Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html Please click the link to watch our other British Systems videos ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrA_rFwr_1Gk4JBymGPNxSJ.html Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Air videos videosua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lpl6SQpA2WBti_WsykOgtgy.html
Buccaneer take-off procedure: Throttle up Brakes off V1 Rotate Gear up Descend to cruising altitude... Yes, I know it's old, but so am I. One of my all time favourite British planes, along with the Hunter.
One of the most impressive aircraft to see up close, the main gear especially looked like it was built in a shipyard. A personal favourite and a red flag hero 🚩
@@hughgordon6435 with the Vixen and Canberra the nav/weapons system operators were kept in a cosy little hole in the fuselage. The Buccaneer not only gave them a proper rear seat, it thoughtfully staggered both crew to give our brave rear seater a view of the hill/tree/bridge/ship up ahead as they screamed along at 450 knots.
When I was (much) younger I would climb in North Wales. Here you could climb the crags and look down on Buccs, among other aircraft such as Jaguars and Phantoms flying at speed along the valley well below you. The most impressive and nearest to the ground were the Buccs, to see them negotiating the contours at crazy low level is something I shall never forget.
I love the Buc, and spent a small fortune building a large scale one a few years back, and in the course of building it I came across a few stories about this beast . One of the lesser known facts about the Buc's low flying is that at very low level it benefit from Ground effect with air building up below the wings created a cushion making it a very stable at 50 feet or so, allowing it to be flown hands off (Very briefly) A Buc pilot was asked very informally "so just how low can you guys go", after looking round he said it depended on how round the sea was m but it it was smooth he's see 12 feet off the surface at 500Knots - higher if it was rough !
I heard from a RAF Buccaneer pilot that the tandem seats were actually offset left and right a little so the rear seat could still have some front view, I would say it's definitely a step up from the suitcase closet on the sea vixen... I love this bird so much, it is a low level attack aircraft, it is huge, it is capable of bringing plenty hurt, and it is iconic looking, they should have named it raven... cause it already looks the part... mean, menacing and slick... a pair of black ones would totally fit to be called Huginn and Muninn...
As a USN Electronic Warfare Tech, in a wargame that included many nations including UK, my ship captain asked me, 'Where are the buccaneers?' My instinctual response might have been, 'Under the buccan hat, sir!' but what I actually said was the indicated bearing to their radar. :)
What a fantastic aircraft, I’m biased as I used to work on them, making the flight refuelling probe and the arrester hook at Hawker Siddely aviation Brough, East Yorkshire.
These things were unbeatable at low level, I have been on the receiving end of a "Bucc" attack at sea many times. I have stood on the bridge wing of a frigate and looked DOWN into the cockpit of the one flying past, on some attacks they would have to pull UP to clear the foc'sle of a frigate. Awesome machines with bonkers pilots. They regularly used to completely bamboozle US air defences in Red Flag exercises.
Somewhere there is a classified american debrief ..... the bucks were sent in on simulated attacks, came back with mission accomplished!, The yanks had not seen them, radar ,mmk1 eyeball, Nadal, and were highly sceptical( to say the least, so the jolly tars did it again. Same results. Yanks made them do it a third time, so fairs fair the Navy did it again, giving details of time over target,waypoints and turning points, suffice to say there were radar trucks everywhere along the route, however the only sighting on the whole exercise was a tail fin (a la Jaws) behind a desert dune. When all was said and done the yanks realised the bucks were actually flying BELOW ground level using the terrain! I believe there is television footage of the tail fin being seen!. The yanks really, really disliked the fact that the uk could beat ALL air defences of the homeland, the vulcans simulated nuking America Twice, and for many years the official Christmas card to the president was a high attitude photo recon photo 9f the white House, never detected!!! That the real reason the Canberra was bought under license
@@hughgordon6435 There is more than 1 story I have from my own time in the Navy where we comprehensively embarrassed the USN. They may have the numbers and the equipment but we (UK) got the brains.
I recently subscribed after I realized I hadn't already been while watching a video. I rectified that quickly! This channel is fantastic and I was surprised there weren't more subs. Also, if there isn't a video on the F-8 Crusader yet I'd love to see one. It is one of my favorite Cold War aircraft along with the beautiful Buccaneer. Something about both of those planes makes them look fast.
In ATC at Akrotiri in the early eighties, a Bucc came back from a mission (can't say where to). We informed the pilot that something was trailing from behind the aircraft. "Probably a telephone wire" was the answer we got!
i was used as a 'target' by a buccaneer when sailing on the Clyde back in the early 80s - i was the only small craft for miles and he came from the north over Kilcreggan and zeroed in on me and came down to about 500feet!! - i could clearly see the pilot in his flight gear and chanced a wave which was returned - ahh - i love the smell of jet blast in the afternoon!!! 😁😁😁
@@fouloleron2002 overflying highly populated civilian area!!! - pilot was behaving himself (a bit!!!) - when on the estuary flying down towards the north channel he stayed low.
I saw the South African ones at airshows a few times. They always demonstrated the air t air refueling, and the flypast with 4 red painted bombs in the open bomb bay was also impressive. But that airbrake is very very impressive.
My father( + family) moved to South Africa in 1968 to work at Waterkloof AB as an advisor to the SAAF after they bought a number of Buccaneers, he was working for Ferranti at the time. It was the best time of my life I went to PBHS.
A couple of importantthings youmissedfromwhat is a very informative and acurate vid, the bucaneer is designed to "area rule" conseptswhich mean apart from the nose and tail a cross section anywhere along the body has the same area which provides superior performance at trans sonic speeds the Bucaneer flys at. Also it is probably the foremost "toss bomber", being renown fordropping itsbombs on target with this unique manover which untill demonstrated was acomplete mystery to the Americans. the Bucaneer wouldfly in below radar and shortly before arriving at the target it would soar skyward release the bomb which wouldtr avel uuntill gravity over took it and drop odwn on the target, meanwhile the bucaneer would role out and depart inthe direction it cme from, the onl register on the enemies radar wouldbe the bomb incoming, this is how it would delivera nuke and escape the devastation, worked equally well with convential bombs.It was not a fast, mach plus aircraft,it didn;t need to be, quite the contrary, it needed to be a stable weapons platform and it was as stable as a concrete plinth, quite frankly it was as near as anyone is ever going to get to perfect design by the paramitters required. It was capable and effective and outlivedits service perameterslike so many other UKaircraft of the era,ieVulcans and Lightnings two aircraft who's capabilities and performances have prooven difficult to surmount in modern times.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I didn#t say they knew nothing about toss bombing, the were doubfounderd on the excersice at the time when the payload arrived on radar and absolutely no idea where it had been launched from, simmilar to when vulcans nuke the USA twice, the olnly plane in the sky were two flights of Vulcans and every fighter intercepter the US could muster. the amaricans had to bre instructed on the mnouvers so they could for addequate defenses, that what excersises are for.
