TSR-2 (Merged a few times)

[Tim McLelland]

I don't quite understand what you're getting-at there to be honest!

[Dr Jekyll]

I was responding to the "it can't have been any good or he US would have adopted it" lobby.

[PLovett]

Gentlemen, go back to page 1 and read, or reread, tornadoken's post. :ok:

No conspiracy theories, no dark deeds in the dead of night.:=

There was a better platform for the mission that delivered more with a better chance of success and a far better chance of survival, it was called Polaris. The whole concept of delivering nuclear bangs was moving over to missiles. :uhoh:

As an aside, that was something Leonard Cheshire had predicted in his report to HMG following his role as an observer to the Nagasaki bombing but was shelved without consideration at the time. :ugh:

[ionagh]

ZH875; thanks for the link.
Yes I did find similar clips and have managed to come up with a workable solution, even if it has caused nearly as many problems and delays as the real undercarriage did!

Just about finished now and starting covering.

I had noted the comment from JF several years ago about the lack of wing and the wing area was increased by 15%:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1834/pict0522rn0.jpg

My take on the episode was that this was simply a disasterous piece of uncontrolled project management. If TSR2 has taught us how never to undertake aerospace projects then it hasn't all been wasted.........but she is still the most iconic enigma of the 1960s.

[Tim McLelland]

I think it would be unwise to imagine that Polaris had any connection with TSR2 in any way. TSR2 was a tactical strike aircraft, not a strategic strike weapon. TSR2 was a victim of cost, pure and simple.

[tornadoken]

And that cost growth was in part due to adding a deep, Counter-Value strike Mission to a precision penetrator whose nav/attack fit was intended to find, not Moscow, but a tank. After deletion of Skybolt and adoption of Polaris, December,1962, TSR.2 Spec. drift piled on BAC X-12 and/or other stand-off weapons (ASMs), as it became a multi-role combat aircraft, the only game in RAF's town. Firstly Conservative, then Labour Ministers ratcheted down, from 150 to 50 their view of an affordable quantity. Wilson then offered to buy 50, but at a ceiling price, which Geo.Edwards declined. He “told Vickers’ Board (he) offered to complete (at further) £430Mn. and to sacrifice all profit if (it) exceeded that” H.Evans, Vickers Against the Odds,Hodder,78,P121. That equated to a blank cheque, and was declined.

[WebPilot]

"Lord Healey was asked about this and he insists that the two things are not connected. I'm inclined to agree with him as the saga is history now and Healey is an old man - he has no motive to tell fibs about it any longer".

....apart from making sure he goes down in history the way he wants to. There's still plenty of motive for Healey to spin it, however ancient he might be.

I'd not trust any politician (or ex-politican) to have stopped telling fibs unless I screwed down the coffin lid and buried it myself.

[Tim McLelland]

Oh, I agree entirely, you can't trust a politican's words. But you can make a guess as to what his motivations might be and there doesn't seem to be any reason now for Healy to cloud the issue. He doesn't have any need to toe the party line now, and if there had really been any financial/political pressure from the US at the time, you would think that'd he'd now be more than happy to say so - why wouldn't he? Surely, if there was even the slightest hint of polticial misdeeds, he'd be busy writing-up his memoirs?

[WebPilot]

I'd imagine it could depend on a number of things whether or not he'd "come clean". He'd still be bound by the OSA. I'd rather not assume that it had all come out in the wash.

I think Sydney Camm was right when he said "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR.2 simply got the first three right."

