My favourite jet. And the best strike bomber ever built. Full stop. I was in the ATC in the mid 70's and we were shown a film (later broadcast on the BBC news magazine 'Nationwide') of operation Red Flag 77. Two Buccs running into a simulated AA emplacement near Nellis. The radar showed the occasional blip as the brace weaved between the sand dunes to the target, finally the operator went outside to see one perpendicular Bucc close to skimming the sand from a dune with a wing tip before levelling out for the run..the operator could be heard yelling "Go baby go!!!". Not one Bucc was 'shot down'. Either by ground AA or F15's. The Americans wanted to change the rules of engagement, and even then they couldn't get a lock on. A Vulcan flying down from Vancouver was intercepted over the Rockies...lit up the Vulcan (which was at 50 (FIFTY) feet above the ground.. as the F15 was about to fire, two Buccs peeled off from under the wings, all three threw on the coal and flew off in different directions.. oh I bet that debrief was funny!

@dalbarasingh7421

3 жыл бұрын

Hjkl

@steveb6386

2 жыл бұрын

@Love To Travel Funny you mention Phantoms...after an excercise an RAF Phantom tried to shoot down a Buccaneer (lock on) but couldn't...Coincidentally neither could the USAF in Nevada. So frustrated at their inability to actually get a lock on them they asked to change the rules of engagement! Presumably they wanted the Buccs to be hard decked at 15000 feet! Bomb capacity was limited, but then it could carry a big ball of sunshine. Oh, and it did have aafr capability.. they regularly refuelled Tornados on exercises. But don't take my word for it, look it up! :-)

@steveb6386

2 жыл бұрын

@Love To Travel sigh, I take it you HAVE researched the tactics employed by Bucc crews? It was nicknamed easy rider because it was designed by brilliant engineers to take full advantage of area rule aerodynamics. Essentially it could be and was routinely flown at less than fifty feet off the deck at very high subsonic speeds. Sure a Phantom (and F15s at Redflag using look down radar) could find it, but they couldn't catch it or out maneuvre it without burning a great deal of fuel or risk over stressing the airframes. Nothing to do with 'stealth' in today's meaning but facing an attack from a four ship Bucc flight coming in from four different directions well below radar sweep presents something of a problem if you're the target. And the crews seldom missed. But decrying the capability of 70's radar is somewhat moot, because the enemy couldn't see them either, and I'm no military tactician but I'd suggest if you exploit the weaknesses in your enemy and execute the mission successfully that's what matters...oh, fun fact. Topgun was inspired by RN Bucc instructors and indeed several were detached there in the early days to help train USN Topgun instructors...but you know all this, right? :-)

@steveb6386

2 жыл бұрын

@Love To Travel I'm sorry you're bitter about British military aircraft. But if it hadn't been for same, the USAF, and USN wouldn't have advanced anywhere near as quickly as it did..flight refuelling? Thank the Brits.. turbine advancement? Again... RADAR? Yep...if it hadn't been for Martin Baker, the Bell X1 wouldn't have happened..The TSR2 was ahead of it's time, it was let down by politicians and computers at the time not being up to the level needed. Widen it to commercial aircraft: the nearest Boeing came to Concorde was a $500 MILLION wooden model. And that came about because the CEO of PANAM had expressed an interest in Concorde and using the 747 for cargo only (the original idea for the 747)..on a golf course no less the CEO of Boeing promised him that if he waited and didn't buy Concorde, he'd make sure Boeing built a supersonic airliner...that never happened of course and the 747 was redesigned to accomodate passengers.. want more?

@steveb6386

2 жыл бұрын

@Love To Travel Doesn't that rather depend on how you define good design? Designed for functionality with the available hardware or pretty design? Even I wouldn't advocate the Buccaneer as a thing of beauty, far from it. The Hawker Hunter takes that acolade.

I recall a Buccaneer pilot who was part of testing the Tornado avionics which were fitted to a mule Buccaneer and he stated that the Tornado avionics in a Buccaneer would have been all they needed for a ground/marine attack aircraft .

Hahaha yeah I can totally relate to the story I'm ex RN and served on the old arc royal in the late 70's and the buccaneers where just unbelievable in the air and on the flight deck.I once stood open mouthed looking at buccaneer pilot eye to eye in his cockpit from just below the flight deck, it's difficult to explain to people just how low they could fly . The piece about using trawlers and merchant ships as target made me laugh out loud.... after leaving the navy I would go sea fishing with a club once a month.On one such trip we were all enjoying the sunshine and the calm sea ( enjoy it while you can as it didn't happen often) out of nowhere a flash and roar of some great beast just above our heads, everyone dropped to the deck in total shock... seeing the" t" shaped tail I jumped up shouting buccaneer buccaneer buccaneer like a big kid... what a great experience BTW the buccaneers did a wonderful job in the gulf war but the squadrons were a little disappointed that they couldn't fly lower than around 20 feet ( because any lower would kick up the sand and give their position away....) So I get the applause for the low level flying.... The Buccaneer is the best low level strike aircraft ever built.... even though it has buttons and switches and dials.... old school

@chris_ackroyd

3 жыл бұрын

Buccaneer AKA Ekranoplan😅

@kellybreen5526

3 жыл бұрын

They never really replaced it with something better. I have heard them called ugly, but I think they are very good looking aircraft.

