Was FAA Buccaneer necessary post F-4K?

[Admiral Beez]

Given the small CAG on HMS Ark Royal, could the Buccaneer's intended mission be handled by the Phantom FG.1? A single type CAG plus Gannet AEW and rotaries would offer benefits.

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, the Buccaneer was possibly the best low level strike platform of its era, so the Phantom FG.1 is not going to do a better job, but can it do a good enough job? Presumably the later Phantoms would be configured for the Sea Eagle missile, same as the Buccaneer.

 

[ThomasP]

In a crude operational sense, yes, but . . .

The Phantom FG.1 airframe/aerodynamics would have issues with constant low altitude flying, at least in comparison (probably) with the Buccaneer. Reduced range/increased fuel usage might have been an issue also.

Low altitude flight is normally significantly more stressful to an airframe than high altitude flight - to the point where the airframes can be used up 2 - 3 times as quickly

I am not familiar enough with the Phantom and Buccaneer fuel usage to figure what the practical high-low-high or low-low-low mission profile range with x amounts of fuel and ordnance would be. Amount of fuel carried on the RN carriers might have a significant impact on the number of sorties between replenishment, but how much effect this would have operationally in the 1960s-70s RN environment I do not know.

 

[EwenS]

One mission for the Buccaneer was the delivery of British nuclear weapons.

AIUI neither the Phantom FG.1 nor FGR.2 was ever cleared for these. The RAF FGR.2 allocated to the nuclear strike role in RAF Germany (RAFG) in the early 1970s were equipped with US B43 / B57 nuclear bombs previously carried by the Canberra force. Their successor was the Jaguar with British WE.177.

Buccaneer began life with the Red Beard nuclear weapon as its principal strike weapon which was carried in 5 carriers (34 such weapons were produced for the RN AIUI). Red Beard was withdrawn from service around 1971. It's successor for the RN was intended to be WE.177A, production of which was begun in Jan 1969. By then there had been a change of policy and RN Buccaneer never carried that weapon, although RN helicopters did as an AS weapon. RAFG Buccaneers we're equipped with the British WE.177 from service entry. Eagle, Ark Royal, Tiger & Blake from this period all received the facilities to store WE.177A.

The F.4K Phantom FG.1 was entering RN service in 1968/69 just as all these changes were taking place.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What if we skip the Buccaneer mission, and Ark Royal (and Eagle) focus on fleet air defence?

 

[buffnut453]

What if we skip the Buccaneer mission, and Ark Royal (and Eagle) focus on fleet air defence?

Isn't that a self-licking lollipop? What's the point of defending the fleet if you can't project power at long range.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Isn't that a self-licking lollipop? What's the point of defending the fleet if you can't project power at long range.

Getting convoys across the Atlantic against Soviet bombers.

 

[ThomasP]

Was the Buccaneer used for ASW or fleet air defense in secondary roles? (I do not know)

 

[EwenS]

Was the Buccaneer used for ASW or fleet air defense in secondary roles? (I do not know)

Not usually. In theory it could be used to deliver WE.177 as a nuclear depth charge in shallow water, as could Sea Harrier.

By the 1960s ASW was a task for helicopters. Whirlwind HAS.7 followed by Wessex HAS.1/3 and then Sea King, with Wasp on frigates.

Fleet air defence was Sea Vixen & then Phantom FG.1, the latter on Ark Royal only. Then to Sea Harrier FRS.1.

RAF Buccaneers got Sidewinder in the 1970s for self defence.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Was the Buccaneer used for ASW or fleet air defense in secondary roles? (I do not know)

My belief is the Phantom-equipped Audacious class were intended to provide air cover for the Reforger and other convoys against antiship missile-armed Tupolev Tu-95, Tu-22M Backfire and later Tu-160 Blackjacks. With this in mind, might it be best to replace the Buccaneers with more Phantoms? Otherwise there's at least eight spots taken below for aircraft that can't defend the fleet against air threats.