[tornadoken]

LBJ sought UK support in SE.Asia (later: ) “even a band of bagpipers would do.” Healey/Foreign Sec.P.Gordon-Walker sat with Secs.Def/State, 7-9/12/64: For.Relations,V.XII,W.Europe,UK236,Memo., Conversation, Defense Problems. N’nl Archives & Records Admin.,RG 59,Ball Papers:Lot 74 D272, MLF No.4.95/09/11: (10% of UK Defence) “was for a strategic nuclear role, 30% (defense of) Europe, 30% "overseas", 30% home (Outside Europe,UK) could cover 95% of contingencies (but to) cover the last 5% (required) additional effort of c.£1Bn. (UK) should have the best weapons (hence the) desirability of buying certain (of them from US). Quite apart from the economic benefits (UK) needed to maintain its R&D. This would have to be discussed (if UK) were to "go American" for certain weapons (The funding time-frame) envisaged was 10 years (The effect) would be to reduce (Defence GNP share from) 7½% to 5%. (Sec.Def McNamara:the) only way (was) to make hard decisions regarding equipment (and) destroy the myth that an arms industry is necessary for economic expansion. (R&D took) only c.5% of (DoD) budget. (US) could help (by) working out a cooperative R&D program. (UK was funding) certain projects which made no sense militarily (a) waste of money (-) TSR.2 (and) certain other projects. (US+UK) could benefit through greater integration. What US needed (was) a firm (UK) policy of acting as a world power (then) US could help with the problem of the 5%”. (Me: that's the last 5% of UK's Defence 'contingencies' - i.e a subsidy from US to keep UK in a world-gendarme role). (Healey: ) “had it not been for UK's prompt action in throwing “nugatory forces” into E.Africa (in Jan.) the West might have had another Congo on its hands. (UK shortly) might have to send another battalion to Br.Guiana” (SecDef:US) “could not be the gendarmes of the universe. At heart (Americans) are isolationists (what) others are doing has a great effect on what (US can do. UK has a) multiplying effect on our own role”.

LBJ gave Wilson a 10-years' credit package offer, most of which was taken up. It included F-111K for Indian O. deployment. On 16/1/68 UK, safely taking on favourable terms F-4M/C-130K et al, abandoned any world-gendarme notion, consolidated itself on W.Germany+Cyprus, dumped F-111K, and embarked on (to be) Tornado for NATO deployment. If I had been LBJ , no bagpipers, I would have been peeved. He left much of Healey's industrial offset in place - RB211-535C on 757, Spey TF41 and Elliott HUD in A-7E, non-compete support for Magic Carpet (Saudi Air Defence), but chopped Jetstream as USAF C-11A, thus destroying HP.

[Tim McLelland]

er... what? :p

[tsrjoe]

...having researched the ill fated TSR.2 for over 20 years now, i found that my preconcieved ideas and ALL previous pieces written on the aircraft unfortunately have had some bias and disinformation woven into them.

the story isnt simple at all and is certainly one that deserves in depth study looking at each of the 'problem' areas, eg, horrendous cost overuns, the unsuitability of the airframe, political pressures both internal and from the US. etc. etc.

i have found over the years that much of the material relating to the project has been scattered, NWHG. has a good photo archive and some brochure material, the PRO/TNA. at Kew quite a lot of related paperwork, other items being distributed elsewhere (i know of a further large photo archive and even microfiche copies of a number of the type drawings not previously accessed)

i hope at some point in the future to sort out my researches on the aircraft and finally publish them, the TSR.2 Aerofax was unfortunately caught up in some other stuff happening at the time, and even tho i had the manuscript ready i couldnt devote the time the project deserved to bring it to completion

cheers, Joe Cherrie

[Blacksheep]

TSR2 was a victim of cost, pure and simple....and of course, as far as Tactical Strike and Reconnaisance goes, it wasn't a patch on the Buccaneer. :suspect:

[Rainboe]

The hint that the Gannex wearing pipe smoker was working for the Red side on page 1 has, I very much believe, more than a ring of truth in it. The Austin Healey also- their socialist convictions were extremely solid (and sordid). Ones' parental relation worked in the MOD when the bushy eye-browed one was actually Minister OD. All possible secrets were allegedly kept from him. The sudden resignation of Harold was always suspicious, even moreso as the years progressed. I believe it was a disgraceful and deadly time in British politics. It all followed Gaitskill passing (very) suddenly from the scene. The socialist trio set about destroying British defence capability and scientific advance, very effectively in 1964 from the moment they took over. Tempting to look for scientific answers to something that was uncomfortably (and disastrously) political.

