As I said in my last post, I guess it's all down to how you choose to perceive such things. I accept that the story has gone-around for decades that BAC were "instructed to destroy" everything but like so many of these stories, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it. It seems entirely reasonable that BAC would want everything cut-up, burned and cleared-out as soon as the project was scrubbed because they had other programmes that needed the space and manpower. I guess the way to look at it is to reverse the situation and ask why they wouldn't want to do that? What advantage would there be in hanging-on to what was effectively a pile of junk?
Like I said before, I think this story is based on the premise that there was either political (and financial) pressure from the US to get-rid of the aircraft. It's a good theory but there's no evidence to support it. Let's be realistic - no matter how many "dark deals" might have been struck, it would be stretching credibility to suggest that the US had enough influence to force a foreign government/manufacturer into destroying every bit of a project just because they thought it might be some sort of commercial threat to the F-111. Besides, if that situation was in any way likely, then how come this only applied to the TSR2 and not other aircraft too? It just doesn't add up.
Likewise, the only other possible explanation would be if the Government wanted to ensure that any incoming Tory government couldn't resurrect the project. But again, there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence that this was ever going to be a possibility. What government would want to re-start a hideously over-expensive project which had already caused so much embarrassment? Again, it just seems like a non-starter and there's never been so much as a mutter to suggest that the Conservatives had even entertained the idea.
I know it's a symptom of human nature to enjoy fantasies of dark political wranglings (heaven knows there are plenty of 'em!) but the more you look at this saga with a clear head, you have to conclude that all the conspiracy theories are simply down to gossip and sensationalism. The TSR2 was a brilliant piece of technology and engineering but it would be wrong to make the aircraft into something it wasn't. It showed great promise but it was just too expensive, thanks to the way in which it was created and managed. Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to suppose that it wasn't dumped because of that very fact. The other stories sound great but like so many stories, the truth was probably much more mundane.
Okay, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but as I've said before - where is the evidence? It's a bit like the M.52 thread I've been following on here and the Flypast forum - the same stories of political conspiracies and destruction of jigs, transfers of data and so on, but no evidence to support it, indeed one former Miles man insists that it's just not true. And yet the stories continue, with even the great Eric Brown planning to write a book on the subject, perpetuating the same myths (although I hear there are efforts being made to ensure that he doesn't fall into this trap!).
Frankly, I'd be quite happy if the TSR2 saga did contain some dark conspiracy as it would make my job as a writer more interesting, but what should I do? Simply re-trace the same comments made by everyone else over so many years, without stopping to ask on what basis these comments have been made? It's pointless to write "facts" on the basis that they've merely been written before, and even worse to base "facts" on what seems to be mostly personal opinion and gossip.
I fear the TSR2 saga will never be resolved one way or the other, but my own view is that it is better to re-tell the story as it was, without any need for conspiracies. The simple story of how a brilliant design can fall victim to the people who manage it is enough in itself don't you think?!
PS, just noticed the post above from the great JF - I'm firmly with his view there!