@copee2960

3 жыл бұрын

1988 and this then 16 year old boy joined the MN sailing under the Red Duster, sailing back down from Lerwick onboard a 5000 ton tanker, it was a cold sunny November morn and we were venting the tanks.....Ca-Boom...i hit the deck thinking that one of the holding tanks had exploded....after a short while on my belly i heard laughter....it was the C/O on the bridge wing laughing his bollocks off...but he did-nt see the other Tornado coming up astern ...yep Ca-Boom....both broke the sound barrier...and yep the C/O ducked .....use to see loads of A10 Warthogs whenever we were loading at Immingham.

@jamesbparkin740

3 жыл бұрын

I was walking along the Ryvoan Pass in the Cairngorms one evening in the early 1990s and one went over my head - surprisingly quietly and I swear about 50 ft above me.

@NightHeronProduction

2 жыл бұрын

Dear Mr Hilton. I might be asking a bit much here but bare with me. Being a Brit myself I'm quite fond of our RN carriers and everything surrounding them, so heres the question. If Britain had built the Malta class at wars end and had two to three examples of that class been available for the Falklands war in 1982, how do you being a ex-serviceman aboard our last catobar carrier think the air group (particularly the Buccs & Phantoms) would have been used? Tactics? Targets? etc. I imagine with Buccs available that the Blackbuck Vulcan raid might not happen. I've done a bit of math and with the hanger dimensions intended for Maltas and using Eagle and Ark Royal in their last commsions for reference I've concluded that this would be the most likely air group. By the way I swapped out Gannets for Hawkeyes in this scenario, figured the government would when dealing with AEW aboard carriers take the same approach as they did in replacing the Sea Vixen with the Phantom (Why invest in Britain when you can buy American). I reckon a single Malta air group in 1982 could be as follows: 24x Phantom 26x Buccaneer 4x E2C Hawkeye 1x Greyhound 6x Sea King 2x Wessex Would love to hear your thoughts. PS if you don't want to tackle this muppets nonsense question then no hard feelings :) Thank you for your service sir! Edit: After reviewing the figures I think the following is a more likley air group 19x Phantom 21x Buccaneer 3x E2C Hawkeye 1x Greyhound 6x Sea King 2x Wessex

Mmmm .... worked with an Ex 'BuccDriver' in Cranfield UK many years ago ... bloke nick named 'Stanley' used to have me in hysterics with his tales of life in a Bucc Sqdrn .... he used to say that Buccs at ground level with F15 top cover would be an unstoppable force ... as proved on many 'Red Flag' exercises ...

@sichere

2 жыл бұрын

They had F15 top cover in Iraq

I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford in the late 80's, working electrical systems on F-111s. On night during a NATO exercise I was asked to go on a recovery TDY to RAF Valley to turn around a damaged Aardvark. We didn't get much of a tour of the area as it was just an overnight mission but the airmen at Valley were a great bunch. It was a top rate facility accommodating to our every need and really taking care of us. We did get a brief tour of their hangers and the Hawks, cool little birds.

There's no such thing as a dull story about the Blackburn Buccaneer.

@MostlyPennyCat

3 жыл бұрын

My favourites are: 1) 100ft off the deck up a hill, inverting and pulling 'up' to hug the peak and not present the F15 watchdogs with something to lock. 2) (Sadly I've lost the source for this one) Requesting a low level flyby salute for a visiting American Nimitz class (forget which one) 'Low Pass' turned out to be a 4 ship (I think) with one above bridge height, one buzzing the flight deck and then, on either side, each of the last two _below_ the level of the flight deck doing it's best impression of a boat (anyone else know this and where it's from?)

@olderbutnowiser6701

3 жыл бұрын

1). I heard that about the Tornado. Maybe it was common across different types? (Ex crab but not a fast jet god!)

@longshot7601

3 жыл бұрын

Oh, I don't know. Idly looking up at the wave tops ...business as usual.

The Buccaneer is an under rated aircraft and one of the best ever to serve in the UK military.

Have never seen a Buccaneer, unfortunately, but I once stood on an 80ft cliff, looking down on a passing Vulcan.

Proud to say my Dad wrote all the powered flying control manuals for the SAAF Buccaneers , as an ex FAA officer , they were his favourites . Wales UK.

@Aircrewinterview

2 жыл бұрын

Great stuff.

@Sterlingjob

6 ай бұрын

Any copies online?

I don't know anything about the specs on these aircraft and how they match up on paper, but this video speaks volumes to me about how an ace pilot with expert knowledge of his/her aircraft can out fight, out maneuver, out think a less experienced foe, no matter the equipment being flown.

Fantastic story! The Buccaneer was truly awesome.

I have listened to this guy on a couple of videos…..what a career, I could listen to him for hours.

I was out climbing, watched two Buccs from a top down perspective. Amazed to see them having to gain altitude to clear a line of not very tall trees...

Was ground support with a Bucc squadron in Turkey many years ago. They were told not to fly below a certain altitude whilst on a particular exercise. Anathema to a Bucc pilot. Upon landing, one a/c had one of it's pylons sheared off and cable lay marks on the leading edge of the wing; it had flown through a national grid power line only suffering minimal damage. If it had been any other fast jet it would have been cut in two. We were told to keep schtum - "nothing to see here right!".