The two that overflew British Honduras (now Belize) in 1972 carried no munitions because they were launched from such distance they had to carry more than normal fuel load to get there and back . Even using airborne refuelling after launch and before recovery . Read PHOENIX SQAUDRON by Rowland White . Fantastic book about just that mission and build up to it . British history classic !
@@warrensuddick5737 HMS Eagle completed her last deployment 2 days before this mission and was being decommissioned at Portsmouth . It was hoped this demonstration of airpower would save her . But alas not .
@@warrensuddick5737 Hi Warren was just about to reply when i saw u had . Obviously ur interested in the subject . You must read Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White . Utterly riveting book and UK history classic . The Phantom squadron on Ark Royal wanted to do an overfly after the Buccaneers but were denied permission . The job was done according to UK government . Snd so it was . It was hoped this demo of naval airpower would save Eagle from decommissioning . But alas not . Eagle only operated Phantom for trials in 1969 . Her flight deck was not fully modified for them . But she was otherwise a much better ship than Ark Royal .
Nice vid. I remember as a kid a mini series, sort of an early reality show, where they followed RAF trainees. Some got assigned to buccaneers and jaguars, they were sort of the second best pilots (the best got fighters).
How bloody close to the waterline did they fly, as a ex navy gunner myself I would of found them hard to make out flying that low, and 996 radar would have struggled that low
However low you think it might have flown, it flew lower than that. There is a short film of a pair practicing attack on HMS Liverpool or Glasgow (?) as the second one takes off you can see the automatic undercarriage react and the Buccaneer actually drops slightly. One of the few videos with added music that I actually like. Then look at aircrew interviews with Buccaneer pilots talking about Red Flag. The USA had F-15s and all the latest kit and were looking at the RAF with these slightly vintage aircraft. The Buccaneers flew that low that they revised and flew higher as they were throwing up rooster tails. A great few interviews. Then the Imperial War Museum did an absolutely imbecilic film about Buccaneers.
Believe as little as 6ft . If u read Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White (this book is a must for Ark Royal fleet air arm or British History enthusiasts ) u will discover that on the US Atlantic fleet weapon ranges Buccs flew under telegraph wires over Puerto Rico .!
@@xlbubblehead2505 Sorry, the film I was thinking about was HMS Liverpool. Still, I should imagine your experience was similar. ua-cam.com/video/lteL18wd15Y/v-deo.html
Evidently they often landed with sea weed on their undersides. One evidently 'harvested' some corn. Opened the bomb bay, flew along the field, closed the bomb bay. It later landed, the pilot opened the bomb bay and out dropped the harvested crop.
The first " SMART BOMB " was dropped from a South African Buccaneer, 414 on the Cuito bridge in 1987. Long before America, or any other nation for that matter. The South Africans performed miracles while under sanctions with what they had. RESPECT!
First smart bombs....as in guided....dated back to WW1. First combat use was in WW2 for TV guided, radio controlled and radar guided air to ground munitions....IR guidance took a little longer to see use, but AIM-9B were used in 1957 over the Taiwan Strait. Laser guidance arrived in 1968 with first use by the USAF....the US was also using TV guided (Walleye), radar guided, IR guided and other guided munitions at the time... Buccaneer in UK service got armed with RF homing missiles and TV guided missiles (Martel) in the 70's and Paveway LGB's as well using Pave Spike... So no....South Africa was nowhere close to dropping the first smart bomb....in fact they were 40+ years late to the party....
Great video. There were 2 versions of the Martel AS.37, the Anti Radar version, and the TV Guided version. YOu only mentioned the ARM version. When a Buccaneer had the Martel, it had a control pod that would take one of the underwing pylons, The guidance pod looked like a drop tank that was installed backwards
Good summary! A few minor points: Too many clips have been stretched from 4:3 into 16:9; the Banana jet was not as unnaturally long and thin as in you show! You might have mentioned the Bucc with its coke-bottle fuselage shape as being one of the best illustrations of the equal are rule for controlling transonic airflow. During the Belize 'bring a bottle war'*, the carrier deployment turned out not to be a deterrent at all. Things only cooled when the army arrived in country together with a detachment of 6 Harrier GR3s. * So called because of the level of partying in various exotic locations at the Queen's expense and nobody at all getting hurt. The flights for Op Pulsator were not over Beirut, they were through Beirut. Apparently flying along the city streets at 480kts and 50ft had quite an effect. Did you know a pair of Buccs was deployed to RAF Port Stanley in the Falklands just after the '82 war to check the feasibility of potential strikes against the Argentine navy and shore targets? They did fine but it was sure a lonely transit down and back from Ascension Island.
What a shame you used metirc units to describe this wonderful beast. I had the privilage of working on Buccs as groundcrew If I remember corretly there was nothing metric about the aircraft. It was built before we joined the EEC and the now EU. So why use this unit of measurement ? I always loved the fact they never really took off they just sped down the runway and lifted the gear. Some German collegues of mine were stunned when I showed them videos of the departure profile. Gone but never forgotten
when the Germans chose the "starfighter" as their maritime attack aircraft? they sent their pilots and planes to Lossiemouth to learn from the best maritime attack operation in the world? so the buccs took them (the germans) out on follow the leader chases? if I remember right, every, EVERY german plane was instantly grounded after all "g" force measurements were off the scale?
Too nice video about Blackburn buccaneer aircraft's which built by British designers as subsonic, for higher altitude also in low altitudes and carries of atomic bombs produced for Royl naval forces also south Africa 🇿🇦..used this aircraft which launched several upgrades during first cold War 🥶.. video clearly explained all characteristics of this British aircraft..thanks (weapon detective) channel for sharing this video
A true legend of an aircraft, once seen one hugging the deck over the M50 near Ross on Wye when they were active it certainly left an impression !!. It looked goog it was good 👍.
A most interesting programme and some wonderful air-to-air video. Thank you. It was a Royal Navy/Royal Air Force aeroplane, i.e., British. Such a shame that all the dimensions you quote are in metric.
Not sure that "flight control computer" isn't a bit overstating an autopilot/autostab unit. Originally a very large box filled mainly with cogs and replaced in the 80s with a much smaller electronics unit.
