USN decides to buy The Blackburn Buccaneer....

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
Have read that some MDAP money went into the program and that the USN had expressed "a mild interest" in the type. So lets just amp that up to buying it. This will probably kill the A-6 program, though it may have been far enough long that some prototypes may have been built.. not sure about the timelines of both aircraft off the top of my head at the moment.

It would be a decent way of enhancing the alliance, propping up the British economy a wee bit and it might even spur some innovation domestically by mixing things up a little.

So what is this bird going to look like? How do we think it will fair in Vietnam?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
The obvious problem is this falls between two key events, the Armistice in Korea, and the Suez Crisis. The latter is a major rupture between the UK and US.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
The obvious problem is this falls between two key events, the Armistice in Korea, and the Suez Crisis. The latter is a major rupture between the UK and US.
true but we both got over it and a sizable arms sale bringing in hard dollars goes a long way to smoothing over ruffled feathers... we are talking about a LOT of aircraft here.

I know they were trying to get the A-6 to be operable from CVA-19's and they were capable of being launched by H-8 catapults at a laughably low weight for "close air support"... so Buccaneer's ability to be used on Hermes has impacts here. http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/A2F-1_SAC_-_30_April_1960.pdf
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,699
Reaction score
3,876
Website
beyondthesprues.com
hipotetico-blackburn-buccaneer-de-la-us-navy-uss-j-f-kennedy.jpg

usnbucc.jpg
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
930
This topic threatens to be a repeat of numerous Buccaneer versus A-6 discussions.
The reality is that they were both good aircraft relatively closely matched.
“Clean” (internal weapons only) the Buccaneer was certainly faster but the A-6 superior avionics meant it could fly lower safer and more readily find and hit its target in night and all weather.
And the A-6 was the US Navy’s own aircraft built to its own requirements and doctrines (plus to Marine requirements and doctrines).
And the initial Buccaneer S.1 had bad engines and was significantly underpowered.
Hence very little to attract the US Navy or Marines to the Buccaneer; for them, from their perspectives the A-6 was much the better aircraft (which it probably was, overall).
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,701
Reaction score
8,229
Buccaneer vs Intruder: I kind of like this. What were their respective strengths and weaknesses ?
Buccaneer always sounded faster and a bit more agile, the Intruder seems to have been more like a bomb truck: slower maybe, but moar bombs.

(damn, ninja'd by @kaiserd )
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
This topic threatens to be a repeat of numerous Buccaneer versus A-6 discussions.
The reality is that they were both good aircraft relatively closely matched.
“Clean” (internal weapons only) the Buccaneer was certainly faster but the A-6 superior avionics meant it could fly lower safer and more readily find and hit its target in night and all weather.
And the A-6 was the US Navy’s own aircraft built to its own requirements and doctrines (plus to Marine requirements and doctrines).
And the initial Buccaneer S.1 had bad engines and was significantly underpowered.
Hence very little to attract the US Navy or Marines to the Buccaneer; for them, from their perspectives the A-6 was much the better aircraft (which it probably was, overall).
All true, but if the USN is going to be serous about this we can assume reasonably they may have some input during development that could offset some of those concerns; what they might be I have no clue but it is still a safe assumption.

Moreover the US could contribute some avionics towards the project.. what if any portion of the A-6's avionics fit could be used here and could it also benefit the RN? US funding and input as a buyer has a LOT of permutations... funding of a thin wing version probable, possible different engines including funding of Thames development...

Which is the better aircraft is a subject best left to the members of the alternate timeline version of this forum to debate...
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,701
Reaction score
8,229
The A-6 range can only benefit from speys turbofans instead of J52 turbojets. I swear that a Spey Intruder exists on this forum, in passing.

Would the A-6 avionics fits into a Buccaneer ?
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
The A-6 range can only benefit from speys turbofans instead of J52 turbojets. I swear that a Spey Intruder exists on this forum, in passing.

Would the A-6 avionics fits into a Buccaneer ?
maybe, but they could be designed to fit.