To be fair, the Buccaneer could refuel the Phantoms, to allow for longer CAP. But is there any reason the refueling tank and drogue could not go on the Gannet or another Phantom?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What was planned to replace the Scimitar on the Centaur class? The Phantom below must have been tricky to land on the max 28 knot and small HMS Hermes.

 

[EwenS]

Scimitar replacement was the Buccaneer for strike with Sea Vixen being the sole all weather fighter until a successor was found. That was to have been P.1154 which was replaced by Phantom.

By the time the Phantom came to be considered as the future fighter for the RN it was only Hermes, Eagle and CVA-01 and subsequent ships that were in the frame to operate it. And Hermes was considered marginal due to its size. Take of weight would be limited, so reducing time on CAP or requiring a refuelling after launch. That was proved in the trials. The photo in the above post dates to 1963.

By the mid 1960s the air groups envisaged for the RN carriers at the end of the decade and beyond were Buccaneers and Phantoms I.e CVA-01.

Bulwark & Albion became commando carrier's in the early 1960s, ending their conventional carrier lives with Sea Hawk and Sea Venom. Centaur was upgraded to operate Scimitar / Sea Vixen but was withdrawn in 1965, never being upgraded for Buccaneer. Victorious was cut early in 1967.

 

[EwenS]

British carrier aviation in the 1960s and 1970s - the short version.

1960
Britain had 5 strike carriers that it intended to maintain, at least short term.

Victorious - reconstruction completed 1/58. Planned out of service date 1972
Centaur - refitted 8/60-3/61. Intended as a carrier to provide cover while one of the others is in refit. Planned out of service date 1973
Eagle - major refit 10/59-5/64. Planned out of service date 1973
Ark Royal - refit 7/58-12/59. Planned out of service date 1975
Hermes - completed 11/59. Planned out of service date 1980

Those ships in service were operating Scimitar & Sea Vixen with Wessex HAS.7 for AS work and Skyraider AEW.1. Replacements already in the pipeline were Buccaneer S.1 (for Scimitar from 1961 with development of the S.2 begun in 1960 for service entry around 1964), Gannet AEW.3 (for Skyraider) and Wessex HAS.1 (for Whirlwind HAS.7).

Bulwark - converted to a commando carrier 11/58-1/60
Albion - Converted to commando carrier 1/61-8/62. Planned out of service date 1974.

Anything older (Colossus / Majestic class) was scheduled for disposal by sale or scrapping. Only Triumph survived, being converted to a repair ship for service in the Far East between 1956 & 1965 (delayed due to greater priorities elsewhere).

New carriers.
In 1960 the plan was to maintain 5 carriers going forward and work was underway on what would become the CVA-01 design. In 1963 the number of new ships fell to 4 and then 3. Centaur would go without replacement (she was reduced to accomodation ship status 9/65). CVA-01 would replace Victorious & Ark Royal in 1972/3 and (hopefully!) CVA-02 & CVA-03 wuld come along to replace Hermes & Eagle during the 1970s. The CVA-01 design was signed off for contruction by the RN in 1/66 only for the 2/66 Defence Review to can the whole project.

New aircraft.
In 1961/62 a joint RAF/RN P.1154 VSTOL aircraft was selected as the replacement for Sea Vixen in 1961. But by 1963/64 RN interest had moved to the F-4 Phantom. Initially the order was to be for about 150 Spey engined F-4K to be delivered from 1967, but this was eventually cut back to 48, being enough for 2 operational squadrons and a traiining squadron (see below for reasons).

Politics (and economics)
10/64 saw a new Labour Govt elected (and re-elected again in 3/66 with an increased majority). That heralded a Defence Review (which had been on the cards anyway). Then there were devaluations of the £ in 1967 & 1968 and more Defence Reviews. So with defence cuts in prospect there was huge inter-service rivalry for what funds were available.

