# A-6 vs Buccaneer



## tomo pauk (Mar 2, 2010)

Two great bombers, weren't they 

Which one is better, please explain why you like one or another.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2010)

One of the few Brit aircraft that was the equal of other nations birds , I've always likes the description used that it was carved from the solid. Few if any aircraft impressed me with its lo level flying like the Buccaneer


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 2, 2010)

Wow, this actually is a hard one. I'll go with the A-6, only because I think it could carry more. However, I will not deny the Buccaneer was a great plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2010)

Great Thread - both very capable aircraft. I've got this think about this one....


----------



## Waynos (Mar 3, 2010)

I choose the Buccaneer for my preference, as to which is the better aircraft though, I don't know enough about the A-6 to make an informed decision.

Here's a few Buccaneer bullet points for people who might be interested.

* The Buccaneer design evolved from an unsuccessful tender to built an all weather fighter for the RN, the winning design was the DH Sea Vixen.

* It was the first area ruled design to be produced in the UK, hence the rather obvious 'coke bottle' fuselage. 

* Much of its development was funded by the US mutual aid programme and the USN seriously considered buying it. Why they chose not to is something I am currently researching.

* The max payload it could carry was 16,000lb, similar to a standard Lancaster. 4,000lb internally. (what is the load of the A-6?)

* It was the last UK bomber to enter service with an internal bomb bay (until the F-35B arrives)

* It entered service with the RN in 1962 but not with the RAF (who didn't really want it) until 1970, when it was to be retired the RAF were loathe to part with it.

* At very low level it was faster than both the F-111 and the Tornado (which replaced it)

* During the Gulf War in 1991 the Bucc was required to illuminate targets for the LGB's of RAF Tornadoes which could not do it for themselves.

A supersonic version of the Buccaneer was offered to the RAF several times - they declined it because it was a Navy bird and they wanted TSR 2 - They ended up getting the standard navy bird anyway - fortunately it was excellent.

* One of my favourite ever sights was TV footage of a Buccaneer manouvering wildy almost on the desert floor during red flag 77 accompanied by a very excited and impressed commentary from a US military controller, made you proud to be British!


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2010)

great thread but very hard to make an informed decision. My military career was spent hanging around A-4s which were less capable than both. The little a-4 could lift up to 10000 lbs of payload, but in RAN service 8000 lbs was the usual limit. We suffereed high attrition rates with the Skyhawks, because the landing gear was just not up to the high stresses of landing on a rough and small flight deck like that on the Melbourne, though to be fair the main problem was the worn out catapult on the ship itself


----------



## shadow81 (Mar 3, 2010)

A-6.
I read somewhere that A-6`s could carry twice B-17`s payload. 
Bucc is was a great bird too, but (to me) Intruders all wether capability is amazing.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 3, 2010)

I think both of them were similar in payloads. I think the A6 was about the 16-20K range in load out. 

Buccaneer could defend itself, A6 couldn't

A6 could carry just about everything in the inventory, the Buccaneer was more limited. 

All in all, a very tough call. 

Odd thing, neither one had a cannon. If one did, I would probably go with that one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2010)

He-he, really a tough call 

No why Buccaneer is more able to defend itself then A-6, tim?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 3, 2010)

I've read that the Buccaneer was an extremely tough bird to bring down
Can't speak for the A6 unfortunately but that's a handy attribute to have if you spend your life skimming along on the deck


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2010)

Yes very difficult one to answer I think. Like Joe I have to think about this one.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 3, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> He-he, really a tough call
> 
> No why Buccaneer is more able to defend itself then A-6, tim?



I think the Buc could carry air to air missles. At least that is my understanding. But I could be wrong about that. But Wiki says it didn't so I am probably in error. 

I am sure the A6 did not carry anything air to air. At least not standard. Depended on the escorts to keep it viable. That and it's manuverability. If it was attacked, the pilots were told to manuver. It was supposed to be extremely manuverable. Seen one knock around once and it was pretty impressive. Back then anyway. Now, everything can manuver.


----------



## Butters (Mar 3, 2010)

I'd go with the A-6.