[pulse1]

TSR2 was scrapped because it was incapable of flying supersonic at low level to Moscow and back. It simply could not carry enough fuel. Neither could the F111 which was also cancelled for the RAF. It could only be done subsonically and we already had the best airframe for that, the Buccaneer.

[ionagh]

I'm not sure that the return leg of any nuclear sortie is a valid issue. Where would they recover to? The home bases would have been first/second strike targets. I cant think of any V force aircraft that had return capability for all of the targets they were covering.

If there were recovery bases, then I'm fairly sure they weren't in the UK.

I understood that the design payload for TSR2 was no longer available (read acceptable under international agreement etc) and the airframe was too role specific to use elsewhere.

TSR2 history is emotive and rarely objective. Its difficult to establish exactly what the truth was and I'm not convinced that we ever will know.

But, I will never vote Labour :=

[Tim McLelland]

Whilst I agree that the story of the TSR2 is complex and often surrounded by secrecy, rumour and gossip, the project was a victim of cost, simple as that. The conspiracy stories are very entertaining but the more you look into them, the less evidence there is to support them. It seems pretty clear that if the project had been managed properly, then it would have survived.

Joe, I think you know that I was tasked with writing the book which was intended to replace your Aerofax book, but even that has now been abandoned. Seems that the appetite to pursue the subject has waned somewhat so the subject's dead and buried for the time being, sadly. Hope you manage to resurrect the idea eventually though!

[tornadoken]

rainboe: The socialist trio set about destroying British defence capability. Gaitskell as 1951 Chancellor, funded Korean War Defence budget by putting charges on the hitherto wholly free NHS, thus provoking 3 resignations from Attlee's Govt., contributing to him losing the 1951 Election. Might your "trio" have been "Agent-of-Influence" Wilson, "red" Healey, "KGB-minded" Callaghan? If I may repeat from Key Publishing's TSR.2 Memories Project thread: KGB work through its Agent-of-Influence: No shred of evidence, though through Peter Wright's charade The Party Opposite would have made hay with a hint of a shred. Corrigan/Donkeys repeated it and extended the calumny to Callaghan. CDSs served happily, as these PMs deployed Polaris, WE177B, funded Chevaline and initiated Trident. I have seen/can't now find a quote by Sir A.Douglas-Home, Wilson's defeated opponent, 1964, in the sense: "I have always found Wilson to be sound on Defence fundamentals". KGB? Tripe.

Here's another politician's comment on Wilson's "destruction" of UK defence:
TSR.2 “an albatross round our necks (Healey) took the decision which would have had to be taken by (PT.His MoD was) writing (TSR.2) would have (to go) it was just that (Labour) took the opprobrium”. That was Healey's Tory predecessor, Peter Thorneycroft (B.Jackson/E.Bramall,Chiefs,Brassey’s,92,P361).

[Rainboe]

Number 3 was Brown. Was never sure about Callaghan- I believe his working class loyalty credentials were sound and he would not have been involved. I remember well the upset the TSR2 business caused. It would have had incredible performance and as a medium/long range bomber would have had little trouble penetrating the opposition. Instead we got involved in the F111 fracas despite warnings not to go there. I am surprised Polaris survived the various governments, but I have to say that I always found Wilson dodgy and his whole retirement saga very suspicious. It's coming out that several Labour MPs were very likely working for the opposition, I have little doubt that several Labour cabinet members were doing so. There was a distinctly weird and dodgy respect for the ideals of Soviet communism in the 50s and 60s- it wasn't just the Cambridge University 'mafia' who were up to that nonsense. We needed some damn good executions for treason to put the wind up the rest. Why we aren't doing that now to terrorists is beyond me- they want to martyr themselves- we'd just be helping them on their desired path. Instead they are using our hospitality to preach their hate against us. I find it fantastic that Blunt and Philby and others found their loyalty to Socialism outweighed their loyalty to the flag. I have no illusions that many MPs were not similarly inclined, even cabinet ministers. Some may have been coerced, but it must have been so easy to honeytrap them.