@philstothard8333

3 жыл бұрын

We got a pylon off that aircraft back into the arm eng sqn, sawn back half way , I was told that aircraft was flying no3 and the highest in the formation !

The Buccaneer half aircraft half Submarine almighty.

They used to fly over the A64 probably about 30 or 40 feet above the trees, in the Vale of York it was truly awesome to see I'm not sure if they came from Scampton great underrated aircraft.

Nice to hear about the banana jet's later days. I was a backseater on the first Red Flag as a first tourist and thoroughly enjoyed the flying and defending ourselves with nothing to fire back!! Most of my time was spent looking backwards and listening to the RWR for ground and air threats. Pilots would get speed blur and effectively tunnel vision at 50ft/500kts so couldn't do much lookout so down to the boy in the back to keep us alive. I vividly remember being chased by an F15 across the desert for what seemed an eternity, braced against the leg guards on the ejector seat to keep myself looking rearwards and calling for "reversals" each time the F15 brought its nose to bear so that we could screw up any aiming solution he was trying to create. Very exhilarating. I think we must have got close to 600kts at one stage but I wasn't looking in very much!! No missile or guns kill claimed at the debrief so two man crew wins again. On the crossing the ridge lines inverted front, absolutely true but no one mentioned the fact that the Bucc had fingertip to armpit ailerons hence fantastic roll response but a relatively small tailplane which meant that at 5000ft amsl (height of Nellis ranges for Red Flag) the pitch response left a little to be desired.. as we all discovered on the first sortie!!! Roll and then PULL!!!

The most underrated military aircraft of all time. Used to get buzzed by Buccaneers flying at 80 foot altitude (I think from Scampton) on the A64 I cranked my neck to get a better view and as I looked at him he was looking at me he was flying at 80ft upside down it was the most amazing bit of flying I have ever seen if you were that pilot please reply!

Amazing story, top guy, could spend all day listening to him!

Truly great aircraft with legendary crews.

In my humble oppinion , And im no expert but the Bucc was retired way to early... She was like the A10 " If it aint broke dont try to fix it.. meaning she could have been uprated again n again... Whilst i kbow airframes get old remember there are B52 'that are over 50 years old still flying operationally .. The Bucc had many a year of good service left in her and she was a very potent aircraft .. a loss to our country in my view .. Her crews speak volumes of her ability and we should have kept her in reserve at least . I know some will disagree but thats my view. 👍

@pilarmorin4405

3 жыл бұрын

Add the Tornado to that list as well, please... Brits always had a good piece of kit, Thank you sir.

@casinodelonge

3 жыл бұрын

And the Harrier...

@pilarmorin4405

3 жыл бұрын

I think the bucs airframe hour's are what sent it down the road... Sorry to say! The way the crew's flew it, jinxing here, flying low around hills and dales an such, plus carrier operations prior to the RAF getting hold of them, didn't do any favor to already popular aircraft... I myself now, and I'm American would set an air force up with my picks... They would be... Against our same cold war enemy's Tornado, Buccaneers, F-111s right out of the gate, Thank you very much... Of course that's just my opinion now. Thank you good sir.

@navnig

3 жыл бұрын

@@pilarmorin4405 For a time, the USAF looked VERY closely at the Tornado as a wild weasel platform but I think talks broke down at an early stage when it transpired that the Tornado's would only be built in Europe, not America.

@user-wp2ly3dl7f

2 ай бұрын

⁠@@pilarmorin4405sorry but the buccaneers were broke spent many of an hour polishing out the cracks on the main spars 83-84 surprised that they lasted as long as they did

The Buccaneer is on the best british low level attack aircraft very fast at levels I saw two once flying low near Padstow in Cornwall I was on cliff top looking down on them flying below the cliff to it was awesome and very cool

Really cool. THANKS.

Brilliant!

I'm retired Fleet Air Arm. Spent a lot of time on Small Ship's Helicopter Flights. More than once these guy's came past with us looking eye to eye with the aircrew.

I worked with 208 squadron at RAF Honington way back in 1982.

Just shows that the new kit isn't necessarily the best kit, The Buccaneer designed in the 50’s, in service from 62, still kicking arse in the 90’s,

@kevin_1230

3 жыл бұрын

At altitude the buccaneer would lose every time.

@russcattell955i

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevin_1230 The whole point is they were designed for the navy to fly at or below warship deck line.

@kevin_1230

3 жыл бұрын

@@russcattell955i They do not stay at the low level all the time. The lower you fly the more fuel you use. The only go low on the attack outside of radar range. The fighter would be patrolling beyond the radar range of the carrier battle groups radar where the buccaneer would still be at altitude. In that scenario the buccaneer would be slaughtered.

@stevecowham1017

3 жыл бұрын

Makes me wonder about the Harrier. That's come on leaps and bounds..in others hands.

@stevecowham1017

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevin_1230 Ground effect?

Finally some RCAF content on this channel and it’s a toss of shade. Oh well.

One of my favourite aircraft.

After major servicing in South Wales in the mid-80s, a Tornado and a Buccanneer carried out post servicing handling flights. On completion, they returned to the airfield with the Tornado leading. It could be seen coming in from the east and passed very low over the airfield. The Buccanneer was a few minutes behind and could be seen dropping down low on its approach a few miles away before dissapearing from view. The seconds passed and no Bucc. Then someone spotted a new telegraph pole above a hedge wich suddenly transformed into a Buccanneer hedge hopping. The grass in the airfield did not need cutting that week.