Much better range and payload + excellent low speed handling

Buc could probably outrun anything down on the deck after ordnance release, but modern LD/SD radars and modern missiles would probably negate that advantage.

Both were excellent attack bombers.

JL


----------



## red admiral (Mar 3, 2010)

I wouldn't characterise the A-6 as having much better range and payload. They're basically identical, with around 1000m range hi-hi-hi for the nuclear strike mission (after strapping lots of external tanks to the A-6). The A-6 can carry more payload, but isn't going very far or fast with it as it's all external.

The comparison pretty much comes down to the Buccaneer having better performance and survivability, especially at low level, whilst the A-6 has a better all-weather capability from the electronics (when they work).

No air-to-air missiles on the Buccaneer, though plenty of studies for "fighter" versions, simplest was sticking four Red Top missiles under the fuselage and wings. Turn and altitude performance is rather lacking from the small wing.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 3, 2010)

You're correct tim, the Bucc could and did carry the sidewinder.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 3, 2010)

intheresting from wiki:

_The small wing of the Buccaneer was suited to high-speed flight at low level. Such a wing, however, did not generate the lift that was essential for low-speed carrier operations. Therefore, the wing and horizontal stabiliser were "blown" by bleeding compressor gas from the engine through surface vents. A consequence of the blown wing was that the engines were required to run at high power for low-speed flight in order to generate sufficient compressor gas for blowing. Blackburn's solution to this situation was to provide a large air brake. The tail cone was formed from two leaves that could be hydraulically opened into the airstream to decelerate the aircraft_

i didnt know about the 'blown" effect.


Compressor gas blowing ... air breaks and engine at high power for low speed ... hmmmm
,



.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2010)

Buccaneer was hefty piece of machinery, weighting (empty) some 20% more then A-6, but with about same wing area.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 3, 2010)

Yes the blown wing was a very advanced feature that gave excellent low speed control and with it the Bucc was a much more effective aircraft than it otherwise would have been. This same feature was later used to give the TSR 2 STOL capability despite its tiny delta wing when everyone else seemed to be using heavy and complex VG mechanisms (including us a few years later, ironically)

The following quote goes rather well with the pic below it 



> The legend goes that the Buccaneer can actually ride on its own shock wave at low level, and naturally stays at the height where the pressure from the wave counteracts any tendency to drop lower!



]







More Bucc info....

Thunder Lightnings - Blackburn Buccaneer - History


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 3, 2010)

Waynos said:


> ]



Did it drop bombs on people - or just run them over?


----------



## Butters (Mar 3, 2010)

I don't remember the entire A-6 fleet being grounded for over a year while they tried to figure out how to keep the wings from falling off, either.

If you want to fly 1000 mi screaming along at 100 ft and drop a nuke, the Buc is your baby. But if want to carry a honking big load of bombs night and day in any weather and drop them exactly where you want them, the A-6E is better.

JL


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 3, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Buccaneer was hefty piece of machinery, weighting (empty) some 20% more then A-6, but with about same wing area.


I think the Buccaneer incorporated alot of steel in it's airframe


----------



## Butters (Mar 3, 2010)

The F-4 also used BLC.

JL


----------



## Waynos (Mar 3, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Did it drop bombs on people - or just run them over?



Neither, I think it stabbed them


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2010)

The picture is awesome. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 3, 2010)

Butters said:


> If you want to fly 1000 mi screaming along at 100 ft and drop a nuke, the Buc is your baby. But if want to carry a honking big load of bombs night and day in any weather and drop them exactly where you want them, the A-6E is better.
> 
> JL



Not sure why the dig at the Bucc was necessary, nobody is attacking the A-6. Maybe if the A-6 had operated in the Bucc's low level regime it might have suffered from fatigue too, we don't know.

What we do know is that the Bucc did exactly what you just described at the end of that post during GW1, delivering LGB's from medium and high altitude for no losses.

The A-6 carried either the same, or slightly more, ordnance than the Bucc depending on the source, range was greater, but as the Bucc fully met the RN requirement it was designed for this shouldn't be an issue.