BTW, Gaitskill's departure may have been natural, but there was talk at one time that he could have been 'removed' to make way for someone. There is just an awful lot of smoke coming from the government- it seems too much smoke without any fire not to be ignored.

[Brewster Buffalo]

As we know having cancelled the TSR2 the government then ordered the F-111K at a fixed price of £2.1m per unit for 50 aircraft in 1967.

Then in 1968 the government cancelled it incurring large penalty costs of £60m equivalent to nearly 30 F-111s.

So a vast amount of money was spent on these aircraft with nothing to show for it.

The F-111 did have its problems but either the government should never have ordered it or carried on with the deal.

[tornadoken]

George Brown, First Secretary of State, was MP for Derby(Belper), where he may have tipped Jenkins/Healey towards Medway for HS681, not Pegasus. His main legacy is as butt of Private Eye's immortal "tired and emotional". Healey would have failed Positive Vetting for the job of MoD Messenger, having been a student Communist. But in 1936 the choice appeared to lie between that and fascism. Might you concede some regard for Major Healey,MC,Anzio Military Landing Officer?

Attlee tasked Wilson, Pres. of the Board of Trade, with developing $-sparse Trade with USSR: this the jaw, jaw, not war, war approach that Churchill, now Obama endorse(d). In Opposition he earned as Consultant on E.European Trade, such as to Gannex. As PM his Cabinet included CND stalwarts, inc. Mrs.B.Castle, F.Cousins, A.Greenwood (more as MPs, inc M.Foot): you and I might concur they were deluded, exploited by folk with quite a different agenda. Wilson/Healey did Polaris &tc. nonetheless. R.Crossman, George Wigg were to the fore in questioning East of Suez. Times then were similar to now: broke, besieged currency. Outgoing Tory Chancellor R.Maudling (he that chopped V.1000) handed over his desk to Callaghan with: “Sorry to leave such a mess, old c@ck” A.Marr,A History of Modern Britain,Mac,07,P241.

For me, Wilson's inherited programme, of presence in Indian O., procurement of TSR.2/HS681/P.1154 would have put E.Heath, 1970 in a far worse state than Wilson's bequest of stronger NATO/CENTO presence, F-4K/M, Harrier GR.1, Jaguar onway, Buccaneer S.2B(RAF) lead-in for (to be) Tornado; WE.177-family of efficient nukes, Polaris retained, funded and from 15/6/1968, deployed (though 4, not the Tories' planned 5).

Tories chopped the supersonic bomber, various ASM follows-on to Blue Steel, the Blue Streak IRBM, and solo-UK nukes beyond very resticted deployment of Yellow Sun Mk.1. Myopic, moi? toi?

[PPRuNe Pop]

I am not proposing to burst your bubble but this subject has been thrashed to death so many times it is no longer of real interest.

Time after time someone comes up with more information that is just a regurgitation of past stuff or a new way of saying the same thing.

It has no where to go and nothing new can now be added.

[Tim McLelland]

I agree entirely. It's easy to repeat the age-old conspiracy theories and to dwell on what might have been but if one sifts-out all the gossip, misinformation, rumours and sentiment, there's nothing to support any conlusion other than that the project was mis-managed (at a company and Governmental level) and was hideously expensive. Okay, it would have been a bargain by modern standards (as would have been the F-111 to be fair) but the decision-makers didn't have the luxury of a crystal ball.

Ultimately, it's simply a rather sad story of a project which had great potential but which came along at the wrong time. Same applies to other projects which suffered similar fates. The infamous 1957 Defence Review is another classic tale of how commentators and pundits lazily heap blame on Duncan Sandys for destroying so many promising projects but again, it's unfair to assume that he could have done anything differently. Clearly, he was given a great deal of inaccurate (or at least unfounded) information on which to make his decisions but no matter how good some of the abandoned projects might have been, the simple truth is that Britain didn't have the resources to pay for them.