I am not sure why you are repeating information which is already in a number of Buccaneer programmes on the history of the aircraft. All available on UA-cam
When the RAF were invited over to the US RED FLAG exercises n the late 70s early 80s the British brung over a few old ex Royal Navy strike bombers the Blackburn Buccaneer unknown to the current corp of US Pilots and it's capabilities when the RAF were assigned targets to take out the US fighters jocks went after them and were totally dumbfounded how low the RAF Buccaneers jets hit the deck to avoid enemy Radar and fighter interception the US pilot's couldn't get a lock on thus no Buccaneers were ever air interception in the red flag exercise . two reasons first they weren't trained to fly so low to deal with that type of targets and the radar technology at the time didn't have look down shoot down radar it became such a major concern the pentagon immediately wanted this rectified. US companies that supplied radar to the US Air force's were hard at it developing this radar so you can say the British Buccaneers type of flying prompted changes in the US defense
@@WeaponDetective I meant develop as a channel as it is underrated. You have great content and far too few subscribers. No issues with your materials. They're great. I just wish more people could have the access to them! Keep growing!
Always thought it ironic that a manufacturer that had a very......err....spotty reputation with its ww2 piston engines planes , yet managed to pull off an extremely capable & well liked jet navy plane on its first attempt.
Blackburn managed to make a couple of average aircraft in their time, and the rest were diabolical. They were saved by sub-contract work for other manufacturers and the war... But then...with the last aircraft they built, and only the second jet aircraft they built (and the other was the one off HP.88 test aircraft for the Victor's crescent wing) they absolutely nail it and create one of the best naval aircraft and bomber aircraft ever made...its as if their entire company history had been building to that moment...then they were merged with Hawker Siddeley...
Loved the story about FAA bucks being used by the RAF for a royal demonstration the end of the demonstration the RAF did a low pass whilst rotating the bomber bad, only to reveal big f off dayglo orange FLY NAVY signs!!😮 evidently charlie was seen nudging the air commodore next to him and pointing, with a big grin ! Nd
The RAF should have bought 120-150 Buccaneers in 1964 for dedicated low-level interdiction missions. Its ability to fly at extremely low altitude to hide in the terrain (even lower than the F-111!) would have been a nightmare for Warsaw Pact war planners until at least the middle 1980's.
Though not capable of supersonic speeds it was so streamlined that while flying at low level no supersonic aircraft could catch it. I once met the test pilot who made the first carrier landing. It is quite sometime ago but I think his was one of four aircraft which set out to carry out the landing, but the weather was so bad the other three turned back.
Su-25 is a CAS aircraft. The Buccaneer was a big bomber without an internal gun. they are completely different, even though they have a little bit similar appearances.
the Royal Navy shouldn't have retired multi mission (CATOBAR) aircraft carriers in favour of new light (STOVL) aircraft carrier . . . rather the navy should have operated both the multi mission (CATOBAR) aircraft carriers in parallel with the new light (STOVL) aircraft carrier simultaneously . . . a small fleet of three brand new Audacious class 56,392 ton (63,054 ton loaded) multi mission (CATOBAR) aircraft carrier powered by eU-CMMR® PWR3 iSMARTFuelCellΔ system would have complemented the Centaur class mFuelTurbine® IEP powered 24,698 ton (29,085 ton loaded) light (STOVL) aircraft carrier . . . or the Invincible class mFuelTurbine® IEP powered 18,462 ton (25,000 ton loaded) light (STOVL) aircraft carrier for that matter . . .
@@neilhayz1555 sadly, that's usually the case. then, when the shit hits the fan, the decision-makers look to the services to "Do something!" and send our best off with inferior weapons/systems... 😞
Ok, joke time....... A little boy dresses up as a pirate and proudly shows his dad. Dad - 'Wow! You're a pirate! Where are your buccaneers?" Boy - "On the side of me buckin' head!" I'll see myself out....... :)
That the British Governments of the time replaced this absolutely brilliant aircraft with the inferior Sea Harrier for the Royal Navy and the massively inferior Tornado GR1 for the RAF, was and still is a disgrace.
@@gleggett3817 The Sea Harrier did indeed do the same job as the Buccaneers. The Sea Harrier was wrongly fielded as a multi-role fighter attack aircraft. Replacing the S2 Buccaneer in the maritime and land attack and bombing role. And replacing the F2K Phantom in the fleet defence fighter role. In both of those roles, the Sea Harrier was very lacking, particularly compared to the Buccaneer and Phantom. As was proven in the Falklands War. Simply because the Harrier was never designed for, or intended to be used as a fighter or penetrative strike platform. It was designed solely as a close air support platform for troops on the ground. The precise role the USMC and RAF correctly used them in. Also, change of circumstances??? It was due to disgracefully devasting cuts to the UK's Defence by both Labour and Conservative Governments between 1966 and 1982. Defence cuts which ultimately cost British lives in the Falklands War. The Falklands war proved that the Royal Navy had been absolutely shot in its foot, with the cuts to its aerial defence and strike capabilities. Which is what prevented the Royal Navy and RAF from achieving air superiority over the Falklands. Hence why the vast majority of British losses in the war were due to Argentine air strikes. The Sea Harrier just couldn't defend the fleet, anything like as effectively as the Phantom could. The Sea Harrier had massively less speed, range and loiter time than the Phantom. The Sea Harrier also couldn't fly as high as the Phantom and could only carry half the amount of air to air missiles that the Phantom could carry. The Sea Harrier also couldn't provide anything like the surface strike capability that the Buccaneer could. The Sea Harrier had massively less range than the Buccaneer and could only carry less than half the amount of bombs, air to ground and anti-ship missiles that the Buccaneer could carry. Hence why all the heavy penetrative strikes on the Falklands had to be done at extreme range with extreme air to air refuelling by the RAF's Vulcan bombers. The RAF would've happily used their Buccaneers for the job instead. But the Royal Navy no longer had an aircraft carrier capable of launching and receiving the Buccaneer. Using Buccaneers launched from an aircraft carrier for those strikes instead of the Vulcan. Would have required massively less effort, been much less dangerous, and massively less expensive. The reduced cost in aviation fuel consumption alone would've been massive. In conclusion, the Sea Harrier was so inferior to the Buccaneer. That the RAF had to fly a big Vulcan bomber 7580 miles in total to deny Argentine fighter jets use of the runway on the Falklands Islands. And thus protect the Royal Navy from close range launched fighter attacks. Because with the removal of its Buccaneers the Royal Navy was no longer capable of doing that job for itself. And frankly shame on all those 1966 - 1982 Labour and Conservative Governments for that.
