Did Concorde kill TSR2?
Thread Starter
Did Concorde kill TSR2?
If Concorde development had not been soaking up so much money, is it likely that TSR2 could have survived? In terms of what was best for the UK aircraft industry, did Labour kill the wrong aircraft?
It was always suspected that Wislon and his fellow travellers had been told by the US that opposition to Concorde would be considerably less if TSR2 was canned......
So Wislon, Healey and the rest of those wretched communists duly obliged.
So Wislon, Healey and the rest of those wretched communists duly obliged.
In a way it did kill it.
TSR-2 built in Weybridge, good Conservative territory.
Concorde built in Bristol, Tony Benn's constituency.
Government needed to reduce overspending, which really boils down to putting people out of work because that is what much of the money is spent on. One project has to go.
TSR-2 built in Weybridge, good Conservative territory.
Concorde built in Bristol, Tony Benn's constituency.
Government needed to reduce overspending, which really boils down to putting people out of work because that is what much of the money is spent on. One project has to go.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: derbyshire
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, BEagle. Wilson cancelled the P1154 as well, this would have been the supersonic Harrier.
They not only cancelled the TSR2 project, they also broke up the assembly tools so it couldn't be made in case a decent government got in. But it didn't matter because Ted Heath became PM and was as useless, if not more so, than Wilson.
I loved looking at Concorde and watched her land at Filton for the last time. Sadly I never flew on her, I couldn't afford it. I wish I'd tried a bit harder!
But even more sadly Concorde was a huge white elephant, it cost an amazing amount just to "sell" them for £1 each.
And then they blame Maggie for ruining industry!!!!!!!!
They not only cancelled the TSR2 project, they also broke up the assembly tools so it couldn't be made in case a decent government got in. But it didn't matter because Ted Heath became PM and was as useless, if not more so, than Wilson.
I loved looking at Concorde and watched her land at Filton for the last time. Sadly I never flew on her, I couldn't afford it. I wish I'd tried a bit harder!
But even more sadly Concorde was a huge white elephant, it cost an amazing amount just to "sell" them for £1 each.
And then they blame Maggie for ruining industry!!!!!!!!
Would the TSR2 have been a bit of a one trick pony with no possibility to expand its roles. It struck me whilst walking around the Cosford TSR2 last month that it wasn't going to be easy to upgrade it to new weapons systems or re task it with IR pods etc as it would have been next to impossible to hang anything off the incredibly small wings, and the fuselage didn't have much room for any add ons either.
Is it likely that as radar and weapons systems evolved the TSR2 capability would have been left behind? I realise that to many this idea is heresay but with the way we have hung all manner of additional kit under/over the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon that wasn't thought of originally, would the TSR2 have been a good airframe to keep up to date?
Is it likely that as radar and weapons systems evolved the TSR2 capability would have been left behind? I realise that to many this idea is heresay but with the way we have hung all manner of additional kit under/over the Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon that wasn't thought of originally, would the TSR2 have been a good airframe to keep up to date?
Don't know about Concorde killing TSR-2 but I think it killed the BAC 3-11.
The governments attitude when BAC wanted a loan of £50 million for development was "You've had enough already".
The governments attitude when BAC wanted a loan of £50 million for development was "You've had enough already".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the potential of TSR2 has been vastly overstated, not least by its chief test pilot who hung his hat on it instead of on Concorde. He thought Concorde would be cancelled and TSR2 would be built, but he backed the wrong horse.
Also, UK couldn't just cancel Concorde as Julian Amery had had written into the 1962 Anglo French agreement a binding clause which meant cancellation would require both Britain and France to agree to that.
By getting Concorde for 27 glorious years of M2 transatlantic flight (3 hour flight time!) when USA and USSR tried and failed to do the same was IMO a far better legacy for UK than a military aeroplane of dubious promise.
Oh, and BA did NOT get them for £1.
Also, UK couldn't just cancel Concorde as Julian Amery had had written into the 1962 Anglo French agreement a binding clause which meant cancellation would require both Britain and France to agree to that.
By getting Concorde for 27 glorious years of M2 transatlantic flight (3 hour flight time!) when USA and USSR tried and failed to do the same was IMO a far better legacy for UK than a military aeroplane of dubious promise.
Oh, and BA did NOT get them for £1.
Thread Starter
Don't know about Concorde killing TSR-2 but I think it killed the BAC 3-11.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the question have been 'did Concorde kill the British aircraft industry'?
The US aircraft industry killed the British aircraft industry by producing aeroplanes down to a price instead of up to a standard, and matched to a researched market instead of to a technical ideal or the requirements of just one unique customer.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 80
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting it all to bed...