When I was in high school I helped my dad photo etch a replacement motherboard for an Apple2 that he had blown up.. though this would be in the transistor and tube era there is still some flexibility to forming a board to some degree.. a square don't have to be a square it can be a rectangle or a circle as long as you have the trace connecting the components in the right order.. EDIT: Volume is a factor but if you have that in an area not the right shape for the base board you can finagle one.
 
Last edited:

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,303
I guess it would automatically become the basis for a collaborative project with one of the US Navy aeroplane suppliers but not Grumman as they already had the A6. So that’s either LTV or MacDonald Douglas;- either way one of there stealing the A6 contract from Grumman make interesting what ifs? The Buccaneer would now access some serious development potential with US engines and avionics maybe even leading to a USAF purchase……

I remember reading an account of a senior US Navy officer going back home after an exchange tour on the Buccaneer making a serious resolution to press a case for Buccaneer acquisition within the Pentagon. I think I remember a mention of some informal talks between HSA and LTV….. obviously didn’t lead to anything.
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
207
Reaction score
405
Have read that some MDAP money went into the program and that the USN had expressed "a mild interest" in the type. So lets just amp that up to buying it. This will probably kill the A-6 program, though it may have been far enough long that some prototypes may have been built.. not sure about the timelines of both aircraft off the top of my head at the moment.

It would be a decent way of enhancing the alliance, propping up the British economy a wee bit and it might even spur some innovation domestically by mixing things up a little.

So what is this bird going to look like? How do we think it will fair in Vietnam?
Okay, so the timeline between the two goes like this:

June 1952: RN issues NA.39 with the following requirements:

The requirement was formalized as "Naval Staff Requirement Number 39 (NA.39)" in June 1952, which called for a two-seat carrier-based aircraft that could carry a nuclear weapon internally, fly at a speed of Mach 0.85 at an altitude of 60 meters (200 feet), and operate over a combat radius of at least 740 kilometers (460 miles). It was to have an offensive radar system and a radar altimeter. Total weapons load was to be 1.8 tonnes (4,000 pounds); the length could be no more than 15.5 meters (51 feet) in stowed configuration to allow accommodation on existing carrier-deck elevators; and the maximum weight was to be no more than 20.4 tonnes (45,000 pounds). The aircraft was also to be able to act as a tanker.

Summer 1954: NA.39 design competition is frozen.

July 1955: Blackburn B.103 is chosen for production.

1956: USN RFP issued for twin-seat all-weather strike aircraft.

January 1958: Grumman wins competition, plane designated A2F.

April 1958: Buccaneer S.1 prototype flies.

1959: Contract placed for eight developmental A2F prototypes.

Early 1960: S.1 carrier trials begin

July 1960: A2F prototype flies.

August 1960: Buccaneer name assigned.

August 1961: First S.1s delivered

January 1962: Buccaneer S.2 ordered

July 1962: Number 801 squadron operational.

1963: EA-6A flies; A-6A enters service.

May 1963: Buccaneer S.2 flies.

October 1965: Buccaneer S.2 enters operational service.

So I'd say the timing works: the B.103 design was ready by the time the US Navy issued the RFP for what became the Intruder, and the S.1 prototype was flying a bare few months after Grumman won the original competition. The issue, of course, being the engine problem and the fact that the S.2 took so long to develop, but it might be possible to get the S.2 early if the US Navy buys in; the S.1, due to its low-thrust Gyron Junior engines, had a much lower bombload than the Intruder, and regardless of the takeoff problem more thrust means more weapons and that would interest the US Navy.

The problem with that is which engine to use. The Spey only ran in 1964 and the earliest it was placed on an aircraft design was in 1959 for the Hawker Siddeley Trident in mid-1959. This is, I believe, rather tight timing for a development program started in 1956 and intending to send out development contracts in 1959. Unfortunately, the TF30 runs into a similar problem. The J52 is readily available but only a modest power increase over the Gyron Junior.

