Buccaneers & BL755s?

[Finn]

We had the cradles on ours as well, to protect the skin as you mentioned, you had to line them up with the rubber pads on the bottom so it fit right. I wasn't a dumpie so they may have done that as well for the ones in storage, for alerts we used the ready use ones although all we did was put them up and take them down. The locals probably wouldn't appreciate us flying with them for some reason. 

 

Jari

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

My mate got back to me earlier and thanks you for the excuse to look through his 20 odd books and countless magazine articles on the Buccaneer.

Unfortunately he can only find references to it being allocated to RAFG units which we already know.

He has no record of it being issued for use on Navy Buccaneers.

A book written by a test pilot briefly mentions trials of it at West Freugh but there is no photograph.

He will continue to look as he assures me that he has got almost everything ever published on the Buccaneer (including some very interesting reports on the S50 but alas no mention of them using it either)

[RMP2]

Interesting stuff re storage, thanks guys.

 

Maybe there simply aren't any photos of live ones fitted. The RAF were pretty coy back in those days. But that won't stop me searching anyway.

[Seahawk]

NB I lack any of the insider knowledge of some other posters to this topic.  I wonder if, in those post-Canberra, pre-Tornado days, there might have been a distinction between the roles of the Buccaneer vice the Jaguar/Harrier force, with the former using its longer range for interdiction farther behind enemy lines rather than the CAS/BAI role of tackling the massed tank hordes swarming over the border.  Not a distinction likely to last long once the balloon went up, I grant you (and hence the practising with BL755s), but, if you are taking out comms nodes like bridges and railway junctions, surely a 1000lb GP would be more use than a BL755.

 

Just a thought: happy to be corrected by anyone who actually knows something about it! 

[RMP2]

6 hours ago, Seahawk said:

NB I lack any of the insider knowledge of some other posters to this topic.  I wonder if, in those post-Canberra, pre-Tornado days, there might have been a distinction between the roles of the Buccaneer vice the Jaguar/Harrier force, with the former using its longer range for interdiction farther behind enemy lines rather than the CAS/BAI role of tackling the massed tank hordes swarming over the border.  Not a distinction likely to last long once the balloon went up, I grant you (and hence the practising with BL755s), but, if you are taking out comms nodes like bridges and railway junctions, surely a 1000lb GP would be more use than a BL755.

 

Just a thought: happy to be corrected by anyone who actually knows something about it! 

 

I think the BL755 was just an option that was available and it was perhaps secondary to the GP bombs and the Buccaneers primary roles. Having said that, Buccs did carry rocket pods and the 755 was supposed to replace these as they were deemed more effective at killing tanks even if it did mean overflying the target. Tanks being a worry for RAFG if the Russians decided to march across Europe (the A-10 was designed specifically to combat such an event too I believe, that was the level of concern back then).
Release height was listed at around 100ft at 500 knots or more... crazy buggers. That meant no dive required - so no need to climb and be exposed to ground fire. Win-win (if youre not on the ground).

 

Harriers i always thought had more of a CAS primary role, but Im no expert either. I do however think that a Bucc with a full load of cluster bombs is going to make one hell of a mess with a potential of 16 of the things on board, maybe 10 is more likely a maximum, but still, that sure beats the Jags or Harriers in the Great Big Bloody Mess Making stakes.
I see where youre coming from as the roles of Buccs, Jags and Harriers seem to overlap somewhat, but each also specialise in their own roles too. I think...

Thats my reckoning anyway.

[Finn]

Think of the BL755, and most CBUs, as a shotgun, a larger dispersal pattern mainly for smaller targets. A direct hit, or close enough, with a GP bomb usually does serious damage to a target, provided you can get the bomb near the target. If you have many targets spread apart you use either many bombs or a few CBUs. I do believe the German Navy had BL755s for the F-104 and Tornado to deal with smaller vessels like landing craft and PT type boats so there is no reason why the RN didn't have some for the Bucc as well. 