His brother is an excellent Scottish snooker player. Talented family.

The buccaneers were retired at lest 10 years early. Worked with them at RAF Laarbruck.

@davidpage4005

11 ай бұрын

So it was probably one of your guys that scared the shite out of me when I was out on the ranges at Sennelager back in 1970. There was I, minding me own business, sat on top of my scrimmed up wagon, watching the sun go down, when one of the buggers went howling over my head.......just.!!

Absolutely fantastic aircraft.

The Buccaneer, updated with digital avionics and FADEC engines would still be the worlds finest strike jet and could fly off the RN's new QE carriers if they fitted them with cats and traps. Given the spot of bother we are having with the Russians the up side could be a return of the Buccaneer to RN (and RAF if they can swallow their pride) service and descent Bond films!

I will concede that the skill of British air crew made some of the kites they flew appear a lot better than they actually were.

@matthewfindlay2242

3 жыл бұрын

Go on then,which aircraft are you referring too? The buccaneer, the jaguar ,the harrier,the hunter,the lightning, the tornado all pretty outstanding in my opinion

@davefloyd9443

3 жыл бұрын

Who, flying what could get near the Banana in the weeds and whitecaps?

@xx6489

3 жыл бұрын

@@matthewfindlay2242 Jaguar woefully underpowered. Tornado all examples but especially intercept version were second-rate to their contemporaries in the USA and Russia. Sea vixen useless. Meteor useless. Scimitar useless javelin useless. Swift useless. Hunter good but soon outclassed by US and Russian contemporaries. Venom useless. English electric lightning very good at a very specific role undermined by only two missiles and useless fuel capacity. harrier good but sub supersonic. Latest version of sidewinder make the real difference in the Falklands as an interceptor. Buccaneer good.. Mod procurement worse than fucking useless. As I said the skill of our pilots made mediocre aircraft look good

@davefloyd9443

3 жыл бұрын

Fair points but this is about an aircraft that "Bucc'd" those trends. 🙂 The V Force and The Buccaneers proved several times that Britain could get the job done and if they ever did it was game over for everyone. More than enough hard power to negate the crap procurement and stupid politics of the era.

@anthonywilson4873

3 жыл бұрын

@@xx6489Every plane has its day meteor useless bollocks, compared to what ME 262 apart from that nobody else had jets they where still spinning radial engines developed before WW1. Each plane has its day, to quote later aircraft superseding early developed plane is useless. Current plane is Typhoon maybe a Tempest coming. Vulcan in its day during exercises nuked US twice.

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 well done

Awesome. I can remember seeing Buccaneers and Phantom F4s as a boy, flying over Somerset, England. I always loved the Buccaneers....they were stationed at RNAS Yeovilton probably. One can see how the Harrier evolved from the Buccaneer?? Is that correct? I love hearing flying stories. Our village shop was run by an ex Squadron Leader flying Lightnings...the stories he told...flying so low that he smashed down the corn in corn fields....being scrambled by his base commander to check out a peculiar light in the sky...and finding after he put on the after burners and pointed the nose of the Lightning at the light, that it was just above the Earth's atmosphere, ....he estimated the source of reflection was it was about 1/4 mile across and definitely not of this world! And he wasn't a man to BS.

@stephenchappell7512

6 ай бұрын

RNAS Lossiemouth was the Buccaneers home while RNAS Yeovilton was home to the navy's Phantoms however it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they made it down to that part of the world

Ahh how to keep the neighbours happy ... and avoid injesting golf balls!

@MostlyPennyCat

3 жыл бұрын

A very unique hazard though, 10 out of 10. Ball ingested by jet bomber, 1 penalty stroke and the stroke retaken from the previous strokes starting position. See _Rule 18.2a and b_ of the rules of golf. _www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/rules/the-rules-of-golf/rule-18#18-2_

Awesome RAF pilots!

Great British engineering at its best.

Makes you wonder about getting rid of the Bucc rather than rebuild/improve.

@barbaradyson6951

3 жыл бұрын

Brian bridle. Don't forget the UK is so far up the usa's arse. Eg we have no fighter planes anymore, reliant on the US.

@lancsladgaming7146

3 жыл бұрын

@@barbaradyson6951 well thats wrong straight away. Whats the typhoon then? A bomber?

@georgebarnes8163

3 жыл бұрын

@@lancsladgaming7146 Very little of the Typhoon is British and Yes the Typhoon is a bomber among other things.

@mikemill7115

3 жыл бұрын

@@barbaradyson6951 UK doesn't build fighter aircraft because no one else will buy them. The Buccaneer was only flown by one other country.

@lancsladgaming7146

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgebarnes8163 no its not a bomber its a multi role fighter. A bomber is designed from the outset to be a bomber. Using your wisdom then practically every fighter built since the 60s is a bomber. Its 33 percent british also, thats hardly very little. Infact the eurofighter is based off the BAe ETP.

Spoke to a Canuck Hornet pilot who told me the same story. Not sure if he was involved or it was just passed down. Canadians are great pilots but our F-18’s were no match for the Buccaneer 🇬🇧 🇨🇦

The greatest plane flown by the greatest pilots ...... its as simple as that really !

Love it.

