Duncan Sandys Redux

[ORAC]

MoD Minister: This is the last generation of manned fighters (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/07/davies_in_sandys_manned_fighter_repeat/)

Repeat of 1957 vision a bit more credible this time

In a bizarre repeat of history, a British defence minister has given it as his opinion that we are currently witnessing development of the final generation of manned combat aircraft. The comments made last week by Quentin Davies MP echo those made in a 1957 government white paper by the then Defence minister, Duncan Sandys.

Mr Davies, minister for Defence Equipment and Support, made his new "last of the manned fighters" comments at an Unmanned Air Systems exhibition held on Friday at the London headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

"My own working assumption is that although we certainly need the manned combat aircraft, and are investing in some very good ones at the moment... that will take us through to the 2030s, but beyond that I think the name of the game will be UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles]," he said.

Later that day, the government did indeed ink a reduced deal for what seems likely to be the UK's final batch of Eurofighter/Typhoon jets. Current MoD plans also see Blighty purchasing an undisclosed number of F-35B Lightning II supersonic stealth jumpjets in the nearish future. The F-35 programme is now in flight testing prior to starting its main production run.

Beyond the F-35 and the Eurofighter, however, there are very few publicly-acknowledged projects underway in the Western world aimed at developing new crewed combat aircraft. Even those advocating such ideas tend to suggest that any future aircraft would be "optionally manned", perfectly able to operate without a crew if required. Aircraft like the UK's Taranis robo-bomber demonstrator and the US Navy's X-47B won't even have seats.

It would seem that Mr Davies' vision of fully robotic air forces within a couple of decades may be grounded in reality.

It isn't the first time that the UK government has expressed such views, however. The defence white paper of 1957 stated that manned bombers and fighters would soon be superseded by automated missiles. All British combat aircraft projects then underway were subsequently cancelled except for the Lightning fighter, with much doom and gloom from the UK aerospace industry (the P1127, which later became the Harrier, got rolling later).

Defence Minister Sandys went on to acquire even more fame later, when he was named as "the headless man" in scandalous photos showing an unidentified chap receiving intimate oral favours from the (married) Duchess of Argyll.

Meanwhile a surprisingly large amount of UK aviation industry did manage to survive, furnishing the British forces with the much-loved but flawed* Lightning and going on to collaborate with continental partners on such planes as the Tornado and Eurofighter. The reduced UK Eurofighter order has already led to predictions of disaster for Britain's one remaining fighter factory.

As a practical matter, the UK is already incapable of making combat aircraft without assistance from abroad. The Eurofighter requires support from the continent and America; Blighty's one remaining military helicopter factory needs similar backup when making whirlybirds. As for large aircraft, the UK's main contribution nowadays is making the wings, as in the case of Airbus airliners and the A400M military transport.

Some or all of that manufacturing may well continue, but if Mr Davies is right, the British fighter-pilot community will indeed disappear at last. ®

*Its inability to remain airborne for much longer than twenty minutes was a serious problem, as was the plane's lack of any very effective sensors or weapons. It was very fast, however, and capable of reaching tremendous heights very quickly.

[Pontius Navigator]

Dale Brown has written many books that feature unmanned fighters or bombers. In his tales he gets around the initial deployment and air supriority missions by the use of manned motherships and latterly by satellite link or space station.

If we imagine recent operations and place a UAV into the situation we can see that it wold not be simple. The initial GW1 deployment was of AD Interceptors to contain the Iraqi Air Force in Kuwait. The manned aircraft could go on state as it arrives and with tanker support could even maintain a DCA mission while the ground support deploys. For a UAV it would need pre-deployed support or, as Dale Brown uses, a mothership.

Certainly, money-no-object, we could make a good fist of it now. (By WE I mean industry - US in particular).

[pr00ne]

ORAC,

Whilst a lot of this makes sense the difference this time around is that no one is trumpeting the missile as the replacement, which was the case in 1957. UK never did ever develop a follow on for the first round of the 1957 missile programme. It was envisaged that there would be generation after generation developed to follow on from Bloodhound and thunderbird, never did happen. The whole UCAV scenario is so different with BAES having a whole host in development.
Not sure about the dire predictions for the "last fighter factory" as these will be conceived, designed, engineered and built at Warton, Brough and Samlesbury


What does NOT make sense is the totally inaccurate and wholly misleading statement;

"As a practical matter, the UK is already incapable of making combat aircraft without assistance from abroad."