Fundamentally, the TSR2 story (like many other similar projects) is inevitably re-told as an act of political vandalism. But this is simply lazy journalism. Superficially, this notion might seem plausible (and of course it makes good reading) but in reality the inescapable fact is that post-war Britain was proverbially punching above her weight, developing and supporting ambitious projects which simply couldn't be afforded.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere here or elsewhere, but which squadrons were designated to receive TSR-2, if in fact any were in fact designated?
Roland Wong has done a print of one in 617 colours is this a clue?
Thanks in anticipation,
Be lucky
David
P.S. To Mods I have tried the search facility and all TSR-2 threads except the pprune print one are closed.

[Dan Winterland]

I vaguley remember a contemporary publicity painting with them in 41 Sqn colours. But it doesn't mean 41 were due to get them. I suspect they hadn't thought that far.

[Gainesy]

I reckon 617 is a safe bet, along with some of the low-number traditional bomber squadrons such as 7 , 9, 10, 12 etc.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Try a search on TSR2 +squadrons on google and you find some info.

[kiwibrit]

with some of the low-number traditional bomber squadrons such as 7 , 9, 10, 12 etc.
I would prefer " squadrons such as 7 , IX, 10, 12 etc." :)

[Jig Peter]

I've always wondered what the TSR2 would have been named ... if the RAAF had taken it up, as they did the Canberra, diplomatically calling it "Sydney", or even "Perth" would surely have led to hilarity, (I mean, who'd have got to love a craft called "Sid" or "Perce", and Their Airships do NOT like "lower deck"-type jests and japes) while "Darwin" would have been presumptuous.
Just a thought, for the time before the super-beast was allotted to squadrons ...
:E

[D120A]

I have always thought that they would have left it as TSR2.

There were so many chaps around, singing "Five foot two, eyes of blue, I wanna fly a TSR2..." that it would have been cruel to have changed it...:}

[Tim McLelland]

I guess the simple answer to the squadrons question is to assume that they would have been the same as the units assigned to Buccaneers (15, 16, 12 and 208) plus some of the Vulcan units which would have presumably re-equipped - obviously not 27 but 617 certainly and probably 35 (as deployed to Cyprus). Guess the rest would be down to just how many aircraft entered service but the other Vulcan units were 9, 44 50, 101, so that seems to be the most likely route.

I suppose 7 Squadron must be a possibility too as the number was unused until they formed on Canberras at St.Mawgan.

[Footless Halls]

Weren't they supposed to be going to call it the Claymore?

[GeeRam]

I have always thought that they would have left it as TSR2.

I've seen mention of it was going to be called Eagle had it got into RAF service...?

[Double Zero]

They did give it a name, they scuffed their feet a bit, avoided eye contact, and mumbled ' Jaguar '; for those unaware, have a look at both airframes etc.


Just as the Harrier / P1127 was borne from the P1154 project cancelled at the same time as TSR2, the difference being the Harrier worked.

Both the TSR2 and P1154 would have been very expensive disasters if they'd gone ahead, which might be a lesson, though probably only relative to those times.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The P1127 was flying significantly before the P1154 left the drawing board. The clue is in the Type number. The P1154 and TSR2 being “expensive disasters” is an interesting assertion. Would you like to share?

[Brewster Buffalo]

Good article on the P.1154 from which I've lifted the following -

"...a Labour government came to office dedicated to making economies in defence expenditure......RAF was dedicated to preserving the TSR 2, as it was seen to provide the core capability that justified the Service's full independence...The RAF decided not to oppose the cancellation of the P.1154 too vigorously and to gamble all on the TSR 2."

&

"Although the TSR 2 was a triumph of 1950's technology, its prospects of being exported looked extremely poor due to its high costs and complexity. On the other hand, the P.1154 represented the last all-British entry in the key supersonic fighter market that has provided the bulk of exports for combat aircraft in the 1970's, 80's and 90's. At the time of its cancellation many countries were still pursuing the goal of survivable, effective airpower that aircraft such as the P.1154 offered. While the subsonic Harrier has proved modestly successful in the export field, the availability of the more capable P.1154 could have strengthened the customer base for V/STOL combat aircraft, providing a much greater success in the one area of aviation where Britain had genuinely led the world."

