Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the Buccaneer incorporated alot of steel in it's airframe
A-6 vs Buccaneer
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Butters
Senior Airman
The F-4 also used BLC.
JL
JL
- Thread starter
- #24
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.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
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
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
Last edited:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I would guess the 104 would be a very real challenge for the Bucc to catch on the deck
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep!
Glider
Captain
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
1st Lieutenant
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
- Thread starter
- #35
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
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
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
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
Senior Airman
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
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
