...the considerable AoA used for takeoff and landing at (light) flight test weights which to my way of thinking would have required a lot of runway to be available at operational weights.
What percentage of development thrust was used on those early flights - and was BLC used for landing? RB didn't seem to think it would have been much of a problem. Although the daft STOL requirement was Air Staff nonsense, in my opinion.
Would Hawker's still-borne GOR339 contender, the P1129 have fared any better? Who knows; the Kingston design didn't fly whereas the TSR2 did.
As to the original low level high speed penetrator operational requirement, with the full benefit of hindsight the viability/usefulness of such a role would probably be fairly low today.
As would, perhaps, be the usefulness of a little short range V/STOL jet capable of flying not very far carrying not very much?
By the way, you may also wish to review the Fairey Rotodyne programme which was making significant progress with noise reduction before it was cancelled in 196
2, over 3 years before P1154, TSR2 and HS681.... The Rotodyne was
not part of the same cancellation programme; indeed, it was doing so well that there wasn't a single complaint about 'noise' or 'smell' when it flew to Battersea Heliport 50 years ago - the only enquiries from the public were out of curiosity.....