That statement totally misses the point that modern combat aircraft are now SO expensive that not even the USA can develop them on their own any more. Not because they lack the technology, they are just so frighteningly expensive!
In the UK factories ALL aspects of modern aircraft manufacture can be found. We don't build the wings for the Eurofighter Typhoon but that doesn't mean that we can't build wings any more. BAES designed the wings for the Grippen, designed and still build a new wing for Hawk, and there are more airliner wings designed and built in the UK than in any other country on the planet.

[Evalu8ter]

All of the above contributes to the feeling that the uber-complicated manned fighter / strike ac are going the way of the battleship; prohibitively expensive to design, build and run and increasingly totemic as status symbols of glory days of old rather than relevant to today's war. As Rupert Smith put it, State on State war is effectively defunct - so why prosecute a 21st century "Dreadnaught race" which not even the US can afford?

Much better, perhaps, for the "fighter factory" at Warton to turn it's gaze toward UAVs and cheaper, lighter fighters with meaningful warloads and persistance. Maybe the spirit of Boyd needs to be rekindled for a new generation of cheaper manned CAS platforms, though with the emphasis on payload/survivability/endurance rather than Energy Management and BFM.

[foldingwings]

Sandys wayward words in 1957 were the prelude which set the scene for the then Govt's decision to cancel the TSR2 and subsequently its replacement, the F-111, for the RAF.

Could QD's view be a pre-cursor for a similar decision by this bunch of shysters that are not running the country at present - they're all on their hols, bless 'em!!

The decision in 1957, however, did lead to 25 years of Buccaneering in the RAF as a stop gap measure! Could history repeat itself? I know of 3 that are still flying and a couple more that we could refurb and launch! I can even lay my hands on a nuke, if necessary!:ok:

Hah!

Foldie

PS. Sans warhead, of course!:D

[MAINJAFAD]

The only thing that 1957 had to do with the Bucc was that it wasn't cancelled. As regards the TSR2, thanks to 1957 it was the only game in town as far as the RAF was concerned, hence the gold plated Spec, which eventually killed it. 1957 was a cost cutting exercise, Sandys had been told to save as much money as he could, hence he planned to get rid of most of the manned aircraft, because the he knew that the primary threat to the UK was not the Soviet Bomber, but the Soviet IRBM and Bomber launched long range ASM, the only counter being a nuclear tipped ABM/SAM. Though of course, He also canned the ‘Blue Envoy’ (Super-Bloodhound) around the same time.

[cazatou]

With regard to the TSR2 cancellation; I remember being told by a Senior Officer Student on SORF at Manby that Mr Healy had reported to the PM during a Cabinet meeting that a TSR2 wing had broken whilst under test and that it was this that led to the decision to cancel the project.

The statement that the wing had failed was quite correct - but incomplete. The wing that failed was the one being tested to destruction.

:ugh:

[mr fish]

so, 150 hawk 200's then.
might need to scramble earlier when blackjack comes probing though!!



hang on, a single seat 128 with a good radar and the ability drop stuff might be a good idea!!

[ORAC]

The Beast of Kandahar (http://formerspook.*************/2009/05/beast-of-kandahar.html)

[Green Flash]

ORAC old bean - the page doesn't load!

[Pontius Navigator]

http://formerspook.b l o g spot.com/2009/05/beast-of-kandahar.html

Use the following link and remove the spaces in BLOG

[Green Flash]

Cheers me dears, that works fine.:ok:

[The B Word]

Orac

Your Beast...

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/0/80d90be6-f9d9-4d12-a0db-727ac8137db3.Large.jpg

...is rumored to be Desert Prowler. See here for further:

Mystery UCAV/UAV over Afghanistan, page 1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread453810/pg1)

There are lots of pictures of patches on the web as well

http://www.u2sr71patches.co.uk/images/july08desprow1_small.jpg

It does have a striking resemblance to BAeS Raven.

http://www.baesystems.com/static/bae_cimg_mas_raven_latestReleased_bae_cimg_mas_raven_Web.jpg

One thing, though, UAVs or UASs are here to stay and we may as well get used to the idea.