Worth a read

The P.1154 story (http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm)

[Tim McLelland]

Both the TSR2 and P1154 would have been very expensive disasters if they'd gone ahead

How could you reach such a judgement when the aircraft had yet to enter service and had performed excellently during the limited flight test programme prior to cancellation? There are no grounds on which to make such a pronouncement.

If anything, the TSR2 was an expensive disaster precisely because it didn't go ahead!

[BEagle]

TSR2 had met virtually all of its design spec requirements before it was stabbed in the back by Mountbottom, then finally put to death by Harold Wislon's communists.

Whereas P1154 had yet to fly.

Although a bit of a pig to fly at low speed (but so was the Buccaneer), the TSR2 had vastly more promise than the P1154 which would have had immense design and development issues to overcome.

[Blacksheep]

TSR2 had met virtually all of its design spec requirements Apart from needing an extensive redesign of the landing gear and completely new air conditioning and equipment cooling systems. :rolleyes:

[Tim McLelland]

Undercarriage and air conditioning glitches were less-than fundamental;)

[Gainesy]

I would prefer " squadrons such as 7 , IX, 10, 12 etc."

Don't you mean IX(B)?

[OBAman]

Are people still falling for the pro-cancellation propaganda that was put out to justify the decuision?

The undercart issue had been resolved already by the time of cancellation, though you wont hear about that, oh, and it was not redesigned at all. Its like when Wilson was given the grave news that the TSR 2 wing structure had failed under testing. What was left out was that it was a destructive test and the purpose was not if the wing would fail, but at what point.

The planned service name, as I understand it, was to be BAC Eagle GR.1

[pr00ne]

Both TSR2 and P1154 were ridiculous committee designed aircraft and both had NO future irrespective of which Government came in to power in 1964.

TSR2 was obsolete as a concept by the time it was cancelled as it was a straight nuclear weapon system that was terribly handicapped by the "supersonic over the target at 60k" element in the original Air Staff Target.

It is wrong to say that the RAF gambled everything on TSR2 when they agreed to the P1154 cancellation. By 1964 the Air Staff were fully aware that TSR2 was unaffordable and it's fate was sealed long before Wilson and co got hold of the reigns of power.

P1154 was just a total failure as a concept, both in broad terms as a 2 seat interceptor for the RN and a single seat tactical strike aircraft for the RAF but mainly because Plenum Chamber burning, upon which the entire concept was based, simply did not work! It didn't work in the 60's and it didn't work in the 80's when RR and BAE tried it again.

Had TSR2 gone ahead it was going to be called the Claymore and 40 Squadron were to be the first squadron to be so equipped, stationed at Coningsby.

IF it had gone ahead it would so have distorted the RAF front line that it would have been disastrous for the future of the service. In it's last iteration only 50 could be afforded, and they were to be spread between the UK, Germany and the Far East.

[911slf]

Is it not the case that operational experience in Iraq was that nearly all missions flown by supersonic capable aircraft were in fact undertaken subsonically. And that in the Falklands, subsonic Harriers were more than a match for supersonic Mirages? If there are to be future generations of strike fighters, should they not be designed to be subsonic - and cheaper, so we can have more of them?

[kiwibrit]

Most modern attack aircraft carry their weapons externally - making supersonic flight near impossible until bombs have been released. In the case of the Buccanneer, which did have a bomb bay, it was arguable that the replacement Tornado was an inferior airframe, once one looked at mission range. The Tornado's avionics were far superior of course - but I was told the pilots flying the hack Buccaneers with early MRCA avionics thought that combination superb.The TSR2 would have had an internal bomb bay - so relationship with Iraq war experience does not apply, but that was designed more or strategic targets.

Something like the Jaguar, with updated avionics, might have done us very well in the present era, though.

[Gainesy]

ISTR that F-111s went supersonic into Iraq in GW1, not sure if that was just the FB-111s or all shades of 111.

[kiwibrit]

Quite possibly - the F111 has an internal weapons bay.

