Shipbucket

The Buccaneer did carry the entirety of the Mk82 family, including being able to carry two Mk84s inside the bombbay with a short ton to spare, did carry Paveways operationally in the Gulf War; Bucc crews frequently practiced rocket pod attacks early in its RN career and the Martel was practically designed specifically for the Bucc so of course it can carry that too. Other pods should be a matter of course.

As for the OMI-24/26, the dimensions you cite for the OMI-24 are hardly problematic, and unless you're the Soviet Union, a 10 meter-long ASM is comically large. I don't know what the fleet make-up of Turkey is in your AU but assuming it's the same as your HLK then except for amphibious assets (which ideally the enemy would try to shield with whatever they can anyway) there's nothing that justifies such a large missile. Also remember that the air-launched versions would lop the boosters off - the aircraft is essentially now the booster.

RHAF AU had the AS-37 Martel and still use an vastly impoved variant.The OMI-24 was designed in about the same era with the Styx,with rocket engine based on WW2 German technology (Aerodyne R-11/R-15 sustainer was an enlarged version of Kramer X-4 engine,booster a double solid rocket engine based on the rocket Thunder I,both in the same body-the booster burned its fuel and did not drop in production version of the missile,because the booster release system led to failures during tests),warhead from Mk15 torpedo (340kg) and INS/active radar/IR guidance.1220kg is the weight of the SSM,ASM had weight of about 1100kg,as it did not have booster,but the body was the same.

The Isis AU ASM is based on the same basic body with Adis I,but larger to accomodate a ramjet (first ramjet designed by Aerodyne in late 1970's) while retained the INS/Actice Radar guidance system.Designed not only as ASM but as a ground attack missile with dual warhead (ASM has 340kg "Adis I" warhead and Groung Attack dual "Exocet" warhead).It has supersonic speed and range 160-370km.

The Vulcan would carry both missiles and was in the same weight category with the Tu-16.

Also keep in mind that the Bucc is an excellent low-level performer and can keep up high transonic speeds at low-level; there have been very few, if any, aircraft designed since with matching capability. It's also a very stable rocket-platform; if rocket attacks really are a priority requirement, it will be a little ludicrous to have B-47s perform low-level strafing runs. Neither the B-47 nor any of the V-Bombers are really capable of providing the types of tactical low-level attacks you're calling for. That's why large bombers are falling out of favor.

For the record, F-15Es would be a good Bucc replacement too. They've been offered in the past, and McDD/Boeing still makes half-hearted marketing attempts to this day. They were rejected on cost grounds and they bought larger numbers of in-service aircraft instead.

The Buccaneer makes a good companion to the P6M (not P-6M, as it is under the old Navy designation system), the P6M offers longer range strike while the Buccaneer offers a more tactical strike platform.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

The low level strike capability of the Buccaneer is the reason I choose it.Later RHAF bought the A-7 to replace the old R-57,a locally developed strike aircraft similar with the DH-110 Vixen but powered by two afterburning J65s (Aerodyne J750-105) and convectional side by side cockpit.The R-57 was also used by the Air Guard of Autonomous Territories and finally withdrawned in 1991.A-7 modernised with Israeli help to A-7M spec and still are in service.

RHAF now uses Mirage 2k as interceptor together with F-4E II (or Peace Icarus 2000),Mirage F1CGM (several are modified to carry AM-39),A-7M for strike/SEAD missions (also for SEAD missions several F-4E RD are in service),Mirage IV (only export customer,in IV-M for naval strike/convectional bombing and IV-R for reconnaissance missions with advanced pods).The newest order is the Rafale (120 will made with license,as also did with the 2k).In future RHAF AU will buy fighters from Russia,
such as Sukhoi Su-35 and Pak-Fa.
The RHN Seamasters are called P6M AegeanMaster (powered by Orenda RS-9,an RS-13 without afterburner since was built from Canadair,not US).P6M will serve for another 10-15 years.