 

Jari

[Selwyn]

22 hours ago, Seahawk said:

NB I lack any of the insider knowledge of some other posters to this topic.  I wonder if, in those post-Canberra, pre-Tornado days, there might have been a distinction between the roles of the Buccaneer vice the Jaguar/Harrier force, with the former using its longer range for interdiction farther behind enemy lines rather than the CAS/BAI role of tackling the massed tank hordes swarming over the border.  Not a distinction likely to last long once the balloon went up, I grant you (and hence the practising with BL755s), but, if you are taking out comms nodes like bridges and railway junctions, surely a 1000lb GP would be more use than a BL755.

 

Just a thought: happy to be corrected by anyone who actually knows something about it! 

Interdiction covers many things. A column of tanks or trucks in the rear area going up to the front lined up on a road is a typical interdiction target, and an ideal target for a BL755.

 

As for Harrier GR3, the standard aircraft load on harrier field sites was 4X BL755. We used to simulate loading times for  this by loading two, and then off loading them (2 up and 2 down = 4 up time wise) 

 

As for release heights the BL755 had 4 pre selectable heights but in the falklands the aircrew wanted to drop at an even lower altitude as they were being hit whilst "popping up to drop" so the first safety locks were being fired off on the ground to achieve this. Post Falklands war, the mk 2 BL755 had revised pre set dropping altitude settings.

 

Selwyn

[RMP2]

5 hours ago, Selwyn said:

As for release heights the BL755 had 4 pre selectable heights but in the falklands the aircrew wanted to drop at an even lower altitude as they were being hit whilst "popping up to drop" so the first safety locks were being fired off on the ground to achieve this. Post Falklands war, the mk 2 BL755 had revised pre set dropping altitude settings.

 

Interesting stuff. I guess all settings were low level though (below 1000' at a guess) going by the lack of suitability in Desert Storm and the switch to Mk20 bombs for medium level release by the RAF Jags?

 

Incidentally - after DS there was a mod with a radar altimeter system fitted to the bombs (redesignated RBL755) allowing various altitude releases and low level opening. Do you have any experience of those, Selwyn?

 

 

ps - I picked my Airfix Bucc up from the PO today.... makes a Kittyhawk Jaguar look like a walk in the park!! Wow. Just wow. Truly terrible warpage of epic scale in every direction, quite an achievement really. Unsure if I will take it on or Hot Potato it onto ebay to save the grief and maybe get enough cash for the eventual Tan Model version.

[Slater]

Didn't the RAF use some CBU-87's during Desert Storm? They have medium to high altitude capability.

[RMP2]

21 minutes ago, Slater said:

Didn't the RAF use some CBU-87's during Desert Storm? They have medium to high altitude capability.

 

Sorry, yes. Thats what I meant when I wrote Mk20s.

[Selwyn]

1 hour ago, RMP2 said:

 

Interesting stuff. I guess all settings were low level though (below 1000' at a guess) going by the lack of suitability in Desert Storm and the switch to Mk20 bombs for medium level release by the RAF Jags?

 

Incidentally - after DS there was a mod with a radar altimeter system fitted to the bombs (redesignated RBL755) allowing various altitude releases and low level opening. Do you have any experience of those, Selwyn?

 

 

ps - I picked my Airfix Bucc up from the PO today.... makes a Kittyhawk Jaguar look like a walk in the park!! Wow. Just wow. Truly terrible warpage of epic scale in every direction, quite an achievement really. Unsure if I will take it on or Hot Potato it onto ebay to save the grief and maybe get enough cash for the eventual Tan Model version.

Never encountered the RBL755.  Cluster bombs had been banned under the mines act by the time I came back to UK from KSA. And as far as I know the RSAF never had the RBL 755.

 

Selwyn

Edited June 28, 2017 by Selwyn

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

On 2017-6-22 at 10:31 PM, XV107 said:

I have seen (open source) a reference to a maximum load of eight weapons - four in the bay and one per wing pylon.

Just saw that in 'Wings of Fame' Vol 14 .

It mentions XV Squadron flying its last SNEB sortie on 31/07/73 and as the weapon was the same approximate size as a 1000 lb bomb up to eight could be carried.

Still no pics though.

