it was an outmoded concept from the Trip Wire all out nuclear response age, it was over complex and over complicated, a committee designed solution to a problem that had ceased to exist.
It was massively over budget, and IF it had continued would have wreaked havoc on the RAF equipment programme as you would have had no Phantoms, no Buccaneers and no Tornado's, just 50 VERY expensive free fall nuclear delivery platforms.
PROON is right about TSR2. Like many, I thought it was unfairly scrapped by a new Labour government at that time. However, there is a very interesting RAF Historic Society publication which had looked in depth at this programme and its challenges. Having read it, it is clear that what started as an overly optimistic requirement, in terms of speed, range, mission capability etc was rapidly facing so many technical and financial problems that it was difficuult to see it making it into operational service. Flight development was not progressing well and there were problems with engine development. One interesting problem highlighted was that of extreme difficulty in installing the engines. A decision had been made to install them horizontally. Problems with the increasing nacelle envelope, due to increasing fuel space requirements meant that it was taking many days with many hard fouls to get the engine installed. None of these problems appeared to be being resolved, and the predicted reliability of the Olympus 22R engines would have resulted in a massive maintenance penalty and likely high number of un-serviceable jets. When the Austrailian AF decided not to but TSR2 in favor of F111 increased meant that the programme cost was rapidly becoming completely un-affordable. Its ultimate successor MRCA Tornado has proved an excellent jet, with very few major limitations. At best, we may have produced a handful of TSR2. With Tornado, almost 1000 were produced and even now are operating at the front line of RAF operations.
I can't help but think "F35" when reading those comments.