tactical radius of 600nm it would both ease the design task and keep away from the blurred boundary of strategic radii.

Once the Buccaneer was chosen it was entirely possible to meet the interim solution and put off the wonder weapon for later...

Though it ought to be born in mind had the decision makers thought it was going to be a solution for RN and RAF, then Shorts PD.13 was the more advanced (and risky) solution and would be preferable.

Then again the Canberras were being replaced in role by V-Bombers so the alternative question is wouldn't a resurrected Target Marker Bomber be closer to the percieved need?
It would again ease the effort if a successor V-Bomber utilising two engines and two crew was the focus.
 
Last edited:
The biggest assumption everyone makes is that the Government actually wanted TSR.2. It didn't; it wanted a means by which to amalgamate the aerospace companies and reshape the industry.
The Government wasn't the purchaser, just the one who picked up the tab. They wanted to amalgamate and reshape, save money, spend less and have a world beating industry churning out world beating aircraft all at the same time. Not entirely compatible aims.
The RAF knew what it wanted. Did it need want it thought it wanted? That's the debatable point.
Governments do set the foreign and defence policy agenda however, which can easily mess up the RAF's plans midstream. No EoS and flexible NATO response meant binning a whole host of kit like AW.681 and Blue Water and made the TSR.2 fleet smaller and even more expensive.

Then again the Canberras were being replaced in role by V-Bombers so the alternative question is wouldn't a resurrected Target Marker Bomber be closer to the percieved need?
It would again ease the effort if a successor V-Bomber utilising two engines and two crew was the focus.
Low level V-bombers were never optimal given the fatigue limits and speed meant reduced range. They were not intended for tactical use but merely to spread the threat to Soviet air defences.
OR.324 was in effect a bespoke low-level medium bomber but was a stand-off weapon carrier and not a tactical support aircraft. Same with F.155T variants with Red Beard. GOR.339 was a a much truer tactical support type.
Had the Air Staff forgotten about bombers they might have seen that aircraft like the Buccaneer were much closer to what they needed. I very much doubt whether in a bombing contest whether TSR would offer much superiority over Buccaneer with a quartet of 1,000lb HC bombs.
 
This is part of my point here, a tactical bomber isn't a semi-strategic bomber and frankly the excess cost is better spent on a fully strategic bomber.
Ergo the tactical solution was the maximum RoA of 600nm with a nuclear weapon.
Good enough for operations over East Germany, Czechoslovskia, Hungary and Poland. Good enough for tactical laydown to cut Red Army's supplies.

And in this the Buccaneer, is good enough. Take the savings and invest in onboard and disposable (missile and bomb) systems to mount on it.

Equally the Vickers solution they preferred was the single engine Type 571. Better to build a variety of mission specific variants than try to squeeze multirole into this sort of package. Much more affordable!

HP was right, the real solution to the OR was bigger and heavier than the RAF wanted!
 
How does the Buccaneer navigate to the target to drop the bombs on it?

Or given the Avionics didn't work in TSR2 are they just equally bad? Was the contemporary single seat F-105D that bad?
 
The RAF-Buccaneer hate-love story always get me the giggles. So much time and energy spent hating that aircraft (a decade ? 1958 - 1968) - only to end with the RN birds (ha ha ha) and then new build ones (even better).

Of course for the British taxpayer is wasn't as much funny, considering the astonishing number of alternatives started, stopped, and then hastily replaced - then rinse, repeat.

But really - the silly saga reads like a bad joke.

"The RAF hated the Buccaneer and staunchly rejected it in 1958

Then they tried A, and it failed

Then they tried B, and it failed
...
Then they tried X, Y, Z, and it failed.
...
And finally they got, what ? Buccaneers. And they found they loved them. THE END."

ROTFL One could even rewrite that song by Alanis Morissette, Ironic.

It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife

She nailed it.
 
Last edited:
You know it occurs to me that had Green Cheese gone ahead, this is the ideal basis for a rocket boosted stand off nuclear delivery system.....
Sort of pre-empting the rocket boosted WE.177 concept of decades later.