@@Jabber-ig3iw I'm not a dinosaur. I'm young. The Falklands war happened and the Buccaneer was retired before I was even born. 😂 Don't change the fact the Buccaneer was a phenomenally great aircraft. And instead of forking out to upgrade them and extend their life or replace them with something at least remotely close to their capability such as the F15. The Governments of the day did things on the massive cheap and replaced them with aircraft which weren't remotely as good or capable. Somewhat diminishing the RAF's fighting ability and severely diminishing the Royal Navy's fighting ability. As was proven with the Royal Navy in the Falklands and the RAF in Gulf War 1.
Both superior in every way, what’s your point? Are you one of those people who thinks everything was better in ‘the olden days’ where the UK was broke, being held to ransom by the unions, and pie and chips was considered ‘fancy’ 🙄🙄 time you dinosaurs died off.
Very interesting video. I did not know this plane well, which seems to be the swan song of the British independent aerospace industry. Despite my ignorance of this plane and given the characteristics of planes of the same era, it nevertheless seems obsolete as soon as it was put into service. Finally when I compare it with American, Russian or French productions of the same period. but maybe I don't have a global vision of the performance of this plane? However, he had a hell of a face. A flying bulldog.
Definitely not obsolete when it came into service. There aren’t many jets today capable of holding 540 knots at ground level in ground attack configuration and with drop tanks, for the lengthy periods the Buccaneers could. Add to that it’s arguably unsurpassed low level flight characteristics and you have, in my opinion, one of the best low level strike aircraft produced by any nation during the Cold War. Avionics, ageing airframes and improvements in ground defence technology (which made low level flight less effective) made the buccaneers obsolete; but for an aircraft which first flew in the 50’s and entered service in 1962 it definitely was not.
@@rickwalker2 If I take the Mirage III / V for example, it carried a little less war load and still not much less, it still flew at Mach 2.2 had a greater range, much more modern avionics and agility level let's not talk about it. So I maintain my opinion this aircraft, although very beautiful, was obsolete as soon as it was released. In order not to rub salt in the wound, I will not speak here of American or Soviet productions. Patriotism is a beautiful thing, except when it prevents you from opening your eyes. Sincerely
Comparing the Buccaneer to a Mirage is like comparing a truck with a sports car. The Bucc was designed to fly very low over the sea for great distances with a big weapons load. This It did well. You could consider it a manned cruise missile, before modern cruise missiles. The Mirage was a supersonic interceptor like the F104 and EE lightning, none of which were particularly suited to ground attack, despite the Luftwaffe's infamous attempts to do so. The Luftwaffe should have bought Buccaneers instead.
@@olivierpuyou3621 No. Firstly, the Mirage was not capable of the same sustained speed at ground level. The 2.2M top speed was at 40k ft which is not useful for a low level bomber. The Mirage IV had a combat radius about 15% lower than the Bucc (670nmi vs 800nmi) and agility isn't a desirable trait in a low level bomber because that usually means the aircraft will have low wing loading. High wing loading, like the Bucc, means very stable in thick air so able to fly extremely low *and* put bombs on target. It's not a dogfighter. Conversely, high agility= the opposite but much more agile. Medium-high altitude the Mirage series is superior without a doubt. Down low, few modern aircraft can match the Buccs flight characteristics. In order not to rub salt in your wounds I shan't rudely accuse you of bias.
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo.html
Please click the link to watch our other British Systems videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrA_rFwr_1Gk4JBymGPNxSJ.html
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Air videos
videosua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_Lpl6SQpA2WBti_WsykOgtgy.html
The Buccaneer and The American F-105 Thunderchief were~ are the Templates for the current F-35 strike fighter.
Well there was an improved Hawker-Siddeley HS.1197 Buccaneer proposal
Buccaneer take-off procedure:
Throttle up
Brakes off
V1
Rotate
Gear up
Descend to cruising altitude...
Yes, I know it's old, but so am I. One of my all time favourite British planes, along with the Hunter.
The only aircraft to have an altimeter that showed feet and inches for the first 30 feet .
Brilliant mate!
At first I thought you where kidding me with this comment.
@@Veldtian1 the bit you are interested in is after 4 minutes 15
ua-cam.com/video/24CaLD8l0OE/v-deo.html
One of the most impressive aircraft to see up close, the main gear especially looked like it was built in a shipyard. A personal favourite and a red flag hero 🚩
There was a saying in the FAA, The buccaneer was not built, rather they're keels were laid down!!
@@hughgordon6435 with the Vixen and Canberra the nav/weapons system operators were kept in a cosy little hole in the fuselage. The Buccaneer not only gave them a proper rear seat, it thoughtfully staggered both crew to give our brave rear seater a view of the hill/tree/bridge/ship up ahead as they screamed along at 450 knots.
When I was (much) younger I would climb in North Wales. Here you could climb the crags and look down on Buccs, among other aircraft such as Jaguars and Phantoms flying at speed along the valley well below you. The most impressive and nearest to the ground were the Buccs, to see them negotiating the contours at crazy low level is something I shall never forget.
I love the Buc, and spent a small fortune building a large scale one a few years back, and in the course of building it I came across a few stories about this beast .
One of the lesser known facts about the Buc's low flying is that at very low level it benefit from Ground effect with air building up below the wings created a cushion making it a very stable at 50 feet or so, allowing it to be flown hands off (Very briefly)
A Buc pilot was asked very informally "so just how low can you guys go", after looking round he said it depended on how round the sea was m but it it was smooth he's see 12 feet off the surface at 500Knots - higher if it was rough !
I heard from a RAF Buccaneer pilot that the tandem seats were actually offset left and right a little so the rear seat could still have some front view, I would say it's definitely a step up from the suitcase closet on the sea vixen... I love this bird so much, it is a low level attack aircraft, it is huge, it is capable of bringing plenty hurt, and it is iconic looking, they should have named it raven... cause it already looks the part... mean, menacing and slick... a pair of black ones would totally fit to be called Huginn and Muninn...
As a USN Electronic Warfare Tech, in a wargame that included many nations including UK, my ship captain asked me, 'Where are the buccaneers?' My instinctual response might have been, 'Under the buccan hat, sir!' but what I actually said was the indicated bearing to their radar. :)
Usually flying at a hight to blast said officers hat off with the jet wash...😂🇬🇧😉
What a fantastic aircraft, I’m biased as I used to work on them, making the flight refuelling probe and the arrester hook at Hawker Siddely aviation Brough, East Yorkshire.
These things were unbeatable at low level, I have been on the receiving end of a "Bucc" attack at sea many times. I have stood on the bridge wing of a frigate and looked DOWN into the cockpit of the one flying past, on some attacks they would have to pull UP to clear the foc'sle of a frigate. Awesome machines with bonkers pilots. They regularly used to completely bamboozle US air defences in Red Flag exercises.