One outcome of the Defence Reviews was the decision to withdraw from East of Suez to concentrate on Britain's NATO commitments. Aden 11/67 and finally Singapore in 1971. They also saw a number of major projects cancelled. TSR.2, the new RAF strike aircraft, was cancelled in April 1965 and F-111K was to be purchased in their place to save money! The RAF were believed when they claimed that British commitments in the Far East could be covered by F-111K. That reduced the need for carriers hence the cancellation of CVA-01 in 1966 and led to the run down of the RN strike carrier fleet. Then F-111K was cancelled in Jan 1968.

1967 onwards
So by 1967, Centaur was gone, and the carrier plan revolved around maintaining Ark Royal & Eagle into the 1970s as strike carriers with Phantoms & Buccaneers. Advantage was taken of a relatively minor fire in Victorious while she was refitting in 1967 to pay her off as a cost saving measure. Hermes, which by then everyone had decided could not operate F-4K, was to run on until 6/70 with Sea Vixen & Buccaneer. At that point she was to undergo conversion to a commando carrier (with a secondary ASW capability) which completed 8/73, while Albion was paid off for disposal 11/72.

Then in 1970 a new Conservative Govt came to power and reviewed the position again in the light of Britain's still deteriorating economic position. There was then not enough money in the pot to give Eagle a Phantomisation refit, despite the cost being relatively little and her having better electronics than Ark and being in a generally better material condition. So Eagle paid off 1/72.

Ark Royal underwent her Phantomisation refit 10/67-2/70 and remained as a strike carrier until the end of her days the last aircraft left her 11/78. During that period she helped cover for a reduced USN strike carrier presence in the Eastern Atlantic due to their commitments to the Vietnam War and the run-down of the Essex class CVA/CV fleet, especially in the first half of that decade.

Protection of shipping in the Atlantic
AB you seem to be thinking about protection of the Atlantic convoys of reinforcements in WW2 terms i.e. close escort of covoys requiring CAP and ASW cover. That was not Cold War strategy.

In the 1970s and 1980s the objective was to strike the enemy as far forward as possible i.e take the fight to the Soviets in their own back yard rather than wait until they broke out into the North Atlantic. For that the need was for strike carriers not CAP carriers. So Ark as a strike carrier to augment the US supercarriers made complete sense.

There were 2 naval exercise series -
Ocean Safari (run in odd numbered years) in the Norwegian Sea testing the ability of NATO forces to prevent the Soviet Northern Fleet breaking out into the Atlantic and at the same time supporting land operations in Norway against Soviet invasion. The latter was something that 3 Commando Brigade trained for in both summer & winter conditions.

Northern Wedding (run in even numbered years) testing the ability of NATO to prevent a breakout of the Soviet Baltic Fleet into the North Sea.

That strategy was why there was so much emphasis on Cold War operations in the Greenland, Iceland, UK Gap (GIUK Gap) area. Stop Soviet ships and aircraft as near to source as possible.

Ark Royal was also used in southern Europe / Med exercises supporting amphibious landings.

As for the issue of protection of the fleet and shipping in the north-eastern Atlantic, that effort was shifted to the RAF with the run down of the RN carrier fleet. The F-4K Phantom FG.1 not required by the RN were handed over to the RAF. 43 squadron was equipped with them from 9/69 and became operational 7/70 at RAF Leuchars in Fife. At that time it was the sole Phantom squadron in an otherwise Lightning equipped Fighter Command. With the aid of air to air refuelling it was supposed to provide air cover over the north eastern Atlantic. 1971 then saw 12 Shackleton MR.2 converted to AEW.2 to provide enhanced radar cover over those waters. When 892 Phantom squadron came ashore between deployments on Ark Royal, it too was based at Leuchars. The next dedicated air defence RAF Phantom FGR.2 squadron was 111 (earlier RAF squadrons to equip with the FGR.2 were dedicated to the strike and recce roles in UK and Germany pending the arrival of Jaguar GR.1, after which they went to the air defence squadrons). Formed 10/74 it moved to Leuchars 11/75. When the RN gave up its Phantom FG.1 in 1978/79 it re-equipped with those aircraft in the interests of standardisation on the base.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Very informative. Had Eagle been updated and both Audacious class kept into the late 1980s, would we see FAA interest in the F/A-18? It could replace both the Phantom and Bucc.