I guess it would automatically become the basis for a collaborative project with one of the US Navy aeroplane suppliers but not Grumman as they already had the A6. So that’s either LTV or MacDonald Douglas;- either way one of there stealing the A6 contract from Grumman make interesting what ifs? The Buccaneer would now access some serious development potential with US engines and avionics maybe even leading to a USAF purchase……

I remember reading an account of a senior US Navy officer going back home after an exchange tour on the Buccaneer making a serious resolution to press a case for Buccaneer acquisition within the Pentagon. I think I remember a mention of some informal talks between HSA and LTV….. obviously didn’t lead to anything.
Probably LTV, then; the Navy had just canned Douglas' Skylancer, for reasons suspected to include reducing Douglas' large share of the Navy's tactical aircraft inventory.

I should note that, if bobtdwarf's speculation over on the "What if Germany did not go for the F-104" is correct, this whole scenario stands a good chance of giving the Super Tiger a leg up for foreign sales.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
Have read that some MDAP money went into the program and that the USN had expressed "a mild interest" in the type. So lets just amp that up to buying it. This will probably kill the A-6 program, though it may have been far enough long that some prototypes may have been built.. not sure about the timelines of both aircraft off the top of my head at the moment.

It would be a decent way of enhancing the alliance, propping up the British economy a wee bit and it might even spur some innovation domestically by mixing things up a little.

So what is this bird going to look like? How do we think it will fair in Vietnam?
Okay, so the timeline between the two goes like this:

June 1952: RN issues NA.39 with the following requirements:

The requirement was formalized as "Naval Staff Requirement Number 39 (NA.39)" in June 1952, which called for a two-seat carrier-based aircraft that could carry a nuclear weapon internally, fly at a speed of Mach 0.85 at an altitude of 60 meters (200 feet), and operate over a combat radius of at least 740 kilometers (460 miles). It was to have an offensive radar system and a radar altimeter. Total weapons load was to be 1.8 tonnes (4,000 pounds); the length could be no more than 15.5 meters (51 feet) in stowed configuration to allow accommodation on existing carrier-deck elevators; and the maximum weight was to be no more than 20.4 tonnes (45,000 pounds). The aircraft was also to be able to act as a tanker.

Summer 1954: NA.39 design competition is frozen.

July 1955: Blackburn B.103 is chosen for production.

1956: USN RFP issued for twin-seat all-weather strike aircraft.

January 1958: Grumman wins competition, plane designated A2F.

April 1958: Buccaneer S.1 prototype flies.

1959: Contract placed for eight developmental A2F prototypes.

Early 1960: S.1 carrier trials begin

July 1960: A2F prototype flies.

August 1960: Buccaneer name assigned.

August 1961: First S.1s delivered

January 1962: Buccaneer S.2 ordered

July 1962: Number 801 squadron operational.

1963: EA-6A flies; A-6A enters service.

May 1963: Buccaneer S.2 flies.

October 1965: Buccaneer S.2 enters operational service.

So I'd say the timing works: the B.103 design was ready by the time the US Navy issued the RFP for what became the Intruder, and the S.1 prototype was flying a bare few months after Grumman won the original competition. The issue, of course, being the engine problem and the fact that the S.2 took so long to develop, but it might be possible to get the S.2 early if the US Navy buys in; the S.1, due to its low-thrust Gyron Junior engines, had a much lower bombload than the Intruder, and regardless of the takeoff problem more thrust means more weapons and that would interest the US Navy.

The problem with that is which engine to use. The Spey only ran in 1964 and the earliest it was placed on an aircraft design was in 1959 for the Hawker Siddeley Trident in mid-1959. This is, I believe, rather tight timing for a development program started in 1956 and intending to send out development contracts in 1959. Unfortunately, the TF30 runs into a similar problem. The J52 is readily available but only a modest power increase over the Gyron Junior.

I guess it would automatically become the basis for a collaborative project with one of the US Navy aeroplane suppliers but not Grumman as they already had the A6. So that’s either LTV or MacDonald Douglas;- either way one of there stealing the A6 contract from Grumman make interesting what ifs? The Buccaneer would now access some serious development potential with US engines and avionics maybe even leading to a USAF purchase……

I remember reading an account of a senior US Navy officer going back home after an exchange tour on the Buccaneer making a serious resolution to press a case for Buccaneer acquisition within the Pentagon. I think I remember a mention of some informal talks between HSA and LTV….. obviously didn’t lead to anything.
Probably LTV, then; the Navy had just canned Douglas' Skylancer, for reasons suspected to include reducing Douglas' large share of the Navy's tactical aircraft inventory.