Found this which is a good read and BL755 gets a brief mention.

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-48127.html

[Slater]

BL755 was actually authorized for use by the USAF, but only as a wartime emergency expedient.

[XV107]

As Selwyn says, 'interdiction' covers a multitude of sins, and attacking at depth beyond the FEBA¹ could involve target sets for which a cluster weapon was ideal. Concepts such as FOFA² (which developed as the Bucc's time in Germany was drawing to a close and became doctrine as the TGR1 took over) meant that you might see aircraft attacking not just transport columns, but area targets where a four-ship spreading somewhere in the order of 1,000+ bomblets over the target would be rather wearisome for those on the receiving end. 

 

¹ Forward Edge of Battle Area

² Follow On Forces Attack

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Any excuse to show a Buccaneer picture..nothing to do with BL755 but found this whilst looking

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

I met up with my friend today and spent most of the meeting discussing Buccaneers.

As yet he has been unable to find a photograph of an operational Buccaneer loaded with BL755 and has a possible reason.

We learn from Selwyn that the weapon was stored 'shrinkwrapped' (my description) so given that the weapon was similar in dimensions to a 1000 pounder then perhaps the existing practice bombs were used to simulate the BL755 ?  It would appear to be a lot of extra work to unseal them,fit them and fly them then repeat in reverse order if they weren't being dropped live on a range.

I have been unable to access the IWM film of Buccaneer BL755 trials at West Freugh or find a report so don't know what the aerodynamic difference between a 1000 LB bomb and a BL755 is so perhaps those with more knowledge can say whether this was possible or not.

Also if the 8 fit was rarely used (thinking about slipper tanks, ECM pod and Sidewinder on the wing stations) then with 4 in the bomb bay,spotters and photographers would never see them.

(Rationale here is that we see plenty pics of Jaguars and Harriers with them and they didn't have bomb bays)

 

I lost an hour this morning reading Buccaneer stories on PPRune . Link: http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-112540.html

I liked the one where a Red Flag aircraft's shockwave broke off the VHF aerial on a hut,that is until the scratch marks on the wing leading edge proved otherwise. That may have been the same aircraft which the American photographed and a Buccaneer intake filled the entire frame.

[Finn]

Another possible reason is, speaking from personal experience, is we never flew operationally with live BL755s, or Mk-20 Rockeyes, on the CF-104 and CF-18 is because if something went wrong they didn't want a bunch of little bomblets scattered all over the place, especially in densely populated Europe.  The only time they flew with them was for testing with cameras mounted on the a/c and that was in Cold Lake, away from any population areas. Only during alerts did they get loaded up, then taken down and having cameras to take pics was a no no. Another example of no photos is the B-47, for years it was main role was nuclear but i have yet to see a pic of one with a shape in it's bay, even an inert one.

 

Jari

[Slater]

Didn't know that Canada was a user of the Mk 20. Presumably those are all gone by now?

[Selwyn]

3 hours ago, Finn said:

Another possible reason is, speaking from personal experience, is we never flew operationally with live BL755s, or Mk-20 Rockeyes, on the CF-104 and CF-18 is because if something went wrong they didn't want a bunch of little bomblets scattered all over the place, especially in densely populated Europe.  The only time they flew with them was for testing with cameras mounted on the a/c and that was in Cold Lake, away from any population areas. Only during alerts did they get loaded up, then taken down and having cameras to take pics was a no no. Another example of no photos is the B-47, for years it was main role was nuclear but i have yet to see a pic of one with a shape in it's bay, even an inert one.

 

Jari

Never saw a live one flown in the RAF in Peacetime either!  4lb and 3KG practice bombs were used to simulate dropping them.

 

Selwyn

[Selwyn]

5 hours ago, Scimitar said:

I met up with my friend today and spent most of the meeting discussing Buccaneers.

As yet he has been unable to find a photograph of an operational Buccaneer loaded with BL755 and has a possible reason.