I bought my son a vhs about the Bucc many years ago, which showed a pilot seemingly flying between the hangers. It was amazing, Please get in touch if you have it or know where i can download it

I grew up with the Canadian hornets but, even I appreciated that story.

@mikemill7115

3 жыл бұрын

Yes just a story, from one point of view. I would like to hear the Canadian side, likely out flying the slower moving Buccaneers

@mikemontgomery2654

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikemill7115 the fact that you haven’t might be an indicator of truth.

Saw a low flying buccaneer fly over Rochdale a singlton❤

Buccaneer was just in a class of her own!

Mist beautiful Aircraft ! The SOUTH AFRICAN air force had a squadron of BUCCS

The Buccaneer looks completely outdated and from a different era compared to the American jets. Just goes to show how deceptive looks can be.

@InquisitiveBaldMan

3 жыл бұрын

First flight of the buckaneer 1958, the CF18 1978... That kind of explains it.... the biggest shame of the UK was the politicians shutting down the aircraft industry, I would have loved to have seen what we would have designed in the 70s. We probably would have had a bomber capable of flying to the Falklands without refueling. The fact the stuff we made in the 50s had 40 year a service life tells you how far ahead of the rest of the world we were.

@pilarmorin4405

3 жыл бұрын

Rates up there with my favorite British kit... No doubt about it, Thank you sir!

Flew against Bananas in the ‘60s. 893 v 801. Defenders of HMS Victorious. Unless the Gannets were airborne no chance, if they picked up the raid in time ( more than 40nm ) we had a 15 kt. Overtake advantage. They would be 8n.m / min so we had to usually re light one engine wind up to max welly set up the geometry for a turn in very close to their back end and get down to lowest level in max 5 mins. Our missiles had to see the hot end to acquire a fire solution. The Buc’s jet pipe point down so we would have to be below. Not possible. The missile would fly down on launch anyway. Hence we never “splashed “ a Banana strike. only the Americans had look down Doppler radar and shoot down Phoenix with the Tom Cats, they would have to have been on top form.

Bad ass...

‘The only thing better than a Buck would be a Buck with upgraded avionics’ - any UK aviator in the 1980s.

Is there no application for a modern air frame with the Buccaneer's capabilities, or would it just be too specialised for modern military budgets, ie. not capable of filling enough roles?

I don’t know why this pooped up. Hello JP.

Why why do we Brits get rid of old but fantastic aircraft? Buccaneers and Harriers being a prime example 🤷‍♂️

@stevetheduck1425

11 ай бұрын

The Buccs were approaching the time that they'd need to be rebuilt to continue any longer, and political concerns (money not in political pockets) meant we'd be without a long-range nuclear strike, so that role went back to the Royal Navy submarines where it had been. Then the Fleet Air Arm was scrapped (I believe due to political creatures being proven wrong as usual), so... twenty years or more without any capability in that role. Much like any ocean search capability, or airborne control capability, or power projection from a carrier. All eventually solved after billions spent by not having those capabilities, and then the construction of the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

Does anyone know what Jon's accent is? I'm guessing north Midlands.

@tonyhaynes9080

3 жыл бұрын

We had a leaping heap jocky on 4 Sqn who came from Walsall. It was brilliant hearing pure Birmingham accent over the air.

@sichere

11 ай бұрын

@@tonyhaynes9080 I love the smell of Bovril in the morning !

it's really a shame look down shoot down radars have made this extremely cool practice a little more dangerous. Well a little.

It is still incomprehensible why the Buccaneer and the Harrier were axed.

@danielearley5062

3 ай бұрын

Bean counters. The Harriers were axed to save the Tornados

@AaRr-bn3xx

2 ай бұрын

Lack of money... It's the same today !!

No one flies as low as the British 🇬🇧

Correction : CF-188, ALL Canadian aircraft have a 2 letter prefix and 3 digit suffix. Though it is often incorrectly called the CF-18. Also the CF-188 is NOT called the 'Hornet'' in Canada (officially) as procurement Canada left it unnamed. (See RCAF interview on DailyPlanet) ..but non RCAF staff have mislabeled it online.

@SSaugaCriss

3 жыл бұрын

our ATC just call them out as F-18 traffic, we’re not so serious up here.

Looks like he's standing in Newark air museum

@Aircrewinterview

Жыл бұрын

Correct sir.

Should have designed a new one with an even higher cruise speed for the new carriers and retrofit catapults

@andywells397

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, just copy the airframes and add more powerfull engines with state of the art flying controls.

@roberthardy3090

3 жыл бұрын

@@andywells397 Probably wouldn't need more powerful engines, but modern ones would be more fuel efficient and lighter giving much more range. Backed up by drone reconnaissance and with modern low probability of intercept radars they would be a potent threat to naval targets, perhaps we should licence the design to the Chinese, just the thing to spoil a US Carrier captain's beauty sleep.

Helicopter Search and Rescue Squadron - in THIS weather If any of YOU lot have to ditch in the Sea WE aren't coming for you.... lol

And if any of u want to see a buc up close n personal there is one outside petrol station as u leave elgin for lossiemouth.

@christopherransley5319

2 жыл бұрын

It's gone now, went last year

🇬🇧👍🏻

Always thought the Buccaneer looked very cool.

Why is he being interviewed standing next to a Harrier?

@Aircrewinterview

7 ай бұрын

Because that's what we used as the backdrop...

