TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
Also check out ->
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/index.html
It's a wonderful site, lots of very interesting items in it.
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/index.html
It's a wonderful site, lots of very interesting items in it.
TSR2 and Hemswell
After a visit to the lesser known post war base at Hemswell last week, i looked up some history on tinterweb. I knew the canberras had been based in the mid 50's but i thought that, like other bases in the area, it had closed after its use as a thor missile station.
I read on one site that Hemswell was to be the test base for the unfortunately ill fated TSR2 program. Does anyone know if any more on this subject i.e was the aircraft ever flown into Hemswell? What was planned for the base had the TSR2 continued?
Also not to do with this topic, was their ever plans to keep Binbrook and Leconfield open as RAF stations with other based units after the lightenings reign?
Any info on these topics would be much appreciated.
Cheers
I read on one site that Hemswell was to be the test base for the unfortunately ill fated TSR2 program. Does anyone know if any more on this subject i.e was the aircraft ever flown into Hemswell? What was planned for the base had the TSR2 continued?
Also not to do with this topic, was their ever plans to keep Binbrook and Leconfield open as RAF stations with other based units after the lightenings reign?
Any info on these topics would be much appreciated.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worked with a guy who told me he was instructed to buy new chains & paddocks for everybuilding that was to be associated with TSR2 Programme at Hemswell upon the annoucement of the TSR2 cancellation. Im sure he told me that shortly thereafter Hemswell was declared as no longer required and was to be sold off.
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
It wasn't sold off quite that quickly. It remained in use for recruit training until at least the end of the sixties.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pug
After a visit to the lesser known post war base at Hemswell last week, i looked up some history on tinterweb. I knew the canberras had been based in the mid 50's but i thought that, like other bases in the area, it had closed after its use as a thor missile station.
I read on one site that Hemswell was to be the test base for the unfortunately ill fated TSR2 program. Does anyone know if any more on this subject i.e was the aircraft ever flown into Hemswell? What was planned for the base had the TSR2 continued?
I read on one site that Hemswell was to be the test base for the unfortunately ill fated TSR2 program. Does anyone know if any more on this subject i.e was the aircraft ever flown into Hemswell? What was planned for the base had the TSR2 continued?
http://website.lineone.net/~bcam/
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2 documentary
Not quite a reply this, but I could use some help. We're a TV production company called Wide Angle and in the process of developing a documentary about TSR2. It's story with a lot of unanswered questions and we'd be interesting in hearing from - and talking to - anyone who has either a point of view on the subject or some special knowledge. I can be reached by emailing [email protected]. Thanks.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unanswered" TSR.2 Questions
It was cancelled because CAS Elworthy knew it was late, inoperable and unaffordable - see R.Gardner's Bouncing Bombs new official biography of Sir George Edwards. But if you want a fun story around one of the conspiracy theories you need a principal on camera, such as a colleague of the late (Baron, formerly Sir Cranley) Onslow, 1970 Tory Trade Minister. He asserted the chop was a deal between Wilson and CND, a sop to cover retention of Polaris. Lord Healey would deride such things and tell you the small quantity we might afford made it a Counter-Value capital asset, not to be expended in Counter-Force precision for which it had been designed. Jutland Dreadnoughts again. So he bought Phantom mud-mover plus nuclear penetrator F-111K, all on credit at fixed prices.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2: Still a mystery? (Merged)
I'm developing a documentary on TSR2 and am aware of much of the controversy surrounding its cancellation. The available theories seem to divide into two principle camps: (1) Too expensive, too many development problems (2) Pressure from the USA to buy American. Of the various additional 'conspiracy' theories, nobody seems to want to articulate these very clearly. For my part, aspects of the story that raise issues were the obsessive way that records, blueprints, tooling etc were destroyed. If, as many people believed, the aircraft was so advanced (might still be flying today etc), is it possible that TSR2 was seen as seriously destabilising to the then 'balance of power' - this in an era where the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) influenced most military investment. Was it simply too good?
Try reading Roly Beamont's book about aircraft he has test flown; he has some very specific things to say (sorry can't remember the title of the book)
All the early teething troubles were being fixed or had a fix in the works apparently; he reckons it was an entirely political decision.
Don't forget Labour cancelled a lot of other aviation projects at this time eg the Hs681 four engined high winged military transport, which the later HS/BAe 146, although smaller, looked very similar to(but the yanks wanted us to buy Hercules). I seem to recall a derivative of the '681 would have had four Pegasus engines (as fitted to the Harrier, then being test flown as the Hawker P1127) thus giving it very short takeoff performance.
All the early teething troubles were being fixed or had a fix in the works apparently; he reckons it was an entirely political decision.
Don't forget Labour cancelled a lot of other aviation projects at this time eg the Hs681 four engined high winged military transport, which the later HS/BAe 146, although smaller, looked very similar to(but the yanks wanted us to buy Hercules). I seem to recall a derivative of the '681 would have had four Pegasus engines (as fitted to the Harrier, then being test flown as the Hawker P1127) thus giving it very short takeoff performance.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dorset
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland Beamont.
Two books by Roland Beamont covering this topic are,
Testing Years, published in 1980 by Ian Allan, ISBN 0 7110 1072 2.
and,
The Years Flew Past, published by Airlife in 2001, ISBN 1 84037 299 0.
This should provide a good starting point in your research,
Best regards,
om15
Testing Years, published in 1980 by Ian Allan, ISBN 0 7110 1072 2.
and,
The Years Flew Past, published by Airlife in 2001, ISBN 1 84037 299 0.
