His comments on TSR2 are a good example. He doesn't grasp how BAC was set-up in order to produce TSR2 (in effect a merger by blackmail) and claims that EE felt like sub-contractors, even though in essence the aircraft was the EE P.17 merged with aspects of the Supermarine 571. It was very much an English Electric aircraft with Vickers systems. However he then goes off in the opposite direction and claims that TSR2 was a "Page design" which it was not.
He's also wrong to claim the reasons why Vickers-Armstrong was awarded the lead in the contract. Records show that there was no reason at all - the decision was simply taken as a matter of choice. His account goes on in much the same way, using snippets of half-truths but nothing to explain the true story.
The most annoying aspect however, is that he lazily pins the project's demise on the Wilson government yet again. If he'd bothered to study the subject first, he'd know that Wilson was the last person to put a nail in TSR2's coffin. He wilfully sat back for many weeks to allow ministers and industry to find a way out of the saga. Even Healey wasn't the "hatchet man" he's always painted to be. The simple truth is that the RAF (Ellworthy) abandoned TSR2 before Healey axed it. This is on record.
The author simply opts for the usual ill-informed story of the Wilson government's wicked deeds, claiming that the way TSR2 was cancelled was "crass" but not explaining why. Then he tried to mix-in P.1154 which (as you will surely know!) was not a victim of governmental hatred but one of inter-service rivalry, and naval (Mountbatten-inspired) interest in big carriers and Phantoms.
He completely mis-represents the story of F-111A/K and why it was cancelled (chiefly the withdrawal from East of Suez), and then (in a bizarre twist) concluded with a line about how the Buccaneer was "no substitute for a Lightning" (eh?).
He also mis-represents BAC's position post TSR2 cancellation. BAC did not make any "desperate final plea" to keep one TSR2 flying. Utter nonsense. Jenkins and Healey offered the two TSR2 airframes and agreed to allow them to continue flying if BAC wanted them - at BAC's expense. When BAC learned that the government wasn't going to finance them, they didn't want to know.
His line about cancelling a "much needed new strike aircraft" is nonsense. It wasn't needed by the time it was built. It was designed for East of Suez. Without that commitment it was redundant (hence Tornado a decade later).
I could go on, but you get the idea. He simply went for the usual time-honoured story of TSR2 without bothering to explain (or even find-out) why it became such a pointless white elephant, and jumped on the old bandwagon by blaming the Labour government again for killing it off (and lots else). It's a bit like the way that Sandys gets painted as a hooligan... but that's another story!
Last edited by WH904; 13th May 2013 at 19:02.