Somewhere there is a classified american debrief ..... the bucks were sent in on simulated attacks, came back with mission accomplished!, The yanks had not seen them, radar ,mmk1 eyeball, Nadal, and were highly sceptical( to say the least, so the jolly tars did it again. Same results. Yanks made them do it a third time, so fairs fair the Navy did it again, giving details of time over target,waypoints and turning points, suffice to say there were radar trucks everywhere along the route, however the only sighting on the whole exercise was a tail fin (a la Jaws) behind a desert dune. When all was said and done the yanks realised the bucks were actually flying BELOW ground level using the terrain! I believe there is television footage of the tail fin being seen!. The yanks really, really disliked the fact that the uk could beat ALL air defences of the homeland, the vulcans simulated nuking America Twice, and for many years the official Christmas card to the president was a high attitude photo recon photo 9f the white House, never detected!!! That the real reason the Canberra was bought under license
@@hughgordon6435 There is more than 1 story I have from my own time in the Navy where we comprehensively embarrassed the USN. They may have the numbers and the equipment but we (UK) got the brains.
I recently subscribed after I realized I hadn't already been while watching a video. I rectified that quickly! This channel is fantastic and I was surprised there weren't more subs.
Also, if there isn't a video on the F-8 Crusader yet I'd love to see one. It is one of my favorite Cold War aircraft along with the beautiful Buccaneer. Something about both of those planes makes them look fast.
In ATC at Akrotiri in the early eighties, a Bucc came back from a mission (can't say where to). We informed the pilot that something was trailing from behind the aircraft. "Probably a telephone wire" was the answer we got!
See my comment above. One of my old colleagues still has the film.
I was hoping there'd be a video on the Buccaneer! I don't know why but it is one of my favorite Cold War designs along with the Sepecat Jaguar
i was used as a 'target' by a buccaneer when sailing on the Clyde back in the early 80s - i was the only small craft for miles and he came from the north over Kilcreggan and zeroed in on me and came down to about 500feet!! - i could clearly see the pilot in his flight gear and chanced a wave which was returned - ahh - i love the smell of jet blast in the afternoon!!! 😁😁😁
What the hell was he flying that high for, they normally dragged their backsides along the floor!
@@fouloleron2002 overflying highly populated civilian area!!! - pilot was behaving himself (a bit!!!) - when on the estuary flying down towards the north channel he stayed low.
SAAF low-level specialist light bomber. Angolans feared it during the Bushwar we fought there.
I saw the South African ones at airshows a few times. They always demonstrated the air t air refueling, and the flypast with 4 red painted bombs in the open bomb bay was also impressive. But that airbrake is very very impressive.
My father( + family) moved to South Africa in 1968 to work at Waterkloof AB as an advisor to the SAAF after they bought a number of Buccaneers, he was working for Ferranti at the time. It was the best time of my life I went to PBHS.
Another great video , I'm watching a lot of your videos ! they are great
Was a REM on buccs at Lossiemouth and on the old Ark, fantastic engineering.
My brother flew these out of Lossiemouth late 1970s early 80s.
A couple of importantthings youmissedfromwhat is a very informative and acurate vid, the bucaneer is designed to "area rule" conseptswhich mean apart from the nose and tail a cross section anywhere along the body has the same area which provides superior performance at trans sonic speeds the Bucaneer flys at. Also it is probably the foremost "toss bomber", being renown fordropping itsbombs on target with this unique manover which untill demonstrated was acomplete mystery to the Americans. the Bucaneer wouldfly in below radar and shortly before arriving at the target it would soar skyward release the bomb which wouldtr avel uuntill gravity over took it and drop odwn on the target, meanwhile the bucaneer would role out and depart inthe direction it cme from, the onl register on the enemies radar wouldbe the bomb incoming, this is how it would delivera nuke and escape the devastation, worked equally well with convential bombs.It was not a fast, mach plus aircraft,it didn;t need to be, quite the contrary, it needed to be a stable weapons platform and it was as stable as a concrete plinth, quite frankly it was as near as anyone is ever going to get to perfect design by the paramitters required. It was capable and effective and outlivedits service perameterslike so many other UKaircraft of the era,ieVulcans and Lightnings two aircraft who's capabilities and performances have prooven difficult to surmount in modern times.
To say that Americans have no idea about that maneuver is very inaccurate. Americans were using the same maneuver for years.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I didn#t say they knew nothing about toss bombing, the were doubfounderd on the excersice at the time when the payload arrived on radar and absolutely no idea where it had been launched from, simmilar to when vulcans nuke the USA twice, the olnly plane in the sky were two flights of Vulcans and every fighter intercepter the US could muster. the amaricans had to bre instructed on the mnouvers so they could for addequate defenses, that what excersises are for.
@@nigelleyland166 Such as this B-47..... ua-cam.com/video/mqIJL8lx00o/v-deo.html
Thanks for this video for this British beauty. I hate the end of the Cold War. Many special aircraft, such as the Buccaneer, retired prematurely.
Wages Constant War and Across
ua-cam.com/video/LUNi5zKqKQQ/v-deo.html
Don’t worry, we’re in CW2 now thanks to Putin and Xi.
@@nigethesassenach3614Thanks to weak old man Biden more like it.
Retirement of the Bucc was also due to metal fatigue.
The two that overflew British Honduras (now Belize) in 1972 carried no munitions because they were launched from such distance they had to carry more than normal fuel load to get there and back . Even using airborne refuelling after launch and before recovery . Read PHOENIX SQAUDRON by Rowland White . Fantastic book about just that mission and build up to it . British history classic !
Thanks for your information
They were launched from HMS Eagle, it was the longest carrier sortie in history at the time
@@warrensuddick5737 HMS Eagle completed her last deployment 2 days before this mission and was being decommissioned at Portsmouth . It was hoped this demonstration of airpower would save her . But alas not .
@@stevenbevis9290 Your correct, my bad, but still an amazing effort.
@@warrensuddick5737 Hi Warren was just about to reply when i saw u had . Obviously ur interested in the subject . You must read Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White . Utterly riveting book and UK history classic . The Phantom squadron on Ark Royal wanted to do an overfly after the Buccaneers but were denied permission . The job was done according to UK government . Snd so it was . It was hoped this demo of naval airpower would save Eagle from decommissioning . But alas not . Eagle only operated Phantom for trials in 1969 . Her flight deck was not fully modified for them . But she was otherwise a much better ship than Ark Royal .