I'm not sure you have a need, or even the budget for a Mirage IV force if you have P6Ms and Buccaneers.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

The A-7 is a good aircraft and I actually considered suggesting it in place of the Bucc; I think despite its single engine it can actually carry more then the Bucc and pretty much meets the warload requirement you stipulated in the OP (one of the reasons why was because it had a single BIG engine, basically the same one that was on the F-14 with the afterburner lopped off) and it's pretty versatile, being the closest thing the USN and Marines had to a dedicated close-support aircraft once the A-4 left, or even in the meantime. However you seem to be implying a long-range strike craft and the A-7 has pretty short legs. And in practice it was more restricted to tactical support as opposed to the all-around strike including ASM missions you seem to be looking for. It could carry Harpoons no doubt (it did routinely in the USN) but to carry Martel or other ASMs would probably require more work than really worth it.

The A-6 would be another choice to consider; except for having just two engines (and I already went over that point with the Bucc) it either meets or outright exceeds all of your stipulations (its warload is frequently quoted at being in excess of 16,000 lbs - rarely did Tu-16s or B-47s carry more - though on the flipside rarely did the A-6 carry that much either), has a very long range (it's likely it's got the longest range of any USN aircraft ever fielded on a carrier until the F-35s come into service) and like the Bucc also only has a crew of 2. It's got a reputation for being a maintenance hog but this reputation was earned during the era of the F-18 "electric jet" and the Bucc wouldn't be much less of a hangar queen anyway. But I feel the superior (if not vastly superior, at least in relative terms) transonic performance of the Bucc outweighs any benefits of the A-6 for your requirements. The A-6 was more of a medium-altitude all-weather bomber and I have the impression it was even expected to use its all-weather ability as partial cover against enemy defenses; when it first debuted in low-level roles in Vietnam it encounter the same problematic AA gun fire (people don't realize medium-and even light-caliber AA guns claimed more USN/USAF aircraft than any other Soviet-bloc weapon including SAMs and interceptors, perhaps combined) as all other U.S. types adapted from the role ("adapted" is the key word here as the USN didn't see low-level bombing as important until Vietnam. The USN had a different operational perspective from the RN; the USN expected its primary aviation role as being power projection, and that means interdiction of ground-based targets. At the time it was thought medium-altitude bombing was the most appropriate way to counter these targets. Ironically this mentality proved true again in Iraq, but I guess that goes to show aircraft operational flexibility is important. Really, the USN didn't put much thought into actually attacking other ships. The operational thinking at the time was to neutralize the Soviet Navy defensively by putting up an anti-missile screen, and if you had to engage enemy warships you'd just lob whatever weapon conveniently armed with a nuke on hand which usually meant either RIM-8 Talos in anti-ship mode and, yes, it had an anti-ship mode and was judged equal to a 20-inch battleship rifle on kinetics alone, or a nuke-tipped ASROC with its detonation depth set to zero. The biggest threat the Soviet Navy offered were its aircraft, its missiles which might as well be aircraft, and its missile-launching submarine force, including both cruise-missile and ballistic missile-launching boats. Even Harpoon started out as, yes, an anti-submarine weapon to counter surfaced boomers and to this day, despite having the biggest warhead in its class with a whopping 210 kilos comparable to some of the larger Soviet supersonic weapons, many people consider Harpoon's actual anti-ship performance to be inferior because it lacks an actual armor-piercing warhead. The Soviet Navy had poor power projection capability and was almost entirely geared towards defeating the USN, so neutralizing the Soviet Navy offensively wasn't deemed relevant or efficient compared to other priorities. The RN, however, still considered aircraft-launched anti-shipping attacks important even to the point of old-fashioned dumb-bomb attacks and recognized such an aircraft could carry that capability over to other missions, hence why the Bucc had such impressive transonic, low-level performance.)

I realize that's a whole wall-o-text I wrote, and most of it is only optional for your purposes, but it does lead to an understanding of why people designed things the way they did and maybe even give you more insight into what your AU navy needs as opposed to just wanting what's tacticool.

The F-111 would probably be the most perfect aircraft that was available OTL except it would still be too small to carry such a huge missile at 10 meters. Mostly though, you'd have to wait a while for it and it's not realistic to expect a nation to wait for an aircraft prior to its own operational requirement drafters being aware of its existence - barring Twilight Zone physics, of course.