This should provide a good starting point in your research,
Best regards,
om15
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastbourne
Age: 69
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cancellation conspiracy theory thread has run though the whole history of the TSR2 project and has in my opinion been done to death, much like the plane really.
This aviation debacle like so many other labour contrived fiascos need only to be compared too the Canadian Avro project, similarly cancelled along with rabid destruction of all equipment and technical drawings of the offending airframe.
Who was it offending. Look no further than Uncle Sam and his aviation cohorts whom I suggest placed so much political arm twisting on the then Labour Cabinet that they had little option but too cancel TRS2 and a number of other projects.
It’s doubtful that any political figure from that time will have the genital fortitude to come forward and offer for public scrutiny the true facts about what took place but it’s effects on British Aviation and it’s supporting industry are a matter of public record, So I would suggest that you include TRS2 in your documentary by all means but concentrate the main theme on the demise of what was once a great and innovative aviation industry destroyed by it’s own government in pursuit of political ends contrived by another countries government.
Maybe you could even answer one of my own questions, ‘Who coined the Phrase Special Relationship, and what ever were they thinking’ ??
This aviation debacle like so many other labour contrived fiascos need only to be compared too the Canadian Avro project, similarly cancelled along with rabid destruction of all equipment and technical drawings of the offending airframe.
Who was it offending. Look no further than Uncle Sam and his aviation cohorts whom I suggest placed so much political arm twisting on the then Labour Cabinet that they had little option but too cancel TRS2 and a number of other projects.
It’s doubtful that any political figure from that time will have the genital fortitude to come forward and offer for public scrutiny the true facts about what took place but it’s effects on British Aviation and it’s supporting industry are a matter of public record, So I would suggest that you include TRS2 in your documentary by all means but concentrate the main theme on the demise of what was once a great and innovative aviation industry destroyed by it’s own government in pursuit of political ends contrived by another countries government.
Maybe you could even answer one of my own questions, ‘Who coined the Phrase Special Relationship, and what ever were they thinking’ ??
It wasn't just the aircraft the yanks were jealous of; it's systems were well in advance of anything they had eg F111 had simple terrain avoidance radar (tells you when you're about to hit a hill), TSR2 had terrain following radar(flies the aircraft over the hill maintaining the same MSD)(MSD = Minimum separation distance) .
I understand that the main purpose of the TSR2 was to deliver nuclear weapons to the heart of the Soviet Union. It was designed to do this supersonic at low level. Unfortunately it could not carry sufficient fuel to do this. Neither could the F111 which was initially ordered instead. This was cancelled too, and for the same reason.
It was then realised that supersonic intrusion into the SU at low level was impossible, if you wanted the aircraft and crew back. The Buccaneer was the best airframe in the world to do the same job at subsonic speeds. This was why it was transferred from the RN to the RAF.
Anyway, that's what I overheard a group of Boscombe Down test pilots saying in 1968.
So, if it wouldn't achieve it's primary role, what else was it so good at?
A marvellous bit of aeronautical engineering it probably was. But what use was it?
It was then realised that supersonic intrusion into the SU at low level was impossible, if you wanted the aircraft and crew back. The Buccaneer was the best airframe in the world to do the same job at subsonic speeds. This was why it was transferred from the RN to the RAF.
Anyway, that's what I overheard a group of Boscombe Down test pilots saying in 1968.
So, if it wouldn't achieve it's primary role, what else was it so good at?
A marvellous bit of aeronautical engineering it probably was. But what use was it?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if it wouldn't achieve it's primary role, what else was it so good at?
A marvellous bit of aeronautical engineering it probably was. But what use was it?
A marvellous bit of aeronautical engineering it probably was. But what use was it?
The book you are thinking of is 'Phoenix into Ashes' - now out of print.
There are many theories concerning the cancellation. Although the pro-navy biased thoughts of Mountbottom didn't help, perhaps the desire of the closet communists of the Wislon era to appease their Soviet masters was the key?
TSR2's 1000 mile radius design sortie with a 2000lb bomb load was a climb to just above 20000ft, a cruise at M0.92 for about 500nm, followed by a supersonic acceleration and climb at M1.7 to around 48000ft. Then a rapid descent at M1.7/600KIAS to ultra low level for a 200nm ingress at M0.9. After weapon release, it would egress at M0.9, then climb to around 30000ft at M0.9 and return at M0.92......
Which would have made a nuclear attack on Moscow and return to RAFG quite achievable, though very risky.
Alternatively, a 700 nm radius sortie could have been flown entirely at 200ft and M0.9 - sufficient to fly from RAFG to the Ukraine and back.
There are many theories concerning the cancellation. Although the pro-navy biased thoughts of Mountbottom didn't help, perhaps the desire of the closet communists of the Wislon era to appease their Soviet masters was the key?
TSR2's 1000 mile radius design sortie with a 2000lb bomb load was a climb to just above 20000ft, a cruise at M0.92 for about 500nm, followed by a supersonic acceleration and climb at M1.7 to around 48000ft. Then a rapid descent at M1.7/600KIAS to ultra low level for a 200nm ingress at M0.9. After weapon release, it would egress at M0.9, then climb to around 30000ft at M0.9 and return at M0.92......
Which would have made a nuclear attack on Moscow and return to RAFG quite achievable, though very risky.
Alternatively, a 700 nm radius sortie could have been flown entirely at 200ft and M0.9 - sufficient to fly from RAFG to the Ukraine and back.