Another little anecdote is that during his deternined, and ultimately sucessful, assassination attempt on the TSR 2, Lord Louis Mountbattenm, a committed Navy man of course, developed the trick, demonstrated to the Aussies amongst others, of marching in to the negotiations for overseas sales of the BAC aircraft armed with a handfull of picture cards. Five of them showed Buccaneers and one the TSR 2, he would slap them on the table saying 'five of these or one of those'. The message was clear. It never won an order for the Bucc, but it didn't do BAC any favours either. 

Like I said, I can't exactly say which one is better, only that I prefer the Buccaneer, but dont take praise of one aircraft as a personal slight on the other, its all just friendly chat.

edit; this thread has reminded me of an awesome video clip I saw a while ago, I think it featured an A-6, where a USN guy was actually pulled into the air intake while it was on the deck. As far as I was told the guy survived but still, it was a shocking sight.


----------



## Glider (Mar 3, 2010)

The Buccaneer for me as it could do everything the A6 could but the A6 couldn't do everything the Buccaneer did. Re the payload the max was 16,000 LB and 4,000lb initernal load.
In its time the only thing that could catch a Bucc on the deck was the F111 nothing else and they were equipped with sidewinders in the last years of its life. During the first Gulf War the Buccaneer was one of the few aircraft where one aircraft could both laser the target and drop the bomb. Most aircraft had to have one aircraft to use the laser and a second to drop the bomb.

Its worth noting that the Buccaneer had a longer range and a higher cruising speed than the Tornado which was no slouch in this area. The Bucc also had a better range payload figure.

Edit The A6 did suffer from wing fatigue


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> The Buccaneer for me as it could do everything the A6 could but the A6 couldn't do everything the Buccaneer did. Re the payload the max was 16,000 LB and 4,000lb initernal load.
> In its time the only thing that could catch a Bucc on the deck was the F111 nothing else and they were equipped with sidewinders in the last years of its life.



I would guess the 104 would be a very real challenge for the Bucc to catch on the deck


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 3, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I would guess the 104 would be a very real challenge for the Bucc to catch on the deck



Yep!


----------



## Glider (Mar 4, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I would guess the 104 would be a very real challenge for the Bucc to catch on the deck



Nope, equipped for war which is what counts, it would be left far behind. It would also run out of juice before it got very far and I hate to think of the gust responce at the sort of altitudes we are talking about. Best guess would be the 104 jockey going to the dentist to get his fillings replaced.

As for payload lets not go there.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> Nope, equipped for war which is what counts, it would be left far behind. It would also run out of juice before it got very far and I hate to think of the gust responce at the sort of altitudes we are talking about. Best guess would be the 104 jockey going to the dentist to get his fillings replaced.
> 
> As for payload lets not go there.


 The only point I'll agree on is payload and range as for the rest speed down low you've stated the Bucc was fastest I disagree . I'll get back on track and state the Bucc was a better aircraft then the A6 IMHO


----------



## Waynos (Mar 4, 2010)

maybe the bucc would let the F104 go, then drop a bomb on it when it landed for fuel, assuming the 104 didn't just crash all by itself. 

Joking aside, Butters correctly mentioned that US types also used BLC. Indeed the USA is where it originated from. Where the Bucc was different was that the whole of the wing and tail were blown, allowing the aircraft to be used from British carriers and still have world class capability.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 4, 2010)

Did the Bucc have "all weather" capacity? The A6 did and used it pretty well. 

I remember reading about an A6 BN who was with a Marine Unit in Vietnam. At least I think it was a Marine unit and not a grounded Navy VA Squadron. Anyway, this guy was assigned to an A6 driver who's BN had gone home. The pilot had plenty of experience going North. He taught the BN to hit the IP, do the Bomb Run and Drop Bombs all inside of 30 seconds. Might have even been 15 seconds. Used to do the whole mission, from takeoff to landing at low level and pop up only for the actual bomb run. 

And the whole thing was done at night. 

Not sure if the Bucc had that capacity.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 4, 2010)

Wanye, that is one very cool picture.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> Nope, equipped for war which is what counts, it would be left far behind. It would also run out of juice before it got very far and I hate to think of the gust responce at the sort of altitudes we are talking about. Best guess would be the 104 jockey going to the dentist to get his fillings replaced.
> 
> As for payload lets not go there.