Nice vid. I remember as a kid a mini series, sort of an early reality show, where they followed RAF trainees. Some got assigned to buccaneers and jaguars, they were sort of the second best pilots (the best got fighters).
How bloody close to the waterline did they fly, as a ex navy gunner myself I would of found them hard to make out flying that low, and 996 radar would have struggled that low
However low you think it might have flown, it flew lower than that. There is a short film of a pair practicing attack on HMS Liverpool or Glasgow (?) as the second one takes off you can see the automatic undercarriage react and the Buccaneer actually drops slightly. One of the few videos with added music that I actually like. Then look at aircrew interviews with Buccaneer pilots talking about Red Flag. The USA had F-15s and all the latest kit and were looking at the RAF with these slightly vintage aircraft. The Buccaneers flew that low that they revised and flew higher as they were throwing up rooster tails. A great few interviews. Then the Imperial War Museum did an absolutely imbecilic film about Buccaneers.
Believe as little as 6ft . If u read Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White (this book is a must for Ark Royal fleet air arm or British History enthusiasts ) u will discover that on the US Atlantic fleet weapon ranges Buccs flew under telegraph wires over Puerto Rico .!
@@xlbubblehead2505 Sorry, the film I was thinking about was HMS Liverpool. Still, I should imagine your experience was similar. ua-cam.com/video/lteL18wd15Y/v-deo.html
@@xlbubblehead2505 HMS Kent not seagoing post 1979 . Next HMS Kent commissioned 1999
Evidently they often landed with sea weed on their undersides.
One evidently 'harvested' some corn. Opened the bomb bay, flew along the field, closed the bomb bay. It later landed, the pilot opened the bomb bay and out dropped the harvested crop.
The first " SMART BOMB " was dropped from a South African Buccaneer, 414 on the Cuito bridge in 1987. Long before America, or any other nation for that matter.
The South Africans performed miracles while under sanctions with what they had.
RESPECT!
1987?? The US was using smart bombs in later part of the Vietnam War.
LGB’s where dropped in Vietnam, and also 203 sad in preparing for the 83 operation over Beirut
First smart bombs....as in guided....dated back to WW1. First combat use was in WW2 for TV guided, radio controlled and radar guided air to ground munitions....IR guidance took a little longer to see use, but AIM-9B were used in 1957 over the Taiwan Strait.
Laser guidance arrived in 1968 with first use by the USAF....the US was also using TV guided (Walleye), radar guided, IR guided and other guided munitions at the time...
Buccaneer in UK service got armed with RF homing missiles and TV guided missiles (Martel) in the 70's and Paveway LGB's as well using Pave Spike...
So no....South Africa was nowhere close to dropping the first smart bomb....in fact they were 40+ years late to the party....
daddy was FAA , he loved ,LOVED, this plane! his was the first bucc to gave its engines chanted out after 10,000 hrs? Queen of the skies!!
Great video. There were 2 versions of the Martel AS.37, the Anti Radar version, and the TV Guided version. YOu only mentioned the ARM version. When a Buccaneer had the Martel, it had a control pod that would take one of the underwing pylons, The guidance pod looked like a drop tank that was installed backwards
Good summary! A few minor points:
Too many clips have been stretched from 4:3 into 16:9; the Banana jet was not as unnaturally long and thin as in you show!
You might have mentioned the Bucc with its coke-bottle fuselage shape as being one of the best illustrations of the equal are rule for controlling transonic airflow.
During the Belize 'bring a bottle war'*, the carrier deployment turned out not to be a deterrent at all. Things only cooled when the army arrived in country together with a detachment of 6 Harrier GR3s. * So called because of the level of partying in various exotic locations at the Queen's expense and nobody at all getting hurt.
The flights for Op Pulsator were not over Beirut, they were through Beirut. Apparently flying along the city streets at 480kts and 50ft had quite an effect.
Did you know a pair of Buccs was deployed to RAF Port Stanley in the Falklands just after the '82 war to check the feasibility of potential strikes against the Argentine navy and shore targets? They did fine but it was sure a lonely transit down and back from Ascension Island.
What a shame you used metirc units to describe this wonderful beast. I had the privilage of working on Buccs as groundcrew If I remember corretly there was nothing metric about the aircraft. It was built before we joined the EEC and the now EU. So why use this unit of measurement ? I always loved the fact they never really took off they just sped down the runway and lifted the gear. Some German collegues of mine were stunned when I showed them videos of the departure profile. Gone but never forgotten
Absolute privilege to have worked on this aircraft as Nav Inst ground crew on 12 Squadron in the early 1970s, when stationed at RAF Honington.
Very..nice video!
when the Germans chose the "starfighter" as their maritime attack aircraft? they sent their pilots and planes to Lossiemouth to learn from the best maritime attack operation in the world? so the buccs took them (the germans) out on follow the leader chases? if I remember right, every, EVERY german plane was instantly grounded after all "g" force measurements were off the scale?
Rip Bernard noble who flew these.a lovely man.
Well it only took 60 years but Blackburn actually came up with a decent aeroplane …
The buccaneer is a very imposing strike aircraft,tough as old boots.
Amazing aircraft, and Pilots. There's a video of the RAF staging a mock attack from Gibraltar with some of the most incredible footage.
To Vangelis's 'To the Unknown Man,!'
what a thing, not built out of metal but carved from it ✊
Too nice video about Blackburn buccaneer aircraft's which built by British designers as subsonic, for higher altitude also in low altitudes and carries of atomic bombs produced for Royl naval forces also south Africa 🇿🇦..used this aircraft which launched several upgrades during first cold War 🥶.. video clearly explained all characteristics of this British aircraft..thanks (weapon detective) channel for sharing this video
A lovely legend, the old "lead sled".
RAF Buccaneers would perform low-level attacks on our base during operational readiness exercises. They would scare the bejeezus out of you.
You should really do a video on the Austrian Kürassier tank destroyer, quite an interesting vehicle.
A true legend of an aircraft, once seen one hugging the deck over the M50 near Ross on Wye when they were active it certainly left an impression !!. It looked goog it was good 👍.
A most interesting programme and some wonderful air-to-air video. Thank you.
It was a Royal Navy/Royal Air Force aeroplane, i.e., British.
Such a shame that all the dimensions you quote are in metric.
We have a buckeneer in Shannon.It was used to test in Boscombe Down on test.it has a tornado nose.
Well, after 60 years of trying Blackburn actually made a decent aircraft.
You gotta love The Buck!
This was excellent
Not sure that "flight control computer" isn't a bit overstating an autopilot/autostab unit. Originally a very large box filled mainly with cogs and replaced in the 80s with a much smaller electronics unit.