And the Buccaneer was designed around carriage of it.....internally!

In fact had that existed, it rather shifts the game further to the Buccaneer's favour. Less need to fly over the target....
Less need for supersonic burst to escape the bomb's blast.

It would also keep the V-Force relevent and provide an alternative to Blue Steel.

In fact thanks to the increasing improvements in rocket fuel, and reduction in nuclear bomb size from Red Beard to WE.177. This just gets better. Longer ranged faster etc...
Even the guidance can be improved....more accurate.

Irony of ironies this could feed back to ship and ground launched nukes as well. An alternative to Blue Slug in the Anti-ship role and Blue Water in the surface-to-surface role...

Suddenly this all looks affordable, do-able and the Buccaneer becomes the ideal platform for it.
 
The RAF-Buccaneer hate-love story always get me the giggles. So much time and energy spent hating that aircraft (a decade ? 1958 - 1968) - only to end with the RN birds (ha ha ha) and then new build ones (even better).

Of course for the British taxpayer is wasn't as much funny, considering the astonishing number of alternatives started, stopped, and then hastily replaced - then rinse, repeat.

But really - the silly saga reads like a bad joke.

"The RAF hated the Buccaneer and staunchly rejected it in 1958

Then they tried A, and it failed

Then they tried B, and it failed
...
Then they tried X, Y, Z, and it failed.
...
And finally they got, what ? Buccaneers. And they found they loved them. THE END."

ROTFL One could even rewrite that song by Alanis Morissette, Ironic.

It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife

She nailed it.
Archibald I think Bucs would look smart in Aeronavale colours on Foch and Clemenceau
 
I was wondering last night, if the Canberra B.Mk.1 had entered service as planned with H2S Mk.9, would it have altered the situation regarding its replacement or its further development?

The H2S Mk.9 wasn't really suitable for low-level bombing (though of course Canberra would have had a smaller scanner), but its possible a newer radar would have been developed in the mid-1950s optimised for low-level bombing. But an AH B.6 with Green Satin and H2S of some more would have been very similar to the Buccaneer in capability.
 
Later on a low level Canberra variant with shorter span wings I think was proposed in the 60's.
Does seem odd that wasn't put forward as a tactical compliment to the Pathfinder V-Bomber in the 50's.

And likely that's down to lack of the navigation system.
 
Well, I'd think replacing the Canberra would come down to military doctrine. Some countries fly bombers high, while others fly low. It wouldn't hurt to have an aircraft similar to the General Dynamics F-111 with Mach 1 capabilities at low altitude and Mach 2 at high, as well as a ground-hugging radar.
Again, it's all based on military doctrine.
 
Could the not keep it in service by upgrading it.
No, parts long out of production, becoming difficult to obtain result in falling serviceability. Eventually fatigue would result in a catastrophic structural failure. There's only so much you can do. At some point it just becomes too expensive and dangerous. Great aircraft but there comes a time to call time.
 
Could the not keep it in service by upgrading it.
No, parts long out of production, becoming difficult to obtain result in falling serviceability. Eventually fatigue would result in a catastrophic structural failure. There's only so much you can do. At some point it just becomes too expensive and dangerous. Great aircraft but there comes a time to call time.
Wanted to point to the B-52 but unlike the Canberra it does get the full support its needed to keep it flying.
 
Yes the B-52 gets mentioned often for it's longevity but as you say, at some cost. How many Ben Franklins are being thrown at this endeavour? How much of the fleet is combat ready at any one time? How many are christmas trees/hangar queens? How many Gs & Hs at Davis-Monthan were sacrificed to maintain the fleet? Are there any speed/manoeuvring restrictions in place? What is fleet utilization like in the 2020s? When was the last time they deployed at squadron or wing strength?

Yes the B-52H is still flying but with some caveats.
 
Could the not keep it in service by upgrading it.
No, parts long out of production, becoming difficult to obtain result in falling serviceability. Eventually fatigue would result in a catastrophic structural failure. There's only so much you can do. At some point it just becomes too expensive and dangerous. Great aircraft but there comes a time to call time.
We had plenty of parts in the early 90's. Most had been made/packed in the 50's.......The PR9's did receive several updates, with RWR, Navigation and camera systems all updated, and a new 'pink' paint job.
 