B Word :ok:

[ORAC]

The Times - Aug 10th: Defence companies set to fight for MoD contracts (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6789233.ece)

Britain’s defence companies are preparing plans to pitch this week for one of the biggest contracts to be handed out by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

They were summoned to a meeting last week, at which the MoD outlined requirements for the next generation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The contract to develop and operate the UAVs is worth billions to the winning consortium and could last for a generation, opening a potentially lucrative export market for victorious companies.

Groups across Europe are positioning themselves to take advantage of a surge in orders for UAVs and the negotiations have been likened to those 30 years ago that led to the creation of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Europe’s principal fighter jet.

Unmanned aircraft have been so successful in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan undertaken by the United States and Britain that they are widely expected to become the future of air surveillance and combat. They are used to track individuals and vehicles, to provide intelligence to ground troops and to target missiles. There are also plans to create combat versions that eventually would be capable of replacing manned fighters such as the Typhoon.

BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Cobham, QinetiQ, Thales, EADS and Senex met ministry officials last week to be briefed on Britain’s UAV requirements. The Times has spoken to several of the participants and understands that the MoD’s priority is to develop medium altitude long endurance (MALE) aircraft, capable of spending a day at heights of up to 60,000ft, providing ground surveillance and airspace monitoring. In addition, the MoD will continue to invest in a research programme headed by BAE into an unmanned combat aircraft called Taranis.

The ministry has also told the defence contractors that they must work together to ensure that all UAVs use the same ground stations and analysis equipment to prevent costly duplication. In Britain, BAE, Rolls-Royce and QinetiQ are developing Mantis as their offering in the MALE UAV sector. Thales and Dassault are working on a French model called Neuron, while EADS is building a German, French and Spanish system called Talarion.

At present the ministry leases Reaper UAVs from General Atomics, of the United States, for use in Afghanistan and it may choose to buy these rather than develop an expensive, independent solution.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that several European governments are understood to favour working together to develop a joint approach, which has become common practice because of the high cost of defence projects.

One agreement to emerge from a meeting between Gordon Brown and President Sarkozy last year was that Britain and France should consider cooperation on UAVs. High-level meetings are understood to have taken place already between French and British defence industry executives and this could lead to a possible BAE-Thales-Dassault joint venture. This would enable an Anglo-French UAV to corner the European market and knock EADS out of the competition.

In a further twist, the French and Germans have discussed co-operation. This might limit BAE’s future involvement in the UAV sector.

“Everyone is jockeying for position because there is a lot at stake,” one defence source said. Another said: “There is an argument that we should work together to create a Eurofighter for UAVs in terms of collaboration, but each side has to develop its own capability first.”

Britain operates Hermes UAVs in Afghanistan, which are classed as tactical aircraft. These operate at low altitude and are used for gathering intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance operations. The Hermes UAVs will be upgraded to Watchkeeper next year in a project led by Thales UK. The £800 million contract will provide the Armed Forces with 54 aircraft.

[NURSE]

The theory of UAV's replacing manned fighters is excellent but how many of us would get in an airliner knowing the pilot was sitting on the ground whilst we're flying?
If armed forces go down the route of large numbers of UAV's aren't we going to run out of frequencey bandwidth very quickly and then there ill be problems with deconfliction of frequencies!

[GPMG]

So to take out a country's entire airforce, you just take out it's satelites.

Thus also rendering most of it's armoured vehicles lost as well and most of it's other land forces (that in 10 years time probably won't be told how to read a map).

And ships are running aground after trying to navigate with out of date charts, and their weapons systems won't work as they rely on GPS.

[NURSE]

yeap reliance on technology is a huge minefield.
One of the reasons field guns are still issued with Gunners Quadrant and the No1 carries a compass.