And what Timothy said, the MirageIV would end up being redundant almost no matter what you settle on. The only truly impressive thing about it was its fast-while-still looks and raw Mach performance - in all other areas it was honestly a mediocre performer and the only thing that the F-111 doesn't blow it away on is the looks department and even that's debatable.

Firstly,the ASM OMI-26 designed for the P6M,the only aircraft which can carry it.Can be used for destroying aircraft shelters or other hard targets also,not only against ships.It was not very expensive to develop,since it use the same frame with OMI-24 in a longer form and its guidance system is something between Exocet and Adis I.At that era,RHAF AU did not had any long range weapons,Isis was the first step.Next there will be stand-off weapons,like the South Korean/Hellenic developed E-212 Velos and the HSC family.Also RHAF AU has ordered Scalp to use with Rafale but also some 2k modified for it.Perhaps P6M-MP would carry such weapons-the aircraft will stay in USN and RCN service until 2030,so RHN airframes will last about 20 more years.The OMI-26 is 8.2m long and weighs 1660kg.The EF-202N (Buccaneer S.52) could carried one and only OMI-24 in a belly mounted hardpoint with 2 AIM-9 for self defence,but the Martel was more usual load.Black Sea Command had the R-136,which used the OMI-24B until 1991 when this missile retired-it was based to the old OMI-24A/C,the newer -D does not have air-launched variant and will retire also in a few years.

Do not think that HLK has many Mirage IV,France had 62 and HLK ordered in 1966 32 of which 26 became operational.Later in mid 1980's aquired another 20 from France and from a total number of 46 airframes about 32-34 are in service (in theory,actual number is smaller).The IV could carry 16 1000lb bombs or 4 Martel (the IV-M also 4 AM-39 Exocet) and even used in buddy refuelling with Mirage F1CG from 2 modified 2500lt wing tanks.Also Mirage IV will retire soon.Another modification is a belly mounted fuel tank (similar with TSR.2) with 5000lt of fuel to provide 4 hardpoints for AM-39 and Adis II-B missile (essentially a turbojet variant of AM-39 with 160km range).Some trials were made to Mirage IV-M for carrying 2 OMI-26,giving it 370km range (from P6M it has 240km),but never seen in actual service-due to cancelation of this program.

I did not say that the A-7 use Martel for SEAD.A-7M and F-4E RD use AGM-45 Shrike and the OMI-78 Keres (or Standard ARM) which developed further with Israel assistance.

Soviets never were threat for HLK,in Cold War though there was a fear for an attack from Bulgaria and Romania until about the mid 1970's,but the main enemy is Turkey.

Also RHAF was a user of the F-104 Starfighter,aquired 280 airframes total-of which about 160-170 were in service, and used in many roles,included SEAD missions with OMI-46(AGM-45) and OMI-78.The electronics were locally developed in late 1960s-early 1970s and squizzed into a pod designed for cameras.The F-104M was a variant which combined the Italian ASA modification and the engine of IAI Kfir.The RHAF together with Italian Air Force were the last users of F-104,RHAF last airworthy airframes withdrawned in 2007.The SEAD F-104(F-104RD) were 26,about 50 were F-104M and rest F-104G,of which about 40 could use the AS-34 Kormoran (also withdrawned in 2007).

My RHN AU never had the Harpoon missile (in my ships I have Exocets).The Exocet equipped Mirage F1CGM are about one third of total number and can also be used for inderception with 2 Magic and 2 M530F as the other two thirds,because the Cyrano IV-MS radar according my sources is combatible with AM-39.Total of 84 Mirage F1CG were in service with RHAF in their heyday.

The P-3M Orion are modernised P-3B with an indigenous developed MIMS system from a company called ISI (look at Singapoore Fokker 50 ASM/MP) and also feature the AM-39.

From 20 P6M only 8 have maritime patrol/anti-ship role,rest belong to Marines and can also be used in CSAR missions in sea (since they have strong electronic self defence system).P6M-MP Mk2 will also intergrate Russian missiles,such as Kh-15 and P-800 Orlik,as some sources say.