We had plenty of parts in the early 90's
Yes but eventually you would run out of spare parts..... I have no doubt the PR.9 fleet could have been retained for longer, possibly much longer but at escalating risk and cost over time. I wish it wasn't so but there are certain fiscal and physical realities. After XV230 and Haddon-Cave, there would also be political realities for the PR.9 to contend with.

NASA apparently plans on flying WB-57s until the end of time.
Yes but to perhaps retread my B-52 point, how often do they fly and how large is their budget? Is such a budget available to other would-be latter-day Canberra users? I suspect not.

As an aside, are the WB-57F TF33s interchangeable with the B-52Hs? That could be handy.
 
NASA apparently plans on flying WB-57s until the end of time.
Yes but to perhaps retread my B-52 point, how often do they fly and how large is their budget? Is such a budget available to other would-be latter-day Canberra users? I suspect not.

As an aside, are the WB-57F TF33s interchangeable with the B-52Hs? That could be handy.

The budget is miniscule since most flights are reimbursable, but it was just a factoid.

The engines aren't compatible but it's a moot point since the B-52s are getting F130s.
 
We had plenty of parts in the early 90's
Yes but eventually you would run out of spare parts..... I have no doubt the PR.9 fleet could have been retained for longer, possibly much longer but at escalating risk and cost over time. I wish it wasn't so but there are certain fiscal and physical realities. After XV230 and Haddon-Cave, there would also be political realities for the PR.9 to contend with.

NASA apparently plans on flying WB-57s until the end of time.
Yes but to perhaps retread my B-52 point, how often do they fly and how large is their budget? Is such a budget available to other would-be latter-day Canberra users? I suspect not.

As an aside, are the WB-57F TF33s interchangeable with the B-52Hs? That could be handy.
I think the airframe guys I worked with would disagree, the 9's were going through a complete rebuild at Shorts in the 90's, literally back to bare metal, full disassembly and rebuild. The spares were bought for fleets of hundreds of aircraft at a time when no-one really worried about where the £ was coming from. Also industry is pretty good at manufacturing and re-manufacturing, as long as someone will pay for it, a little engineering shop in Lancashire could keep you going, with batch production.
 
The engines aren't compatible but it's a moot point since the B-52s are getting F130s.
Yes, I know, I was just musing that it would be great if the WB-57Fs fleet could get plentiful redundant TF33s. Ah well.

most flights are reimbursable
Reimbursable by whom? Someone has to be paying for it surely.

I think the airframe guys I worked with would disagree
So Canberras can literally fly forever with no fatigue or serviceability issues with change from a tenner then, I presume. Those idiots at the MoD......
 

I think the airframe guys I worked with would disagree
So Canberras can literally fly forever with no fatigue or serviceability issues with change from a tenner then, I presume. Those idiots at the MoD......
No, but lack of spares, for the home country air force, is not normally the reason for retirement. Of course fatigue life is a factor, but spars can be replaced - as per B52 - etc. For some 3rd line air force, of course its an issue. I also wonder if these 3rd line air forces actually carry out the deep maintenance, but thats another thread....
 
Operational costs on the PR9 were quite low when it was retired but the main issue was the fatigue life of the pressure bulkhead, which would be very expensive to replace.

The NASA WB-57s are really an amazing hodgepodge of parts - everything from C-141 engines to F-15E landing gear (with A-4 tires naturally) to F-16 ejection seats. Except for the ejection seat this has more to do with upgrades than lack of spares.
 
Last edited:
I have brought this thread back because it raises the conundrum haunting TSR2: What should a Canberra replacement have been?
Much of the original Canberra bombing role was taken over by V bombers but RAF theatre commands around the world were still using them and needed to replace them in the 60s.
One option might have been the B2 pathfinder Valiant.
Buccaneer seems the most suitable actual service aircraft.
P17 and P1129 are among numerous paper projects that look promising.
The US has the Intruder, Thunderchief and Vigilante as possibles.
TSR2 offers to carry two rather than one nuke and get to its target fast, but at what cost?
 