I should note that, if bobtdwarf's speculation over on the "What if Germany did not go for the F-104" is correct, this whole scenario stands a good chance of giving the Super Tiger a leg up for foreign sales.
yup, Grumman will have had a major weight loss... with USN involvement and their tendency to hedge bets engine wise after previously being burned, we could see funding for RB. 106 AND Spey just in case one of them or TF-30 are dead holes.

deeply informative post!
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
Engine issue....
DH had upgrades for Gyron Junior to 10,000lb static thrust using cooled compressor blades if memory serves. This was the basis of OR.339 interim offering.
This also formed the basis of F.177 and P.188 engine submissions if memory serves.
So the capacity was there to achieve higher thrust.

Alternatively since Wright had contacts with Armstrong Siddeley, the P.151 could be funded.
Or alternatively the Bristol BE.33

Blackburn did offer Avon powered variants. It would be a modest alternative to use Sapphires.

However US funding the higher powered development of Gyron Junior has interesting knock on effects for P.188 and RR's Spey.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,303
One of the S1 engine more fatal shortcomings was the end of cat single engine out minimum control speed. This was a proper problem for the shorter strokes on her majesty’s floating airstrips but the US Navy floating airports had plenty of shove. The pilots of the S1 reckon it was nicer to fly than the S2 in many respects but they really objected to the long period of waiting for the speed to build when chucked off the boat. Yes I know the Gyron had other challenges such as X wind throttle up but with a sizeable order it made a bit more sense to spend money fixing these problems.
 

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
207
Reaction score
405
Engine issue....
DH had upgrades for Gyron Junior to 10,000lb static thrust using cooled compressor blades if memory serves. This was the basis of OR.339 interim offering.
This also formed the basis of F.177 and P.188 engine submissions if memory serves.
So the capacity was there to achieve higher thrust.

Alternatively since Wright had contacts with Armstrong Siddeley, the P.151 could be funded.
Or alternatively the Bristol BE.33

Blackburn did offer Avon powered variants. It would be a modest alternative to use Sapphires.

However US funding the higher powered development of Gyron Junior has interesting knock on effects for P.188 and RR's Spey.
An uprated Gyron Junior was used only a few years later in a test aircraft, so that 10,000-lb Gyron Junior is definitely a possibility.

The Sapphire looks good on the technical side, but I think the Navy is going to consider it a poisoned chalice after their bad experiences with the licensed J65.

One of the S1 engine more fatal shortcomings was the end of cat single engine out minimum control speed. This was a proper problem for the shorter strokes on her majesty’s floating airstrips but the US Navy floating airports had plenty of shove. The pilots of the S1 reckon it was nicer to fly than the S2 in many respects but they really objected to the long period of waiting for the speed to build when chucked off the boat. Yes I know the Gyron had other challenges such as X wind throttle up but with a sizeable order it made a bit more sense to spend money fixing these problems.
While I agree the takeoff problem is greatly mitigated by the larger American ships with their bigger catapults, as I mentioned before the low thrust limits the loads the plane can carry. The S.1 had half the max bombload of the S.2, and I don't think the Americans would accept that.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
On J65, that's down to the US and Wright.

But on Gyron Junior, it's an interesting AH inofitself to ponder what happens if DH gets a big order.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
On J65, that's down to the US and Wright.

But on Gyron Junior, it's an interesting AH inofitself to ponder what happens if DH gets a big order.
Which would be the more interesting/promising engines to fund? From what I have picked up on here it would seem Thames would be a good one just in case J-79 is also a dead hole, and the only info I have on the Gyron JR is wiki since my favorite engine site has gone dark
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
4,252
The only trouble is the USN (and industry lobbyists) are unlikely to accept something that isn't licence-built - allegedly Martin was brought in to build the Canberra as EECo couldn't produce enough for the USAF quick enough, but given the radical changes for the B-57B its a fair bet licence-production was always the favoured option.
Same with the engines, I can't think of any foreign military jet the US used pre-Pegasus without it being built locally.