The 104 "G" on the deck is waaaay faster than the Buc - BUT it’s not going to carry the same load and will not have the same legs. The 104G, had deck dash speeds in excess of 600 knots and depending on the bomb it was carrying and can go mach on the deck. One of our guys who used to fly F-4s and was stationed in Europe in the 1980s told me as far as he knew the fastest "deck" planes were the -111, 104 and the F-4 Recce version (which he flew). He knew of the Buc being fast on the deck but he felt the -111, F-104 and F-4 Recces were faster....

With all that said, I have to go with the Buc, but just barely. From my reading the A-6E could carry a bit more payload, but the Spey powered Bucs were more powerful although they didn't have the range of the A-6E.. I think the A-6 would be easier to land on a carrier but the internal bomb bay is a great advantage at low level.

It would be great to find someone who flew both and did carrier landings.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2010)

Think that we could insert the 1st 'golden' plane, A-5 Vigilante, as something that was really fast on deck. And it was carrier-borne, too, with BLC installed.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2010)

Waynos said:


> maybe the bucc would let the F104 go, then drop a bomb on it when it landed for fuel, assuming the 104 didn't just crash all by itself.
> 
> .



I guess the same could said with more emphasis about the EE Lighting except the Lightning didn't play down low


----------



## Waynos (Mar 4, 2010)

has there already been a lightning v F-104 thread? Or would it be too unfair on the Starfighter to try that comparison? m


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2010)

Waynos said:


> has there already been a lightning v F-104 thread? Or would it be too unfair on the Starfighter to try that comparison? m



Depends in what role.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 4, 2010)

tbh fbj i was being tongue in cheek with the 'unfair' comment. Even though the Lightning is really much better, lol,. But really, have we got such a threadN if not maybe one of us could start one. And take the subject a bit more seriously than I have so far.


----------



## Butters (Mar 4, 2010)

It wasn't really my intent to take a dig at the Buc (which I've already said is an excellent a/c) as to point out a major design fault that seriously affected its combat effectiveness for well over a year, and also resulted in a third of the fleet never returning to service. We are, after all, supposedly comparing and judging the 2 a/c, not just extolliing their relative merits, many as both a/c clearly had.I'm also aware that the A-6 had wing fatigue problems, but not to the point that the fleet had to be grounded in its entirety.

The A-6 was a pioneer in all-weather, day/nite precision strike, and IIRC, was the first a/c to successfully use laser-guided bombs (A bridge or bridges in N Viet Nam, I think) in combat. it was also transformed into a hugely effective EW platform, and while it's quite possible that the same could have been done with the Buc, the fact remains that it was not. 

Had the proposed supersonic version of the Buc been produced and matched expectations, then I would concede victory to the Buc, but absent that, I just don't feel the the performance edge of the Buc outweighs the more practical advantages in range, payload, avionics, and versatility possessed by the Intruder. And again, that takes nothing away from the fact that the Buc was a superlative long range attack bomber.

BTW, have you guys ever seen this poetic tribute to the Intruder?

'Low Flight' ~ Anonymous

"Oh! I've slipped through swirling clouds of dust, a few feet from the dirt.
I've flown the Intruder low enough to make my bottom hurt.
I've SRTC'd the desert, hills and valley, mountains, too.
Frolicked in the trees, where only flying squirrels flew.
Chased the frightened cows along, disturbed the ram and ewe,
and done a hundred other things, that you'd only care to do.
I've smacked the tiny sparrow, bluebird, robin, all the rest.
I've ingested baby eagles, simply sucked them from their nest.
I've streaked through total darkness, just the other guy and me,
and spent the night in terror of things I could not see.
I've turned my eyes to heaven, as I sweated through the flight,
put out my tired hand and touched The Master Caution Light."

JL


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 4, 2010)

Waynos said:


> tbh fbj i was being tongue in cheek with the 'unfair' comment. Even though the Lightning is really much better, lol,. But really, have we got such a threadN if not maybe one of us could start one. And take the subject a bit more seriously than I have so far.