By the 60s great specialisation is both not a requirement nor desirable, if the next generation combat aircraft is only going to replace the Canberra then it's a dud and should not be purchased. The aircraft should replace the Canberra and something else, with the options being the V Bombers or the Hunters. The former is obviously the TSR2 with a big F111K fleet (no AFVG) being Plan B. The latter would be a P1121 or Phantom class aircraft, the Phantom being the favourite to get the biggest possible fleet in combination with the RN.

Personally I like lumping the Canberra replacement in with the V Bomber, ideally with the TSR2. This option means cancelling the 5th R class SSBN is no great loss due to the semi-strategic nature of such an aircraft's capability, and it provides the RAF with a capability that is rare throughout the world. In contrast lumping the Canberra replacement in with the Hunter means a 5th SSBN is a must and gives the RAF a force that is just like many others around the world, which limits British foreign policy options and influence.
 
Let us talk real world.
What actual crises between 1968 and 1980 (the expected service life of TSR2) would the UK have used the plane in?
Despite tension after the Soviet invasion of Czecho. there was no war in Europe.
The Gulf States, Malaysia and Singapore assumed their own defence.
Sensibly the UK avoided involvement in US wars in S E Asia.
V bombers and Phantoms took part in defence exercises in Cyprus and Malaysia which showed UK commitment.
As for the screw up known as the Falklands War neither TSR2 (shorter range and less weapon load) or P1154 (too complex and needing hard surfaces) would have been as useful as the Vulcan or the P1127 Harrier
 
None of the things mentioned could be foreseen in the late 50s - early 60s when the Canberra replacement was taking shape, and to discount them in advance would have caused Defence planners to be sacked and replaced by planners with a more realist (in the academic sense of the term) world view.

The lack of European war might be credited at least in part to the RAFs capabilities in the era.

As late as 1966 it was assumed that Britain's commitments to CENTO and SEATO would continue indefinitely and 1966-68 it was assumed these commitments would last until 1975. Indeed Britain seriously looked at moving the troops it had in South East Asia to Australia to maintain the presence long term, but Australia's commitment to Vietnam made this too complicated.

Britain avoided Vietnam and various other entanglements such as the Greek-Turkish war in Cyprus and Middle East conflicts but not the commitment to Belize, Iran-Iraq war (RN surface ships) and Falklands, none of which were foreseen in the various White Papers and various cancellations of gear over the decades.
 
Other aircraft in the rough class of Canberra:
F-105​
F-111​
A-5​
A-6​
Buccaneer​
F-4 (arguably)​
TSR2 for completeness.​

I'd say F-111 or A-6 would be the best replacements overall. Fast, actually using terrain-following radar, good range. Problem is they're bought with dollars and dollars were scarce in the late 1950s. A-5 is really only good for dropping a single nuke, and the linear bomb bay is questionable.

I know the eventual replacement was Tornado, but that was at least one generation later than it should have been.

What other options were there?
 
The only one you haven't listed that the RAAF looked at in 1963 as the Canberra replacement was the Mirage IV.
Then I really don't see any option but the Buc if you can't spend dollars.

Think I'd still rather have the A-6 or F-111, though.
 
Apart from the roles taken on by the USAF F111s in the UK I think the Buccaneer S2 was more than adequate as a Canberra and even Hunter replacement.
The S2 version should have been ordered in 1965 as soon as it became clear that P1154 and TSR2 would not go ahead.
F111K was unaffordable and given subsequent US deployments unnecessary.
UKVG could then have gone ahead with the money saved and might have made it into service before 1980.
That gives you two viable and affordable UK solutions.
 
If the Buccaneer replaces the Canberra nice and early what replaces the V Bombers in the theatre strike role?
 
UKVG becomes affordable as a longer ranged VG aircraft than AFVG or MRCA and without the delays imposed by multinational work should be in service by 1974.
Alternatively the UK could keep the Vulcans in service equipped with a UK cruise missile or US SRAMs.
 
Back
Top Bottom