Just been reading 'TSR2 - bombing the myth', on the Hush Kit site. A fascinating account of what happened and might have happened to that glorious-looking aircraft had it been allowed to continue. How could it all have happened? Why did it happen? The consequences of it all ripple on down the decades...
I was a Handley Page apprentice at the time and well remember the shock of the TSR cancellation and the upheaval it caused. I suppose that we can start by pointing the finger of accusation at WW2, which not only stimulated all aeronautics, but bankrupted the country, leaving the USA the major post-war beneficiary in aviation (and most other) knowledge and commercial know-how. The miracle is that old war-torn GB was able to innovate and produce such brilliant new aircraft as the Comet and TSR2 at all, but it did. HP took over Miles at Reading and when I much later learnt about the brilliant Miles supersonic jet aircraft well on the way to completion before the end of the war, and the shabby way it was cancelled and destroyed by the politicians, to the direct benefit of the Americans and their supersonic aircraft, I was sickened and angered. But then of course old HP itself was soon to be sacrificed on the same altar of political expediency.
That seems to be the British way, so it is probably just as well that the Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier and Concorde programmes were international efforts and that the Typhoon still is. All this is now beginning to gather layers of dust on the library shelves of history, but when I look around at the poor state of UK aviation research, development and production today, I am proud to have lived through the heady days when old GB was up there with the best of the workd's aviation greats.
I was a Handley Page apprentice at the time and well remember the shock of the TSR cancellation and the upheaval it caused. I suppose that we can start by pointing the finger of accusation at WW2, which not only stimulated all aeronautics, but bankrupted the country, leaving the USA the major post-war beneficiary in aviation (and most other) knowledge and commercial know-how. The miracle is that old war-torn GB was able to innovate and produce such brilliant new aircraft as the Comet and TSR2 at all, but it did. HP took over Miles at Reading and when I much later learnt about the brilliant Miles supersonic jet aircraft well on the way to completion before the end of the war, and the shabby way it was cancelled and destroyed by the politicians, to the direct benefit of the Americans and their supersonic aircraft, I was sickened and angered. But then of course old HP itself was soon to be sacrificed on the same altar of political expediency.
That seems to be the British way, so it is probably just as well that the Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier and Concorde programmes were international efforts and that the Typhoon still is. All this is now beginning to gather layers of dust on the library shelves of history, but when I look around at the poor state of UK aviation research, development and production today, I am proud to have lived through the heady days when old GB was up there with the best of the workd's aviation greats.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hostage to geographical fortune.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Wislon, Healey and the rest of those wretched communists duly obliged.
Some unsavoury things he may have been but communist probably wasn't among them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some unsavoury things he may have been but communist probably wasn't among them.
TSR2 was obviously on its last legs, anyway; convenient for the Cons to leave it to the Labs to put it out of its misery. Communists certainly helped kill the British car industry by strikes, but British management was capable of wrecking British manufacturing industry all by itself.
Something that flies well is not necessarily a good weapon, or a good commercial prospect.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mountbatten was right. The Buccaneer was far superior to the TSR2 and the cancellation of the great white elephant allowed the RAF to finally get its hands on one of the best low level strike aircraft every built.
Mountbottom was totally wrong about TSR2! He once I asked me what I flew and I told him that I was doing the Bucc course - but would have far preferred to be on a TSR2 course! He gave me a withering look and turned away - which at least meant that I didn't have to risk turning my back to him....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never seen a hint that the two desicions were linked
TSR2 looked fine and it promised a lot but in fact the development programme was in a real mess - the engines weren't right for a start - and there was no way anyone, even its supporters, could give any indication of what the final cost was likely to be or when it was going to be in service
Concorde was relatively trouble free AND we were sharing the cost with our French friends -
TSR2 looked fine and it promised a lot but in fact the development programme was in a real mess - the engines weren't right for a start - and there was no way anyone, even its supporters, could give any indication of what the final cost was likely to be or when it was going to be in service
Concorde was relatively trouble free AND we were sharing the cost with our French friends -
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"cancellation of the great white elephant allowed the RAF to finally get its hands on one of the best low level strike aircraft every built."
hmmm - those of us that were around at the time remember the RAF did everything it could NOT to adopt the Bucc. It was only when they were offered Buccaneers or nothing they very grudgingly adopted them
hmmm - those of us that were around at the time remember the RAF did everything it could NOT to adopt the Bucc. It was only when they were offered Buccaneers or nothing they very grudgingly adopted them
Quote
Should the question have been 'did Concorde kill the British aircraft industry'?
I think a better line of thought is that the massive and poorly controlled spend on Concorde was responsible for the nationalisation of the British aircraft industry.