So we need to find a licence-builder for Bucc and Gyron.
Airframe is not so hard - Martin or Vought seem leading contenders, maybe even North American, Lockheed or Convair if they have enough production slack.
A licencee for the engine is harder, Sapphire and Olympus flopped with US builders and they might be wary of taking on another brand-new Limey engine to work the bugs out of. Possibly someone like Continental takes it on to boost their small turbojet offerings?
Or the USN might just say "fit a US engine" instead.
Either way licence-building the Bucc means temptation to tinker and revise and the end result could end up quite different in equipment and fit. It is an intriguing idea though.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
On J65, that's down to the US and Wright.

But on Gyron Junior, it's an interesting AH inofitself to ponder what happens if DH gets a big order.
Which would be the more interesting/promising engines to fund? From what I have picked up on here it would seem Thames would be a good one just in case J-79 is also a dead hole, and the only info I have on the Gyron JR is wiki since my favorite engine site has gone dark
Technically the Bristol BE.33 is likely to be a scaled variant of the BS.30 Zeus. Embodying contra-rotating Compressor and Turbine sections and like Thames lots of titanium.

Gyron Junior is simpler steel and single shaft if memory serves.

Wright might realise after messing up the Sapphire, that Americanisation for Americanising sake isn't a good idea and talking more with AS is better.

An integrated approach might be Wright, Orenda and Armstrong Siddeley funding the P.151 or was it P.159?
 
Last edited:

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
The only trouble is the USN (and industry lobbyists) are unlikely to accept something that isn't licence-built - allegedly Martin was brought in to build the Canberra as EECo couldn't produce enough for the USAF quick enough, but given the radical changes for the B-57B its a fair bet licence-production was always the favoured option.
Same with the engines, I can't think of any foreign military jet the US used pre-Pegasus without it being built locally.

So we need to find a licence-builder for Bucc and Gyron.
Airframe is not so hard - Martin or Vought seem leading contenders, maybe even North American, Lockheed or Convair if they have enough production slack.
A licencee for the engine is harder, Sapphire and Olympus flopped with US builders and they might be wary of taking on another brand-new Limey engine to work the bugs out of. Possibly someone like Continental takes it on to boost their small turbojet offerings?
Or the USN might just say "fit a US engine" instead.
Either way licence-building the Bucc means temptation to tinker and revise and the end result could end up quite different in equipment and fit. It is an intriguing idea though.
Yup somebody is going to build all but like the first 50 (probably less), locally.. and in my head I figured they would probably stuff a J-52 in it for the S1 and go the Spey for S2 since Allison bought a license already....

The tinkering is the best part lol
 

Opportunistic Minnow

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
552
Reaction score
927
So what did Grumman do to p*** off BuAer for this to come to pass? How many aerospace engineers and skilled workers in the Bethpage area, US taxpayers and voters, are applying for the same 7-11 job? Assuming you mangle the timeline enough for this, how would any Admiral or Senator sign off on putting an untested, unknown (not to mention un-American) engine in a Navy aircraft after the J40 saga without straight-up getting keel-hauled? It's a Navy bird, it's the end of the Fifties, it's getting a Pratt & Whitney Turbo-Wasp, son!
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
"So Senator the Brits are funding the Gyron Junior and RB.106 Thames already. We are informed that a scaled down RB.106 is also under consideration.
Of these the Gyron and Gyron Junior are well under way with numerous aircraft projects they will power."

"In a technical sense the Gyron Junior is simply a scaled down Gyron and is funded for the NA.39 strike platform "

"Orenda in Canada and Wright are already talking with the Brits for licensing of RB.106"

"Senator the NA.39 strike aircraft is already funded and will enter service with the RN FAA by the early 60’s. In the interim we're informed that the Scimitar will be cleared for limited nuclear strike."

"Their schedule is ahead of ours and delivers an aircraft of ideal capability. All that is principally lacking, is our superior electronics and avionics systems"

"Under licensed production, this will be an American built aircraft powered by American built engines"

"We can accelerate the qualification and earlier testing process if we can do this on USN carriers"
"The Brits will be keen to accelerate the arrival of the Buccaneer and more than helpful in making the happen "
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
Problem is still 1956 Suez Crisis.