[MAINJAFAD]

Glad to see more than one person on here has picked up the biggest problems with operating a pure UAV air force. The reliance on long range over the horizon communications, which would require quite a large number of satellites to give the bandwidth required, would required de-confliction with a lot of other data traffic for flight safety reasons and also have to be ECM resistant. This will be very expensive, as worldwide coverage would be required. Also satellites have to be replaced at least every 7 to 10 years or so. Plus you also have to take the effect that bad weather can have on Satcom link’s (just try to watch Sky when it’s raining heavily) in which a UAV would at sometimes have to operate in. Yes, the current systems in place can support the limited numbers of UCAV/UAVs in operational service, but hundreds of them at once???

[GPMG]

How far in the future can we expect to see fighter UAV's beating piloted fighters at Red Flag or some such competition?

I would think that they will be stand off missile fighters at best for a long time.

For close in or dogfighting, the bandwith required to give real time, clear and accurate video feeds from 6-8 angles would be too high.

Too save money, countries could sit thier best pilots down in front of an XBox with a copy of ace combat. Loser gets handed a pistol with one bullet in it and use of a small room out back, winner gets tea, bickies and a few medals. Next stage will be wars won by 13yr spotty oiks.

Wasn't there a Star trek episode which covered the ultimate version of this concept?

[ORAC]

Satellites are not necessarily required as long as a ground link can be provided to near the theatre of operations. See the Proteus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus)

UAVs and HAPs - Potential Convergence for Military Communications (http://www.elec.york.ac.uk/comms/pdfs/20030506170424.pdf)

Efficient and dependable real-time communications in UAV systems (http://www.embedded-control-europe.com/c_ece_knowhow/324/rti040209.pdf)

Warfighter Information Network - Tactical (WIN-T) (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/WIN-T5NOV.htm)

High Altitude Airships - HAA (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/HighAltitudeAirship/index.html)

[BEagle]

Sometime in the future, after the drone world loses a few due to bandwidth and round-trip time propagation delays, perhaps someone will suggest replacing all the expensive ground infrastructure and satellite constellation with a cheaper alternative?

Which runs on food and can be immediately co-located with the air vehicle.

Otherwise known as a 'pilot'......

[The B Word]

Good to see the Times c0ck it up again!

At present the ministry leases Reaper UAVs from General Atomics, of the United States, for use in Afghanistan

They were purchased outright in 2007 under Foreign Military Sales for UOR!!!

Right, onto the "Bandwidth Naysayers" - satellites are not the only answer and Line Of Sight (LOS) comms on other frequencies. See how they did it here, in the UK, first:

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Pilotless passenger jet flown remotely by RAF in world first (http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/equipmentandlogistics/pilotlesspassengerjetflownremotelybyrafinworldfirst.htm)

LOS with a manned aircraft flying 3-500nm away does not give latency issues (not that 1.5 secs (max) with Geo Stationary Satellite is that big an issue anyway for most applications!). Furthermore, the latest micro-satellites in NEO from UK manufacturers could be provide a better solution or the 60,000ft balloons also already pointed out.

So why bother? You don't have to use the satellite bandwidth looking for downed aircrew's locator beacons when they could be something more useful (like flying UAVs!). You don't have to have a mini rescue package of A-10s, MH53s and Apache/Cobras on standby. You don't have to run the risk of having your aircrew paraded on telly. You don't have to support an expensive life support system on an aircraft. The bottom line - for every expense generated by UAVS there is a saving elsewhere.

Oh, and a Predator or Reaper costs about the same as it does to train one of Beagle's cheaper alternatives (pilots?) - the difference being that you should get 20-25,000 flying hours from Pred/Reaper and I don't know many combat pilots with that many hours! Training a UAV pilot is significantly cheaper than training a manned aircraft pilot - ask the Royal Artillery who are doing fine with the Hermes 450 - shock horror! :eek:

Your choice, ladies and gents - join the "Luddites" or embrace the next step in aviation?

I, for one, will not be joining the "let's smash the loom" brethren.

B Word :ok:

[BEagle]

I agree that your beloved drones certainly have their place - but they are not the universal panacea that some would advocate.

An unmanned aircraft built by 't Bungling Baron :eek:? I think I will move to Mars if such things ever appear in significant numbers.

"The trial was a complete success. The BAC 1-11 took off first and and I caught up with it 30 minutes later."