A great story but I don't understand why the F/A-18 wouldn't be capable of catching them. On paper the max speed of the F/A-18 is over 1000 Knots but the Buccaneer only 580. Is the suggestion that "catching them" doesn't really mean keeping up but keeping them in sight and the low level meant they couldn't do that?

@dixonpeter

3 жыл бұрын

Its down to the height, an F18's top speed of over 1000 knots is probs measured at a height of 30000 feet. Bring it down to sea level which is where the buccaneer was designed to operate and the tables are probably turned.

@alexshmalex

3 жыл бұрын

@@dixonpeter Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

@davefloyd9443

3 жыл бұрын

670mph at 20 ft asl, try diving onto them.....

@christophertelford

3 жыл бұрын

I would imagine that both aircraft are roughly similar in speed when flying at near ground level. If the F/A-18 wasn't flying in the right direction when it spotted the Buccaneers then they'd be gone by the time it had turned around to follow.

@martinsaunders2942

3 жыл бұрын

The Buc was built for low level at almost the speed of sound. It was built like a locomotive, much of the airframe was forged stainless steel. An F-18 would be too lightly built for prolonged use at such speeds low down. Difficult to shoot down because the attackers radar gets confused between Buccaneer and the ground, very difficult to get a fix on target.

Why standing near to an Harrier while talking about the Buccaneer?

@waratahdavid696

3 жыл бұрын

Because he wanted to. Any questions?

Fascinating. As an american, I've never heard of The amazing buccaneers. Were they ground attack? If they're low level they certainly aren't air superiority. What was their top speed? Sign me: interested but lazy. Yeah I know all us Americans are the same. Peace,

@andypandy5613

2 жыл бұрын

540kts at 10/20 feet agl the most stable low level aircraft ever built

@mrjockt

2 жыл бұрын

The Buccaneer was definitely low level, if their pilots had flown any lower they would have required tunnelling equipment, it’s reported that during participation in the “Red Flag” exercises in the U.S. many Buccaneer pilots regularly flew between 50 and 100 feet, not metre’s, above the ground.

The Buccaneer is a mean and brutal looking aircraft.

Must be disappointed Jon you never made 12. Some do some don't.

When we could build aircraft not going cap in hand to the us at great expense 😮

I love shit like this . . . F-18 nowhere near catching the Buccs.

@timberwolf27

3 жыл бұрын

Legacy Hornet, and no doubt Block 1, this was before look down shoot down.

@carl5381

3 жыл бұрын

and yet the F-18 is still in service and the Bucc is not. Hurr Durr.

@kevin_1230

3 жыл бұрын

If they were at altitude the buccs would have been slaughtered.

@georgegard.aka.currymonste1498

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevin_1230 but they weren't was they?

@kevin_1230

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgegard.aka.currymonste1498 They can't stay on the deck forever.

A discussion: RAF pilots were experts at extremely low level penetration missions. Does this still work or does it not work anymore? I'm under the impression that modern SHORADS like Tunguska, VL MICA, CAMM/L or OTOMATIC have reaction times required to shoot down a Bucc even though the Bucc only presents a _horizon to horizon_ target for, at most, just _under_ 9 seconds. So as long as they are set to automatic, they'll kill any bucc that shows it's head over there horizon.

@alankucar8025

3 жыл бұрын

No air defense system presents an impenetrable shield. And you can't place SHORADS everywhere. Plus today there is jamming.

@Akm72

3 жыл бұрын

As I understand it, it 'works' but you will take casualties so it's regarded as better to stand off and fire a Stormshadow (or equivalant) missile and let the missile do the risky low level flight through the heaviest defences.

@MostlyPennyCat

3 жыл бұрын

@@alankucar8025 Yeah, you definitely have to take the advertising spiel for these systems with a pinch of salt. I was under the impression that swarming smart munitions were what you throw at this now, rather than very expensive pilots. One you start thinking about it, a brace of those new micro cruise missiles, SPEAR 3, I suspect could be programmed to really chew up these new SAM systems. They'd provide intelligence (map area and targets, call in artillery or lobbed and lased precision bombs), electronic warfare (SPEAR EW variant) and a coordinated attack, concluding with suicide dives by the loitering EW variants at the end.

@MostlyPennyCat

3 жыл бұрын

@@Akm72 Yeah, I figured. However I think they'll move to many small missiles rather than one big and easily destroyed one Yeah you could saturate it but storm Shadows aren't cheap! In Missile Truck mode an F-15 ex could Cary 24 of these missiles and _still_ have a decent complement of short and long range air defense missiles. A 4 ship could lob _96_ of these at site defences. Working in coordination they would be highly deadly. Sadly I can't find a unit cost yet.

@Akm72

3 жыл бұрын

@@MostlyPennyCat It would depend on the target. Stormshadow has a large tandem warhead for taking out bunkers and other large concrete structures and will probably be replaced by another fairly large missile. Small missiles like Spear are really designed for use against vehicles and other targets of similar size.

As an uneducated baffoon, I all wondered why when you have such an amazing design as the Buccaneer, why didn't we just build new ones with modern avionics, engines and composite materials? Same fantastic design but faster, lighter and smarter! Sounds simple but probably not!

@thespokenword6456

3 жыл бұрын

You're absolutely correct. Primarily I think it comes down politics to have 'the latest' aircraft, and it's ridiculous.