Maybe this is starting with the wrong country? What if Canada opted for the Buccaneer?
 

shedofdread

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
272
Just out of interest [and please forgive me as 'what iffing' is far from my usual area - whatever that might be ;) ), how would this impact the future? By which I mean; how would a more developed (bigger budget) Buccaneer that enjoyed through-life upgrades affect the introduction of Tornado? Would T be needed (in GR1 / 4 form)? So what do we end up with instead of F3? Do we have not selling Buc to the cousins to thank for us not buying F15 and therefore retaining the ability to build things like Typhoon?

I'm off for a cheese sandwich and a mug of tea - this is making my head hurt. Don't know how you all do it...
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
631
So what did Grumman do to p*** off BuAer for this to come to pass? How many aerospace engineers and skilled workers in the Bethpage area, US taxpayers and voters, are applying for the same 7-11 job? Assuming you mangle the timeline enough for this, how would any Admiral or Senetor sign off on putting an untested, unknown (not to mention un-American) engine in a Navy aircraft after the J40 saga without straight-up getting keel-hauled? It's a Navy bird, it's the end of the Fifties, it's getting a Pratt & Whitney Turbo-Wasp, son!
Referencing a different thread: they’re pushing and advanced version of the Tiger to fill Essex-class carriers and smaller allied carriers.
 

Opportunistic Minnow

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
552
Reaction score
927
So what did Grumman do to p*** off BuAer for this to come to pass? How many aerospace engineers and skilled workers in the Bethpage area, US taxpayers and voters, are applying for the same 7-11 job? Assuming you mangle the timeline enough for this, how would any Admiral or Senetor sign off on putting an untested, unknown (not to mention un-American) engine in a Navy aircraft after the J40 saga without straight-up getting keel-hauled? It's a Navy bird, it's the end of the Fifties, it's getting a Pratt & Whitney Turbo-Wasp, son!
Referencing a different thread: they’re pushing and advanced version of the Tiger to fill Essex-class carriers and smaller allied carriers.
So that's Grumman. The other seven companies that made submissions are passed over because....?
how would this impact the future?
Grumman's engineering teams for the Apollo LEM & F-14 have some holes in them.
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
740
Reaction score
483
Superimpose on CV12 #11: Suez, 11/56, Sandys to Defence, 13/1/57, big tussle with 1SL Mountbatten over Strike carriers, which Sandys does concede and does order (to be) Bucc S.1. But for awhile that seemed improbable, RN to exit CVs. Exactly then DoD was running the competition that Grumman won. Whatever the apparent, on-paper, benefits of Bucc, why would US take on the risk/pain of distant procurement? Minnows Blackburn+DH+brown-consumer-goods-centric leckies? Or solid-record, big-hitters in a State near DC?

Not only did 1SL retain Bucc, he retained its explicit design case - AW-on-Sverdlov. Only USN and RN chose to tackle that.

The lost opportunity, splendid AH, is fixing Bucc power earlier than S.2 opnl/Victorious, 28/7/66. That takes us back to:
12/8/59, Medway out, Spey in BEAC DH.121 Trident
25/9/59: 50 Bucc S.1 ordered with DH GyJr in default of any other in the hoped-for timescale
14/10/59: Sandys from Defence (to new Min of Aviation, not to select but to reorganise a/c supply). New man Watkinson open-mind.
7/12/59: DH Engine Co into HS Group, who starved resources, so setting GyJr back, until putting DHE into BSEL, 11/61...managed by ...Small Engines Div! Doomed.
18/12/59: ITP BSEL Olympus 22R for TSR.2-by-BAC, formed 18/12/59. TSR.2 at that moment was funded (3/6/59) only for Design Study.
5/60: Blackburn-into HS Grp.
6/10/60: ITP 9 DB TSR.2: metal-cutting.

Bucc S.1 was not ordered 25/9/59 against urgent military need, but to facilitate re-structuring of Aero: future Fleet/CVs then undecided.
Its primary weapon was Red Beard Mk.1, a USSR secret weapon, safety concerns evident: MoA/C(A) Release 8/60, 3, embarked Hermes, 7/11/60: “emergency use only”, catapult, no trap R.Moore,Nuc. Illusion, Nuc.RealityPalgrave,2010,P278; RN&Nuc. Wpns., Cass,2001,P.140.