:ooh:

[The B Word]

Drones!!! - do you mean these? :ok:

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Drone_24a.jpg/250px-Drone_24a.jpg

I too may join you on Mars if certain companies get involved - still at least it won't kill the pilot! :ok:

Finally, I agree that UAVs offer capabilities not a solution (I hope that makes sense!?).

B Word

PS - just read what you meant by t'Bunglin Baron - :E

'BWoS' is a more accurate acronym for British Aerospace. It stands for British Waste of Space.....and has a fictional character know as 't Bungling Baron who runs it, assisted by Seth, his Clerk of Works and Boogeroff, his flatulent whippet. Old Scrotum, his wrinkled retainer, looks after 't Baron's domestic interests at 't Big House by 't Werrks.

[GPMG]

Regarding the next stage perhaps the more felxible approach would be to have a number of drones (3 for example) that would be slaved to a central fighter variant at least 2 crew,probably 3 (Pilot, Nav, drone operator).

Drones can be sent to recce, attack, and get into the high threat areas whilst the lead ship loiters away from the area but giving LOS comms and human decision making.


Or the whole lot controlled from a larger 747 style airplane with more operators, flying 300nm away from the fight.

[The B Word]

I've done some research on the use of the word "Drones" and there are 3 possible explanations all stemming from the early ages of aviation that seem plausable:

1. The noise that Archibald Montgomery Low's early remotely piloted aerial target aircraft made was very much a fixed "drone".
2. The aerial targets of the day were painted yellow with a black stripe.
3. The first successful remotely piloted aircraft was the DH Queen Bee (see pic).

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/queen_bee_500.jpg

Now all I need is a date with the "thinking man's totty" from Balderdash & Piffle and I'll be happy :ok:

Anyone else care to chip in?

The B Word

[BEagle]

That's a great photo!

Obviously the officer is in charge and he's ordering the corporal to twiddle the various knobs and tits...

"Corporal, make the drone turn right a bit!"
"Righty ho, sir!"

Whilst the SAC is probably there to carry the box back to the drone HQ after the Queen Bee has landed. Or to sweep up the bits of Queen Bee if the grunt gunners actually manage to shoot it down.

'Drone' is increasingly being used by the press as they're obviously fed up witht he Spams and their RPV...UAV...UCAV...UAS...(insert next TLA or 4LA here) terminology.

"Death Dealing Drones kill Taliban Warlord" has a much catchier headline sound to it.

[Modern Elmo]

Sometime in the future, after the drone world loses a few ... perhaps someone will suggest replacing all the expensive ground infrastructure and satellite constellation with a cheaper alternative?

Which runs on food and can be immediately co-located with the air vehicle.

Otherwise known as a 'pilot'.... ..

But those 'pilots' are not cheaper. Meatware in an aircraft with accommodations for same is more expensive than remotely piloted air vehicles, unless you can economize on the little things such as training, pay, pensions, and search and rescue operations.

[Juan Houng Lo]

S-400 anyone?

Near remote, far remote – drones have all the nodes of vulnerability that manned AC have plus one no matter how or wherefrom you control them.

Granted that it is not that important a point when engaging Worthy Oriental Gentleman but otherwise…

[fltlt]

Gentlemen, having been involved in the wonderful world of Drone, RPV, UAV etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, since around 1984, my observation is that the loss rates are pretty much the same, for pretty much the same reasons. Only thing that appears to have changed is the expotential increase in costs, for no real increase in capability.

[Lima Juliet]

Ladies and Gents

After a lot of trawling on various opensource internet govt stats sites I have found the following for accident rates:

PREDATOR Cat A
2005 1.25/10,000fg hrs
2006 0.33/10,000fg hrs
2007 0.6/10,000fg hrs
2008 0.57/10,000fg hrs

FJs Cat4/5
SHAR 1.88/10,000fg hrs (>1979)
Jag 1.02/10,000fg hrs (>1973)
GR7/9 0.97/10,000fg hrs (>1988)
GR1/4 0.59/10,000fg hrs (>1980)
F3 0.28/10,000fg hrs (>1985)

So for about a £4-5M UAV/UAS you get the same accident rate as you do for the massively more expensive £20M+ FJ - not including the widows pensions!!!