We learn from Selwyn that the weapon was stored 'shrinkwrapped' (my description) so given that the weapon was similar in dimensions to a 1000 pounder then perhaps the existing practice bombs were used to simulate the BL755 ?  It would appear to be a lot of extra work to unseal them,fit them and fly them then repeat in reverse order if they weren't being dropped live on a range.

I have been unable to access the IWM film of Buccaneer BL755 trials at West Freugh or find a report so don't know what the aerodynamic difference between a 1000 LB bomb and a BL755 is so perhaps those with more knowledge can say whether this was possible or not.

Also if the 8 fit was rarely used (thinking about slipper tanks, ECM pod and Sidewinder on the wing stations) then with 4 in the bomb bay,spotters and photographers would never see them.

(Rationale here is that we see plenty pics of Jaguars and Harriers with them and they didn't have bomb bays)

 

I lost an hour this morning reading Buccaneer stories on PPRune . Link: http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-112540.html

I liked the one where a Red Flag aircraft's shockwave broke off the VHF aerial on a hut,that is until the scratch marks on the wing leading edge proved otherwise. That may have been the same aircraft which the American photographed and a Buccaneer intake filled the entire frame.

Aerodynamics were very different just on the basis that the 1000lb bomb hit the ground in one piece and the BL 755 ejected bomblets! BL 755 also had fold out fins for stability  which the 1000lb didn't.

 

The BL 755 ejected its bomblets in two "bursts" so that the bomblet pattern on the ground looked like an elongated figure "8" 

 

IIRC there was a dragplate that could be fitted to the rear of 3kg Practice bombs  to change the trajectory  depending wether the sortie simulated 1000lb or BL755. Can't quite remember which was which though.

 

Selwyn

[Phone Phixer]

The Jaguars used to drop live BL755's on exercise in Oman. There's a bombing range near Thumrait that is located in a wadi, it even has a viewing grandstand on the cliff top.

At the end of the det there was a firepower demonstration, with the Jags dropping live weapons of all available varieties. It finished with the BL755's because after that the range was closed for 24 hours before EOD went in to blow all the

unexploded bomblets.

If the crews wanted to fly a "heavy" fully loaded jet, it was always 1,000lb HES (practice) that were loaded.  Flyable practice BL755's were rare as rocking horse .

 

 

Knew about the drag plate for fitting on 3kg terror weapons, never saw one used though.

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

10 hours ago, Selwyn said:

Aerodynamics were very different

Sorry,I meant the aerodynamics whilst attached to the pylon. Would the practice bomb carrier be representative training aid for a live BL755?

Having read your description there Selwyn,did the main body just become an empty can or did it have explosives in it?

 

 'used to drop live BL755's on exercise in Oman. '

Were bombs similar to missiles with a shelf life so were fired off before expiry?

[Selwyn]

1 hour ago, Scimitar said:

Sorry,I meant the aerodynamics whilst attached to the pylon. Would the practice bomb carrier be representative training aid for a live BL755?

Having read your description there Selwyn,did the main body just become an empty can or did it have explosives in it?

 

 'used to drop live BL755's on exercise in Oman. '

Were bombs similar to missiles with a shelf life so were fired off before expiry?

Air Carriage of a CBLS bomb carrier would be assessed in isolation as would any suspended store. The crucial aerodynamic problem would be to ensure your released PB had the same trajectory  as the BL 755 to allow you to  use your sights properly to train.

 

To answer your other question, once the bomblets are expelled the bomb case is just a lump of falling metal, which although not explosive in any way would spoil your day if it hit you!

 

Selwyn

 

 

[Finn]

6 hours ago, Selwyn said:

To answer your other question, once the bomblets are expelled the bomb case is just a lump of falling metal, which although not explosive in any way would spoil your day if it hit you!

 

Selwyn

 

 

 

I remember one of the films i saw when i was going thru my Trades training was of a BL755 drop, the cameraman in the chase plane just focused on the largest object he could see, the bomb case, mostly missing all the little bomblets that came out. Here is a video of German F-104s dropping BL755s, at the 11:00 mark:

 

 

at the 2:55 mark you can see them loading them.

 

Jari

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Thanks for posting that Finn.

That Starfighter howl brought back memories!