I'm not really familiar with the use of the 104 as an interceptor all my knowledge is on the strike fighter version . Sorry to infer the that the Holy Grail of Brit aircraft was a dog


----------



## Butters (Mar 4, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I'm not really familiar with the use of the 104 as an interceptor all my knowledge is on the strike fighter version . Sorry to infer the that the Holy Grail of Brit aircraft was a dog



 Gracious! You know that a gentleman never mentions the..um...'endearing idiosyncracies' of the 'world beater' Lightning or Harrier when in the company of the British.

For shame, sir!

JL


----------



## red admiral (Mar 4, 2010)

The Buccaneer fleet was grounded after quite a long time, not when it was just starting to see service. In service from 1962 but fatigue problems starting to appear in 1980 doesn't sound too bad. You've got to factor in that most operations were at low level, with consequent increase in stress. Much higher stresses operating at 500ft and below compared to the A-6 cruising around 30,000ft. The fatigue issue certainly wasn't so much of a problem as with other period aircraft.

Saying the Bucc is bad from lack of a dedicated EW version doesn't make sense. The RAF has never had such an aircraft, instead relying on individual aircraft carrying ECM pods.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 4, 2010)

I remember reading that the bucc was only given a sidewinder to give the crew moral fibre rather than a real air weapon.

Best defence was get on the deck and run.

Saw a Bucc at an airshow. It came in very low and fast...rock steady it was. Like on rails. The most impressive low level flyby I ever did see.

Saw a pix of a scrapped Bucc and they weren't lying when they said it was solidly built. The fuselage was a giant box of thick metal. I will see if I can find it.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 4, 2010)

pbfoot/butters.......lol, touche guys


----------



## Waynos (Mar 4, 2010)

Its horses for course isn't it, and thats why both sides of the argument are of course right, in their own way. For instance if the RN had operated the A-6 we might have thought it an awful choice, but only because it would have to be winched onto a British carrier by crane, there to remain until winched off again 

One of Blackburns early designs for the M148T requirement was similar to the A-6 with a large shoulder wing with fuselage mounted engines slung underneath and a blunt nose with side by side seating. So it obviously has merit 

PS butters. great poem, loved it.

timshatz, I don't think any naval aircraft would be much use without all weather capability, especially anywhere near the UK.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 5, 2010)

Waynos said:


> timshatz, I don't think any naval aircraft would be much use without all weather capability, especially anywhere near the UK.



Good point. Probably the home of zero vis flying.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2010)

On a related note, Wiki says Buccaneer was the 1st operational plane that fielded a HUD. Certainly easing pilot's workload.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 8, 2010)

on the speed some writed thae Buc is faster of Tornado at SL afaik Tornado is 40% faster


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2010)

How fast the Tornado could fly with weapons and/or drop tanks attached, on sea level?


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 8, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> How fast the Tornado could fly with weapons and/or drop tanks attached, on sea level?



idk but surely slowest that w/o, but the internal load of Buc was small so that advantage was limited for mission with small load

p.s. just find a article, talk of speed of .92 Mach at 60 meters with external bomb load (not specified)


----------



## Waynos (Mar 10, 2010)

Tornado is only faster than Buccaneer at low level when completely clean, ie useless, as it carries everything externally. The Buccaneer has a better transonic drag profile than the Tornado so although the overall top speed is much lower, the transonic drag rise at low level is far less severe with the Buccaneer, the Buccaneer was faster with four sea Eagles under the wings at low level than the Tornado is when carrying two of them plus two hindenburgers (which is its max and another advantage of the Bucc)

The buccaneer could carry a 4,000lb load internally and bomb a target for which the Tornado would have to carry the four bombs under the fuselage and, again, two hindenburgers on the inner pylons to match the range and would cruise about 100kt slower.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 10, 2010)

i can ask what's the source?

my source it's a article on Aerei (a italian review)


----------



## Waynos (Mar 11, 2010)

My source is only 'recieved wisdom', nothing specifically written down I'm afraid, so feel free to dismiss it. Indeed as I searched for written evidence I started to wonder if it was a case of 'Tornado envy' 

I have found written sources for other limitiations of the Tornado when compared to the Buccaneer, but not yet on this speed issue, so I withdraw it. At least unltil I turn something up.


----------