Yet another UAS vs MAS (Manned Air System) myth debunked? :}

LJ :ok:

[The B Word]

Crikey :eek:

I knew the Jag was bad (hence the song "We plough the fields and scatter the Jaguars from the land"!) but I had no idea that the SHar was so bad.

Are they DASA stats?

[Lima Juliet]

Yes, the FJ stats are from DASA and the PRED Cat A Mishaps are taken from 3 seperate US UAV reports on the internet.

The single engined jets don't fare too well and the Jag on one engine normally took it to the scene of the crash!

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

3. The first successful remotely piloted aircraft was the DH Queen Bee (see pic).

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/queen_bee_500.jpg

And note who is flying it. Not one of your twin-winged master race but a Cpl. How long before we have sqn ldrs commanding sqns again?

[Data-Lynx]

The USN use Master Chiefs to drive UAVs at sea. Do you think that might apply across the UK as UAVs take over the world?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I could have sworn that I recently read posts here and elsewhere, and articles in various places, that emphasised the value of human pilots and other aircrew on current operations. How else do you explain the fact that ISTAR types acquired in recent years?

LOS with a manned aircraft flying 3-500nm away does not give latency issues (not that 1.5 secs (max) with Geo Stationary Satellite is that big an issue anyway for most applications!). Furthermore, the latest micro-satellites in NEO from UK manufacturers could be provide a better solution or the 60,000ft balloons also already pointed out.

Satellites cost money to build and launch. Ones in Low Earth Orbits have a restricted field of view/footprint so you need more. The Iridium system has 66 of them - not including six spares. Balloons may be cheaper to launch but how many do you think you would need? This sort of infrastucture won't be cheap. I almost forget to mention the effects of bad weather which tends to attenuate microwave signals. What happens if the one time you really need the system the monsoon has reduced the data capacity (look up Shannon-Hartley law) to less than that you need?

But those 'pilots' are not cheaper. Meatware in an aircraft with accommodations for same is more expensive than remotely piloted air vehicles, unless you can economize on the little things such as training, pay, pensions, and search and rescue operations.

Surely a ground based pilot still needs training, pay, pension, etc? As for SAR, surely you're not suggesting that aircrew are the only service personnel who may need rescuing or extracting from somewhere nasty?

[The B Word]

WE B F

Some I agree with some I don't. Control links for UAVs are not that bandwidth hungry (eg. PREDATOR A is 10s of Kbps) but it is the Full Motion Video(FMV) streaming that takes all the bandwidth (eg. PREDATOR A is about 2-3Mbps). In other words the FMV is 1000 times more bandwidth hungry.

Now with future advances in compression techniques then the problem will start to go away -if I had told you back in 1978 that you would have 200odd digital colour channels on your TV now, then you would have laughed at me (there's still nothing decent to watch!).

Now, manned aircraft flying 14hr+ ISTAR missions are definately going to be a thing of the past in the future. Develpomental aircraft such as BAeS MANTIS are being designed to stay airborne for 24hrs+. That's a very sore bottom for the aircrew types if we go back towards manned aircraft! :sad:

The B Word

[Lima Juliet]

PN

And note who is flying it. Not one of your twin-winged master race but a Cpl.

I think the issue for debate would come down to "weapons or no weapons" for SNCOs acting in command; and, yes, I know that there are a lot of capable and responsible SNCOs. A debate that has been done to death by the RAF, FAA and also the AAC.

Just for the record, the Cpl could be testing the control potentiometers, anyway? He is, after all, a comms techy - look at the flash on his arm.

http://www.handembroideryshop.co.uk/acatalog/1002478.jpg

The officer clearly has 2 wings, so is a pilot.

LJ :ok:

[Tim McLelland]

With regard to the TSR2 cancellation; I remember being told by a Senior Officer Student on SORF at Manby that Mr Healy had reported to the PM during a Cabinet meeting that a TSR2 wing had broken whilst under test and that it was this that led to the decision to cancel the project.

The statement that the wing had failed was quite correct - but incomplete. The wing that failed was the one being tested to destruction.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has any definitive information on this story. It gets repeated in books and magazines pretty frequently but a more recent document claims that although the wing was obviously under test, it broke at 85 percent load, which (if true) paints a slightly different picture. Anyone know more?