I am not sure why you are repeating information which is already in a number of Buccaneer programmes on the history of the aircraft. All available on UA-cam
When the RAF were invited over to the US RED FLAG exercises n the late 70s early 80s the British brung over a few old ex Royal Navy strike bombers the Blackburn Buccaneer unknown to the current corp of US Pilots and it's capabilities when the RAF were assigned targets to take out the US fighters jocks went after them and were totally dumbfounded how low the RAF Buccaneers jets hit the deck to avoid enemy Radar and fighter interception the US pilot's couldn't get a lock on thus no Buccaneers were ever air interception in the red flag exercise . two reasons first they weren't trained to fly so low to deal with that type of targets and the radar technology at the time didn't have look down shoot down radar it became such a major concern the pentagon immediately wanted this rectified. US companies that supplied radar to the US Air force's were hard at it developing this radar so you can say the British Buccaneers type of flying prompted changes in the US defense
Our Vulcans did the same in nuclear attack scenarios, got through every time.
I always looked Buccaneers as early equivalents of A-6 Intruders, and cooler.
The USMC was interested but due to
US protectionism this was vetoed
Weapon Detective has to develop!
Thanks for your interest. Please specify in which areas.
@@WeaponDetective I meant develop as a channel as it is underrated. You have great content and far too few subscribers. No issues with your materials. They're great. I just wish more people could have the access to them! Keep growing!
@@tommygun333 Thanks.
'We were kicking up dust, so we climbed..... to 20 feet.'
Excellent aircraft
The Buccaneers pilot only lift it undercarriage so they can go lower
What a great aircraft! One of the very best!
JAI HIND 🇮🇳 🇮🇳 🇮🇳
Nice video to watch..
Waiting for my request video of C17 globemaster, MIG 29 and MIG31..
Always thought it ironic that a manufacturer that had a very......err....spotty reputation with its ww2 piston engines planes , yet managed to pull off an extremely capable & well liked jet navy plane on its first attempt.
Blackburn managed to make a couple of average aircraft in their time, and the rest were diabolical. They were saved by sub-contract work for other manufacturers and the war...
But then...with the last aircraft they built, and only the second jet aircraft they built (and the other was the one off HP.88 test aircraft for the Victor's crescent wing) they absolutely nail it and create one of the best naval aircraft and bomber aircraft ever made...its as if their entire company history had been building to that moment...then they were merged with Hawker Siddeley...
Why do have the Royal Air Force march music in the background when this was mainly a naval aircraft
The Grey Funnel Line were tasked with 'running them in!' The Royal Air Force used them in anger!
@@Volcano-Man - Has crabair shot down an enemy aircraft since WW2? Been in longer NAAFI queues than you lot have been in existence.
@@neilhayz1555 oh you are funny! Tell me when to laugh. Bet you would not even know what NAAFI stands for!
one of my all time favorite planes
Loved the story about FAA bucks being used by the RAF for a royal demonstration the end of the demonstration the RAF did a low pass whilst rotating the bomber bad, only to reveal big f off dayglo orange FLY NAVY signs!!😮 evidently charlie was seen nudging the air commodore next to him and pointing, with a big grin !
Nd
The RAF should have bought 120-150 Buccaneers in 1964 for dedicated low-level interdiction missions. Its ability to fly at extremely low altitude to hide in the terrain (even lower than the F-111!) would have been a nightmare for Warsaw Pact war planners until at least the middle 1980's.
Cool plane,✈️👍
Legendary
Bene benissimo!
Though not capable of supersonic speeds it was so streamlined that while flying at low level no supersonic aircraft could catch it.
I once met the test pilot who made the first carrier landing. It is quite sometime ago but I think his was one of four aircraft which set out to carry out the landing, but the weather was so bad the other three turned back.
An amazing plane.
A buccaneer probably dropped the first smart bomb in war by the SAAF during the Angola/SWA border war in 1987.Destroying a bridge.
The NA39, same as the Swordfish.
It kinda looks like Su-25,doesn't it?!
Or the other way around...
Su-25 is a CAS aircraft. The Buccaneer was a big bomber without an internal gun. they are completely different, even though they have a little bit similar appearances.
F-4 Phantom, please.
I think they saw a bit of action in 1st gulf coff coff war
Correct ! Photo recce role . Bucc finally retired 1994 . 40yrs after order was placed with Blackburn
the Royal Navy shouldn't have retired multi mission (CATOBAR) aircraft carriers in favour of new light (STOVL) aircraft carrier . . . rather the navy should have operated both the multi mission (CATOBAR) aircraft carriers in parallel with the new light (STOVL) aircraft carrier simultaneously . . . a small fleet of three brand new Audacious class 56,392 ton (63,054 ton loaded) multi mission (CATOBAR) aircraft carrier powered by eU-CMMR® PWR3
iSMARTFuelCellΔ system would have complemented the Centaur class mFuelTurbine® IEP powered 24,698 ton (29,085 ton loaded) light (STOVL) aircraft carrier . . . or the Invincible class mFuelTurbine® IEP powered 18,462 ton (25,000 ton loaded) light (STOVL) aircraft carrier for that matter . . .
Quick call the Navy, there’s a random on UA-cam who knows more than they do.
Don’t think the Royal Navy had much choice in the matter.
@@neilhayz1555 sadly, that's usually the case. then, when the shit hits the fan, the decision-makers look to the services to "Do something!" and send our best off with inferior weapons/systems... 😞
12:45 retired after the "first cold war"
Here's another aircraft that needs to be put back into production!!!. Perfect for Ukraine!!!...
Buccaneers Didn’t fly over Bayruit they flew Through at bellow roof top high
There’s low, fuck me how low, then buccaneer low.
Ok, joke time.......
A little boy dresses up as a pirate and proudly shows his dad.
Dad - 'Wow! You're a pirate! Where are your buccaneers?"
Boy - "On the side of me buckin' head!"
I'll see myself out....... :)
That the British Governments of the time replaced this absolutely brilliant aircraft with the inferior Sea Harrier for the Royal Navy and the massively inferior Tornado GR1 for the RAF, was and still is a disgrace.
Wouldn't say the Harrier was inferior just different. The proof is the fact it's still flying .
Change of circumstances and what the RN was going to do. And as a defence fighter, the Sea Harrier wasn't even doing the same jobs as Buccaneers
@@gleggett3817 The Sea Harrier did indeed do the same job as the Buccaneers. The Sea Harrier was wrongly fielded as a multi-role fighter attack aircraft. Replacing the S2 Buccaneer in the maritime and land attack and bombing role. And replacing the F2K Phantom in the fleet defence fighter role.