 

[EwenS]

Very informative. Had Eagle been updated and both Audacious class kept into the late 1980s, would we see FAA interest in the F/A-18? It could replace both the Phantom and Bucc.

In a word, no.

F/A-18A/B Hornet entered service with the USMC & USN in 1983 and 1984 respectively but did not deploy on a carrier until Aug 1985. Any "what if" RN scenario involving them would be later still.

Time for a reality check re these old ships. They had been laid down in 1942/43. Eagle completed 1951. Ark completed in 1955. So by 1979 you are looking at ships designed in a previous era that were 35-40 years old. Ark Royal was not in a good condition when Phantomised in 1967-70. She was kept going by stripping parts from Eagle and other ships of that generation. This from someone serving on her at the end in 1978 who had also been on Eagle at the end of her life in 1972:-

"...Eagle was in a better material state when she paid off, particularly between decks, than Ark Royal.......It was very hard work for the marine engineers to keep the ship running....she would have to have completed another extensive refit to have kept her going."

Their radars and electronics were outdated, Ark's more so than Eagle in the early 1970s. So would all have needed replaced. Ark Royal's complement after 1970 was 2,640 including those to fly & maintain her airgroups. When recruitment was difficult just how do you persuade people to join up to live in crowded conditions in ships not up the then current standards of modernity let alone those expected in another 10+ years. CVA-01 could have accomodated up to 3,230 under wartime conditions to the latest standards of habitability with full air conditioning to tropical (but not Persian Gulf) standards and with a larger airgroup.

With hindsight and better planning, the money spent on Ark in the late 1960s would have been better spent on Eagle. But the refit sequence was all out of synch for that to happen.

And you have to look at the whole direction that the RN took from the mid-1960s. The big strike carriers necessary for an East of Suez policy were not going to be replaced anytime soon. Instead the focus became anti-submarine warfare in the GIUK Gap in NATO. So the line of development that RN carriers took emerged from the various helicopter carrying ASW "escort cruiser" proposals of the early 1960s (with Tiger & Blake and Hermes & Bulwark in their ASW guise as interim place holders) into the Invincible class whose sketch design was approved in 1970 and the lead ship ordered in 1973 to enter service in 1980. The term "carrier" was a dirty word in political circles at the time so these ships began life as "through deck cruisers". While Invincible was still on the slips it was decided to acquire the BAe Sea Harrier FRS.1 and the ski-jump improved its capabilities. The ancestor of the Sea Harrier, the P.1127, had been landed on Ark Royal as far back as 1963.

And Britain's financial woes only got worse in the 1970s. A new Conservative Govt in 1979 faced some tough choices and that led to the Nott Defence Review of 1981. Tiger had already been taken out of service in 1978 with Blake following in 1979. Bulwark suffered a fire in 1980 that damaged her machinery and it was not repaired before she was laid up in 1981. Had it not been for the Falklands War, Invincible would have been sold to Australia. Hermes and Illustrious would then have been the carrier fleet until a new Ark Royal (v) arrived when Hermes would have been sold/scrapped.

By the mid-1950s none of the WW2 era carriers were suitable for operating the coming generation of aircraft. If Britain was to have stayed in the conventional fixed wing carrier game the decisions about new ships needed to have been taken then. By the mid-1960s Britain's economic woes made replacement next to impossible.

 

[GreenKnight121]

By the time the Phantom came to be considered as the future fighter for the RN it was only Hermes, Eagle and CVA-01 and subsequent ships that were in the frame to operate it. And Hermes was considered marginal due to its size. Take of weight would be limited, so reducing time on CAP or requiring a refuelling after launch. That was proved in the trials. The photo in the above post dates to 1963.

The picture caption in Hermes' 1963 cruise booklet says "practice roller landings" - "touch & goes" in USN terminology.
Not arrested landings, practice roller landings. No launches were performed, as the F-4Bs never stopped aboard (nor were they craned on).
The T&Gs were conducted off Subic Bay, Philippines.