We who were nothing to do with it were appalled at the ease with which expensive equipment (e.g. mainframe computers) could be acquired for the Concorde programme compared to our lack of government backing for Airbus which led to Hawker Siddeley's internally funded continuation as partner.
We were also not impressed that the Minister of Technology (not without pro-Concorde bias as MP for Bristol South East) was the former Lord Stansgate (Anthony Wedgwood-Benn in those days) who was rumoured to write the meeting minutes before holding the meetings, pressurising the participants into conforming with what he thought they should.
Should the question have been 'did Concorde kill the British aircraft industry'?
I think a better line of thought is that the massive and poorly controlled spend on Concorde was responsible for the nationalisation of the British aircraft industry.
We who were nothing to do with it were appalled at the ease with which expensive equipment (e.g. mainframe computers) could be acquired for the Concorde programme compared to our lack of government backing for Airbus which led to Hawker Siddeley's internally funded continuation as partner.
We were also not impressed that the Minister of Technology (not without pro-Concorde bias as MP for Bristol South East) was the former Lord Stansgate (Anthony Wedgwood-Benn in those days) who was rumoured to write the meeting minutes before holding the meetings, pressurising the participants into conforming with what he thought they should.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
When the new lot got in, 10/64, UK was trying to do: the SSBNs, their warhead, an interim RAF big bucket (to be WE177B), TSR.2 plus its ASM plus its smaller bucket (WE177A), P.1154(RAF), HS681 V/STOL lifter, RR was starting RB178 (to become RB211), and we handled 50% of Concorde. Overload. Oh, and the outgoing Chancellor told his successor: “Sorry to leave such a mess, old cock”. Broke, again. So the new lot did a zero-base scrutiny of everything.
Concorde would have gone first, but Cabinet was told that France had the right to press on and charge us 50% of whatever they might choose to spend, mostly in France. One by one all the others were tested against time, Spec: US provided a menu of kit we could take on credit, so, sensibly, we took much of it. Wilson, an odd commie who confirmed SSBN and WE177B, offered BAC £500Mn. for 50 TSR.2. They said no thanks, but we will take no profit on the uncapped overrun of that number. So, we added 50 fixed price F-111K to McNamara's planned 3,000. What would you have done?
When the new lot got in, 10/64, UK was trying to do: the SSBNs, their warhead, an interim RAF big bucket (to be WE177B), TSR.2 plus its ASM plus its smaller bucket (WE177A), P.1154(RAF), HS681 V/STOL lifter, RR was starting RB178 (to become RB211), and we handled 50% of Concorde. Overload. Oh, and the outgoing Chancellor told his successor: “Sorry to leave such a mess, old cock”. Broke, again. So the new lot did a zero-base scrutiny of everything.
Concorde would have gone first, but Cabinet was told that France had the right to press on and charge us 50% of whatever they might choose to spend, mostly in France. One by one all the others were tested against time, Spec: US provided a menu of kit we could take on credit, so, sensibly, we took much of it. Wilson, an odd commie who confirmed SSBN and WE177B, offered BAC £500Mn. for 50 TSR.2. They said no thanks, but we will take no profit on the uncapped overrun of that number. So, we added 50 fixed price F-111K to McNamara's planned 3,000. What would you have done?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being a Military type, I can see, from a commercial aspect, it makes damned good sense to have commonality with your Allies.......the crunch comes,of course,when some party falls out with the rest and is lumbered with a load of kit that they may-or may not be able to support themselves.....OTOH, they have intimate knowledge of their former allies' kit and capabilities Having seen how the forces continue to horse-trade, squabble, empire-build and prevaricate among themselves, it's not surprising that policy and procurement are the shamble they are and have been for many a year.
Development of 21st. CenturyMilitary kit is far beyond sensible financial and time constraints for any small country.
The rising cost of fuel made Concorde into a Vanity project.
Yes, we can be proud of what was achieved,technically, As a passenger-carrying commercial aircraft,it was a total economic disaster.
So, looking back, Blue streak, TSR2 and other cancellations were probably a good thing.........but I'm still mystified, why we jobbed -off our Harrier fleet to countries who continue to successfully use them for their intended purpose.
Development of 21st. CenturyMilitary kit is far beyond sensible financial and time constraints for any small country.
The rising cost of fuel made Concorde into a Vanity project.
Yes, we can be proud of what was achieved,technically, As a passenger-carrying commercial aircraft,it was a total economic disaster.
So, looking back, Blue streak, TSR2 and other cancellations were probably a good thing.........but I'm still mystified, why we jobbed -off our Harrier fleet to countries who continue to successfully use them for their intended purpose.
UK designs of the era seem to be conceptually advanced, too small for the job (both airframe and engine), good airframe design, but poorer systems, especially electrics, and double especially if they were from Smiths.