British planes have such cool names. American planes just have, er numbers.

@Wandering_Canuck

3 жыл бұрын

What poppycock! Do your homework. Most military aircraft, whether, RAF, RCAF. RAAF, or USAF, or most other air forces, have names as well as numbers. The CF-18/F-18 is known as the Hornet, or in its newest version as the Super Hornet.

@lyndoncmp5751

3 жыл бұрын

@@Wandering_Canuck Somebody doesn't have a sense of humour. Get one.

@Wandering_Canuck

3 жыл бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 Nothing wrong with my sense of humour, thanks, but you might want to work on your comedy delivery. It really wasn't that funny outside your own mind, but good try at deflection. God forbid you might have to admit you not only were inaccurate, but also not funny! Another sad, failed internet sensation.

Is Jon Parker actually Ricky Gervais' twin brother?

I need no convincing.

Buccs used to give the yanks a hard time in red flag events too. Too low and too fast.

@mikemill7115

3 жыл бұрын

Max speed 630 MPH the CF-18 Mach 2 1400 MPH. The Canadians role in Germany was supersonic, low level flight, sorry but the Bucs could not match that.

@chrisgermann6658

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikemill7115 the 18's along with many comparable jets would have a hard time catching a bucc or a tornado at low level, that is the basis of what they were developed for. In a mid to high altitude dogfight then yes your right the odds change.

@spawnof200

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikemill7115 hornets cant hit mach 2 at sea level, no aircraft can.

@tonyhaynes9080

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrisgermann6658 Working with Tornado crews, and many said it out performed the Buccaneer at low level.

@bertiewooster3326

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikemill7115 Talking rubbish Mickey you try catching a Bucc at low-level 600+ knots in a CF18 !

From what I have heard, stories such as this were typical for the RAF. These days, things have changed. Too much emphasis on 'touchy feely, equality rights and rac 1sm training' and not enough on flying.

@TheREALMcChimp

3 жыл бұрын

A lot of RAF flight crew died during training exercises like this, especially in the crowded airspace over Germany. If they do less of this risky flying these days, it's not because of "touchy feely" political agendas.

@jimrussell4062

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheREALMcChimp Well it is in part. Lots die today in accidents too. There is more of a "zero mistakes" atmosphere along with less let's say "tolerance" by the civilians. Buzzing fishing trawlers for example would get a guy grounded usually, not friendly waves.

Bet it could still do a job now?

A

I worked in the CIC as an OS when the Navy got rid of the F-14. The Navy will deny make excuses and tell you it didn’t loose capability when it switched to the F-18 for almost every mission on the carrier…… they’ll call the F-14 expensive and dated. But the truth is, speed does matter a lot. The F-18 super Hornet still cannot match the F-14 as an interceptor not as a fleet defends platform. Had the Navy built the Tomcat 21… most of the issues it had would have been eliminated.. Today the US needs high speed interceptors and because the F-35 is slow, and the F-22 out of production, it’s building new F-15’s as an interim to a future fighter that won’t see sufficient numbers for another 15 years. This while China and Russia are gearing up for a war in 3-5 years.

@AKlover

3 жыл бұрын

I have a little doubt China is gearing up for a war I very much doubt Russia is the military is built for defense their military is built for the counter punch. Last I heard the entire Russian economy is smaller than the economy of California. You know you’re talking to a neocon war pig Russia this Russia that Russia has one real option nuclear weapons and everybody loses in that case.

@ILSRWY4

3 жыл бұрын

I always said should have never gotten rid of the F-14.....

@WALTERBROADDUS

3 жыл бұрын

Super Hornet.... Not a Super Attack plane. Not a Super tanker. Not a super hammer. Not a Super fighter. But a Jack of all the trades.

@bret9741

3 жыл бұрын

@@WALTERBROADDUS if they plan had continued as originally envisioned.. the Hornet was an A-7 replacement with more capability but less range. There would haven been an A-12 and a Tomcat 21 or better. But the Navy was seeing budgets cut massively, we had 15 carriers when I was active as 18’s arrived.

@WALTERBROADDUS

3 жыл бұрын

@@bret9741 I was there. Yep.

1950s Buccaneer > 1980s Hornet.

The Brits trumped someone AGAIN 🤣🤣🤣🤣

The buccaneer has been out of service for decades.. There isn't really a comparison

I would like to hear the other side of this story. The Buccaneer was a low level strike aricraft with a max speed of 630 MPH, the CF-18 was a mach 2 supersonic aircraft. Likely the Canadians playing with the Brits. But CF-18s at Baden had the same role in Germany as the Buccaneer, low level strike, they were not in the air to air role in Germany. I would take a supersonic CF-18 at low level over a slower Buccaneer

@raybritton2923

3 жыл бұрын

You might be missing the point that the Bucc was faster at low level than the CF18. The CF18 max speed at high level you mentioned has no relevance at all to low level. There is also the buffeting the CF18 pilot would experience at ultra low level, it would be very severe. Meanwhile the Bucc crew would be travelling smoothly. Some aircraft like the Buccaneer, Tornado and F111 could fly very fast at very low level, most aircraft can’t.

@mikeedwards350

3 жыл бұрын

The quoted top speed of most combat aircraft is on full afterburner at high altitude. Endurance at that rate will be 10-20 minutes The F18 isn't a supercruise aircraft, so in real life, you're probably looking at 600kts at altitude. The buccaneer could do 630kts all day long at low altitude.