So: defer GyJr order 25/9/59; assess potential of BEAC's Spey; defer metal-cutting order, TSR.2 6/10/60; follow new SecDef McNamara's enterprise in commonality, TFX, early 1961: interim order Buccaneer/Spey aiming for 1964 RN and RAFG deployment with Improved Red Beard.

shed #25: how's the head?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
Forgot to mention significant then live projected weapon.
Green Cheese, stand off guided bomb.
Buccaneer weapons bay designed around said weapon, at then interim Red Beard and future Green Cheese Anti-ship solution.

Gyron Junior funded as S.1 prototype powerplant, presented as OR.339 option, F155 options on DH and AWA designs, and F.177 won by Saro.
By '55 to '57 Gyron Junior was potentially a big winner.
No wonder it was included on supersonic research T.188.
DH doomed as F.155 is 'won' by Fairey Delta III, then cancelled. F.177 cancelled 57 to 58.
Leaving orphan S.1 Buccaneer and T.188 interminably delayed by steel fabrication issues.
While RAF bang on about Scimitar being cheaper.....but never order any.
S.1 finally ordered '59 "as is" cheapest option no engine change.
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
578
Problem is still 1956 Suez Crisis.

Maybe this is starting with the wrong country? What if Canada opted for the Buccaneer?
What's Canada going to use it for? What specific hole in the RCAF is it going to fill? She has no near-neighbours that she requires to make tactical land strikes on, and the pure self-interest probably means the US is going to cover 90% of the maritime strike missions the Canadians could possibly hope to make.

Australia might be another matter, but in that alternative universe the F-111C goes nowhere. And if Australia is going to buy British for its long range conventional attack/interdiction/recon aircraft, you're looking at an alternative reality in which it might as well buy TSR.2 and save that programme.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
So what did Grumman do to p*** off BuAer for this to come to pass? How many aerospace engineers and skilled workers in the Bethpage area, US taxpayers and voters, are applying for the same 7-11 job? Assuming you mangle the timeline enough for this, how would any Admiral or Senator sign off on putting an untested, unknown (not to mention un-American) engine in a Navy aircraft after the J40 saga without straight-up getting keel-hauled? It's a Navy bird, it's the end of the Fifties, it's getting a Pratt & Whitney Turbo-Wasp, son!
I don't know what Grumman did but they did something.. for real the navy was all super supportive and massively helpful on SuperTiger sales to Corky and the sales boys... while extorting a promise from Mr. Grumman to turn down the German contract or the navy would see them as "to fat": Nice bunch of contracts you have their Mr. Grumman, be a pity if something happened to them capice? The navy was cracking a whip/playing head games for some reason.

They could probably toss Grumman a bone to not lose work force, say uncanceling the last 230 Tigers or something like pursuing the J-52 powered version of the Cougar trainer. Either one or both of those would be useful, especially if the last 230 Tigers and the possible photo recon units were completed to 98L design, the trainers going from an SFC of 1.14 to .79 would save a bunch of operational costs in gas.
 
Last edited:

CV12Hornet

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
207
Reaction score
405
What's Canada going to use it for? What specific hole in the RCAF is it going to fill? She has no near-neighbours that she requires to make tactical land strikes on, and the pure self-interest probably means the US is going to cover 90% of the maritime strike missions the Canadians could possibly hope to make.

Australia might be another matter, but in that alternative universe the F-111C goes nowhere. And if Australia is going to buy British for its long range conventional attack/interdiction/recon aircraft, you're looking at an alternative reality in which it might as well buy TSR.2 and save that programme.
Presumably for the same job they bought the Starfighter for: nuclear strike in Europe, which was alongside homeland air defense the other major job of the RCAF in the Cold War.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
Problem is still 1956 Suez Crisis.