In both of those roles, the Sea Harrier was very lacking, particularly compared to the Buccaneer and Phantom. As was proven in the Falklands War. Simply because the Harrier was never designed for, or intended to be used as a fighter or penetrative strike platform. It was designed solely as a close air support platform for troops on the ground. The precise role the USMC and RAF correctly used them in.
Also, change of circumstances??? It was due to disgracefully devasting cuts to the UK's Defence by both Labour and Conservative Governments between 1966 and 1982. Defence cuts which ultimately cost British lives in the Falklands War.
The Falklands war proved that the Royal Navy had been absolutely shot in its foot, with the cuts to its aerial defence and strike capabilities. Which is what prevented the Royal Navy and RAF from achieving air superiority over the Falklands. Hence why the vast majority of British losses in the war were due to Argentine air strikes.
The Sea Harrier just couldn't defend the fleet, anything like as effectively as the Phantom could. The Sea Harrier had massively less speed, range and loiter time than the Phantom. The Sea Harrier also couldn't fly as high as the Phantom and could only carry half the amount of air to air missiles that the Phantom could carry.
The Sea Harrier also couldn't provide anything like the surface strike capability that the Buccaneer could. The Sea Harrier had massively less range than the Buccaneer and could only carry less than half the amount of bombs, air to ground and anti-ship missiles that the Buccaneer could carry.
Hence why all the heavy penetrative strikes on the Falklands had to be done at extreme range with extreme air to air refuelling by the RAF's Vulcan bombers. The RAF would've happily used their Buccaneers for the job instead. But the Royal Navy no longer had an aircraft carrier capable of launching and receiving the Buccaneer.
Using Buccaneers launched from an aircraft carrier for those strikes instead of the Vulcan. Would have required massively less effort, been much less dangerous, and massively less expensive. The reduced cost in aviation fuel consumption alone would've been massive.
In conclusion, the Sea Harrier was so inferior to the Buccaneer. That the RAF had to fly a big Vulcan bomber 7580 miles in total to deny Argentine fighter jets use of the runway on the Falklands Islands. And thus protect the Royal Navy from close range launched fighter attacks. Because with the removal of its Buccaneers the Royal Navy was no longer capable of doing that job for itself. And frankly shame on all those 1966 - 1982 Labour and Conservative Governments for that.
@@Jabber-ig3iw I'm not a dinosaur. I'm young. The Falklands war happened and the Buccaneer was retired before I was even born. 😂 Don't change the fact the Buccaneer was a phenomenally great aircraft. And instead of forking out to upgrade them and extend their life or replace them with something at least remotely close to their capability such as the F15. The Governments of the day did things on the massive cheap and replaced them with aircraft which weren't remotely as good or capable. Somewhat diminishing the RAF's fighting ability and severely diminishing the Royal Navy's fighting ability. As was proven with the Royal Navy in the Falklands and the RAF in Gulf War 1.
@andywilliams7323 in what way was the Tornado GR1 massively inferior to the Buccaneer?
South Africa should have bought more before the embargo
Jato lindo Rodrigo brazil friends.
The Aircraft is wonderful, but your commentary is not. I had to turn on subtitles. You may know where I think you should be
Well, get the shit out of your ears and go and make your own video.
Seen it fly lower than street lamps the yanks couldn’t catch it on red flag exercises
A-5, Su-25 class…
One thing the British were excellent at, designing UGLY aircraft.
We're ugly people with attitudes to match ☺️
SU25 looks like an Ugly Cousin of the Buccaneer
And now what do we have the f 35 and the fucking eurofighter
Both superior in every way, what’s your point? Are you one of those people who thinks everything was better in ‘the olden days’ where the UK was broke, being held to ransom by the unions, and pie and chips was considered ‘fancy’ 🙄🙄 time you dinosaurs died off.
Buccaneer, built like a brick sh#thouse.
The commentator mumbles and rushes words.
Well, get the shit out of your ears and go and make your own video.
Very interesting video.
I did not know this plane well, which seems to be the swan song of the British independent aerospace industry.
Despite my ignorance of this plane and given the characteristics of planes of the same era, it nevertheless seems obsolete as soon as it was put into service.
Finally when I compare it with American, Russian or French productions of the same period.
but maybe I don't have a global vision of the performance of this plane?
However, he had a hell of a face. A flying bulldog.
Definitely not obsolete when it came into service. There aren’t many jets today capable of holding 540 knots at ground level in ground attack configuration and with drop tanks, for the lengthy periods the Buccaneers could. Add to that it’s arguably unsurpassed low level flight characteristics and you have, in my opinion, one of the best low level strike aircraft produced by any nation during the Cold War.
Avionics, ageing airframes and improvements in ground defence technology (which made low level flight less effective) made the buccaneers obsolete; but for an aircraft which first flew in the 50’s and entered service in 1962 it definitely was not.
@@rickwalker2 If I take the Mirage III / V for example, it carried a little less war load and still not much less, it still flew at Mach 2.2 had a greater range, much more modern avionics and agility level let's not talk about it.
So I maintain my opinion this aircraft, although very beautiful, was obsolete as soon as it was released.
In order not to rub salt in the wound, I will not speak here of American or Soviet productions.
Patriotism is a beautiful thing, except when it prevents you from opening your eyes.
Sincerely
Comparing the Buccaneer to a Mirage is like comparing a truck with a sports car. The Bucc was designed to fly very low over the sea for great distances with a big weapons load. This It did well. You could consider it a manned cruise missile, before modern cruise missiles. The Mirage was a supersonic interceptor like the F104 and EE lightning, none of which were particularly suited to ground attack, despite the Luftwaffe's infamous attempts to do so. The Luftwaffe should have bought Buccaneers instead.
@@olivierpuyou3621 No. Firstly, the Mirage was not capable of the same sustained speed at ground level. The 2.2M top speed was at 40k ft which is not useful for a low level bomber. The Mirage IV had a combat radius about 15% lower than the Bucc (670nmi vs 800nmi) and agility isn't a desirable trait in a low level bomber because that usually means the aircraft will have low wing loading. High wing loading, like the Bucc, means very stable in thick air so able to fly extremely low *and* put bombs on target. It's not a dogfighter. Conversely, high agility= the opposite but much more agile.
Medium-high altitude the Mirage series is superior without a doubt. Down low, few modern aircraft can match the Buccs flight characteristics.
In order not to rub salt in your wounds I shan't rudely accuse you of bias.
@@olivierpuyou3621 Stop looking at aircraft as "Top Trumps" and look at the role they are designed to perform.