@richardoakley8800

3 жыл бұрын

When a buccaneer is at 10 feet a 550 knots the f18 would have to dive down to get a guns kill or launch a missle.. any missle would hit the sea or ground before hitting the buccaneer and no one was brave enough for a guns kill

@christophertelford

3 жыл бұрын

The F/A-18 claims a top speed of Mach 1.7 at altitude. When carrying weapons at sea level it's not going anywhere near that fast. It's definitely not a mach 2 aircraft. At sea level when loaded up I doubt it's supersonic. The Buccaneer was designed for high speed subsonic flight at sea level and so can keep pace with the F/A-18 in this environment. The F/A-18 is only faster at altitude where these kinds of missions don't take place.

@tonyhaynes9080

3 жыл бұрын

It's one thing to catch up with them, but it's a totally different matter to get radar or guns lock even if you manage to pick them out of the ground clutter. It doesn't matter how fast or how good you are, you can't kill what you can't see.

Buccaneer pilots only left their undercarriage so they can get lower

This is kinda unfair

Ultra low level, hat is where real aircraft belong.

You can put a Meteor missile on a propeller plane with radar and no US or Russian airplane has the slightest chance! So comparing airplanes makes no sense actually, it's about having Meteors or not. (Meteor: range horizontally 100km, 20'000m up still 40km. AMRAAM: horizontally 30 to 50km, 20'000m up don't work!)

@spysareamyth

3 жыл бұрын

Really funny when they just pop chaff and crank and the missile loses its target. Like what kept happening to the AIM-54's the amercans used to use

@hansulrichjohner2694

3 жыл бұрын

@@spysareamyth Modern missiles can extrapolate the position of the airplane. Meteor flies without radar to a predefined position, which can be updated by the firing plane or any AWACS. Meteors radar is switched on only during the final approach.

@christophertelford

3 жыл бұрын

Propeller aircraft are not immune to being shot down by jets. Modern air to air missiles will track them just fine. Even some modern military helicopters could have a go at intercepting them. Using slower aircraft to deliver long range anti-ship missiles might work but it will give the target more time to respond.

@hoghogwild

3 жыл бұрын

@@spysareamyth That's not true, the missile was fired 3 times with at least 2 at extremely long range. With 2 of the shots followed by AIm-120's which also missed.

A subsonic jet designed in the 50's outrunning a 4+ generation Fighter ... riiiiiiggggghhhht. 😄

@timberwolf27

3 жыл бұрын

CF-18 is a legacy Hornet dude, its Gen 4 even, not to mention it'll be way early Block prob

@diggledoggle4192

3 жыл бұрын

@@timberwolf27 modern ones won't be that much faster. They're not designed for high speed, low level flight unlike the Buccaneer. In fact, very few aircraft can fly supersonic at super low altitude, not without afterburner which isn't practical die to fuel constraints

@TheModforlife

3 жыл бұрын

@@timberwolf27 and the buccaneers where 20 years older than the first hornet to roll off the production line

@corvanphoenix

3 жыл бұрын

Hornets, unlike the Buccaneer, are draggy as fuck. They're great at high alpha turns & can do all sorts of missions but they're not great interceptors. The Buccaneer has a lower top speed without afterburner but its airframe is optimised for highly efficient low level trans-sonic flight. So it's not as fast as a Hornet on afterburner but way faster than a Hornet on military thrust. So if the Hornet finds the Buccaneer in time to see if their 2 min of afterburner time can get them a kill, good luck. You've got to be damn lucky though because every second you spend out of afterburner the Buccaneer is getting further away.

@TheModforlife

3 жыл бұрын

@Hans Tuber not at low level it hasn't

I call bullshit, Hornets are still flying all over the world while the Buccaneers are recycled into beer cans years ago.

@anglonig1

3 жыл бұрын

You don't then understand the Buccaneer.

@loyalist5736

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah Terry its called upgrading and getting new kit ...

@liverpoolscottish6430

3 жыл бұрын

Having read your inane comment, I call, "FULL OF SHIT!" You evidently have no understanding about the design and capabilities of the Buccaneer. It was purposely designed to fly at high subsonic speed at very low level. At low level, the Buc is *extremely* manoeuvrable, it's airframe was optimised for that role. It was an absolute swine of a tgt for fighters to engage at low level. Whilst the F-18 is faster- it's only faster when it engages full afterburner, and it can only use afterburner for a very short period before fuel becomes an issue. On dry power only, the F-18 will get left behind by the Buc- FACT. Another armchair 'expert' who only looks at maximum performance stats and wrongly assumes that an F-18 will achieve it's max velocity at *all* altitudes and can sustain such speed indefinitely. WRONG! Back to school for you boy!

@raybritton2923

3 жыл бұрын

@@liverpoolscottish6430 Some comments are hilarious. I get the impression that not only do some posters think an aircraft can do its maximum mach number at any height, but they also don’t realise mach is a different speed depending on height :) Just imagine a poster thinking mach 1 is ‘always’ 760 and that an SR71 could thus do 2280mph 50 feet off the deck lol.

@Thunderbalderdash

3 жыл бұрын

it was a long, long time ago... the Bucc was retired in 1994. The CF18 of the early 90's isn't the same as latest Hornets in use today.