Maybe this is starting with the wrong country? What if Canada opted for the Buccaneer?
I am viewing it as a means of healing the breach... well at least in part
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
Just out of interest [and please forgive me as 'what iffing' is far from my usual area - whatever that might be ;) ), how would this impact the future? By which I mean; how would a more developed (bigger budget) Buccaneer that enjoyed through-life upgrades affect the introduction of Tornado? Would T be needed (in GR1 / 4 form)? So what do we end up with instead of F3? Do we have not selling Buc to the cousins to thank for us not buying F15 and therefore retaining the ability to build things like Typhoon?

I'm off for a cheese sandwich and a mug of tea - this is making my head hurt. Don't know how you all do it...
it hurts less the more you do it...lol
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
578
What's Canada going to use it for?
F104 Starfighter?
F5 Tiger?
The Starfighter can be justified as an interceptor of over-the-pole Russian bombers, the F-5 as a second-line option for the same. At a stretch. But not the Buccaneer IMHO.

What's Canada going to use it for? What specific hole in the RCAF is it going to fill? She has no near-neighbours that she requires to make tactical land strikes on, and the pure self-interest probably means the US is going to cover 90% of the maritime strike missions the Canadians could possibly hope to make.

Australia might be another matter, but in that alternative universe the F-111C goes nowhere. And if Australia is going to buy British for its long range conventional attack/interdiction/recon aircraft, you're looking at an alternative reality in which it might as well buy TSR.2 and save that programme.
Presumably for the same job they bought the Starfighter for: nuclear strike in Europe, which was alongside homeland air defense the other major job of the RCAF in the Cold War.
I could sort of buy that... maybe.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
In context....
In context the question of a Canadian production of Buccaneer and licensing of Gyron Junior.
Is one that helps to shift the 'environment' in which the USN might follow suite....or more likely insert itself at the time of creation to create an international NATO member program for a nuclear strike platform.
In this the Buccaneer is much more suitable than the Starfighter.
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
We also must consider here that the USN may not have issued a requirement for what became the A-6 in this timeline.. CV12Hornet's tick tock of events shows the Bucc was well along before the competition for the A-6 was started so we can just say they didn't bother.

This would help smooth ruffled feathers, give some cross pollination of thinking on designs between the two nations and give a mild shake up to domestic defense contractors to keep the scurrilous dogs in line (JOKE).. we bought Canberra after all so we only have to go as deep down this branch of the rabbit hole as we desire to.

The US benefitted with the B-57, and massively with British engine development, throwing a bit of a lifeline to UK industry here in the form of a license deal for the Bucc to keep them in the game can only really benefit the whole Western alliance in the long term.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
2,012
We also must consider here that the USN may not have issued a requirement for what became the A-6 in this timeline.. CV12Hornet's tick tock of events shows the Bucc was well along before the competition for the A-6 was started so we can just say they didn't bother.

This would help smooth ruffled feathers, give some cross pollination of thinking on designs between the two nations and give a mild shake up to domestic defense contractors to keep the scurrilous dogs in line (JOKE).. we bought Canberra after all so we only have to go as deep down this branch of the rabbit hole as we desire to.

The US benefitted with the B-57, and massively with British engine development, throwing a bit of a lifeline to UK industry here in the form of a license deal for the Bucc to keep them in the game can only really benefit the whole Western alliance in the long term.
It also results in a potential NATO standard, Buccaneer for RN, German Navy, RCAF, and USN. RAF would follow suite.....reluctantly of course;)
 

bobtdwarf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
494
We also must consider here that the USN may not have issued a requirement for what became the A-6 in this timeline.. CV12Hornet's tick tock of events shows the Bucc was well along before the competition for the A-6 was started so we can just say they didn't bother.

This would help smooth ruffled feathers, give some cross pollination of thinking on designs between the two nations and give a mild shake up to domestic defense contractors to keep the scurrilous dogs in line (JOKE).. we bought Canberra after all so we only have to go as deep down this branch of the rabbit hole as we desire to.

The US benefitted with the B-57, and massively with British engine development, throwing a bit of a lifeline to UK industry here in the form of a license deal for the Bucc to keep them in the game can only really benefit the whole Western alliance in the long term.
It also results in a potential NATO standard, Buccaneer for RN, German Navy, RCAF, and USN. RAF would follow suite.....reluctantly of course;)
simplified logistics... oh that is helpful!
 
Top