Just realised this thread has drifted way of the original topic posted on page 1. Apologies - no intent at thread hijack intended by me.

[Jig Peter]

Don't forget that after the "Sandys Storm" of ?1957, there was little left for the RAF for future attack work, so they were pretty well bound to "stick with the TSR2" ... Mr. Sandys felt that missiles would take over all manned aircraft attack and defence roles, under the influence of the Scientific Advice of Mr. Solly Zuckermann, whose scientific expertise had nothing to do with warfare, but had gained the confidence of Mr. Churchill during the war (wasn't it Mr. Z's advisers who, before the V2, insisted that liquid fuel rockets were impracticable?) ...
Mr. Wilson was certainly anti-TSR2, possibly because of the nuclear role, but whatever the "spin", getting "owt for nowt" seems to be traditional British Government policy. And if they suddenly find that "nowt" is what they've got when they need "summat", they think that rushing to Uncle Sam will get them off their self-imposed hook, though in this case, Blackburn's Bulgemaster was deemed to be "adequate", and Lord Mountbatten's voice was loudest in the White Halls.
Oh, dear, oh dear ... Are we going round this sort of thing again ???
:8

[Skylion]

TSR 2 , which could have remained a world leader to this day, was alleged at the time to have been killed off at American insistance (to protect the inferior F111) in exchange for US support of the pound. "The Murder of the TSR2 " is an excellent reference on the subject.

[pr00ne]

Skylion,

More urban myth and legend I'm afraid!

The Americans played absolutely no part in the cancellation of the TSR2, none whatsoever.
Even the Air Staff were convinced it had to go.

As to the TSR2 remaining a world leader even to this day, that is palpable nonsense too. It wasn't even a world leader in the 60's and it would have been obsolete by the late seventies if it had gone into service when planned as it was the wrong aircraft, for the wrong mission with the wrong performance.

What followed TSR2, in terms of F-4M, Harrier, Buccaneer, Jaguar and Tornado were the right aircraft for the time and were affordable in quantities that the TSR2 could never have aspired to.

[Double Zero]

GBZ,

Happy to share what limited knowledge I have, though offered by others with a lot more 'gen who I won't name here...

TSR2, tiny wings and expected to overfly the target, which was a daft idea even in WWII, as the Tornado found out the hard way in Gulf War 1 ( jamming gear doesn't stop AAA, and god knows what a TSR2 would have been like at even medium, still vulnerable altitude ).

The P1154 was killed by inter-service politics, for example the R.N. insisting on two engines, which is hard work on a VSTOL aircraft !

I believe the Harrier was the right choice & way to go.

Plenum chamber burning ( the VSTOL equivalant of an afterburner ) did work, I was along for the trials in the 1980's, the major snag was that it couldn't be operated from grass or carriers due to the serious ' ground erosion '.

The supersonic Russian Yak 141 ' Freestyle ' successfully used PCB, and also had advanced controls similar to the VAAC Harrier & F-35B; it was researched by a few NATO Test Pilots, but scuppered by funds, as was the slightly earlier British P-1216 project.

The P-1216 could have possibly been a true world-beater for ' U.K. Ltd ' , complete with forward swept carbon fibre wings in one version - a full scale mock-up was made at Kingston, but funding was refused; culprit, M.Thatcher, who'd already had her political arse saved by the Harrier, now in peacetime she didn't fancy spending money, sod future citizens, technology & factories !

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm equally anti-labour, but it should be noted the 'tories were all for selling HMS Invincible to Australia in 1981, so hardly pro - defence as some would believe.

One good thing about the Pegasus engine on the Harrier is that while being a touch on the crude side, it has a ' high torque ' effect even at medium throttle, so the aircraft doesn''t mind going to high subsonic speeds even if carrying high drag stores; bearing in mind the problems of aiming & releasing stores at supersonic speeds, this seems a good solution to me.

[Archimedes]

I know of at least one F-111F chap who went supersonic over Iraq during GW1 .

There's a chap called Joe Cherrie who is something of a TSR2 buff and he was of the view that the name 'Eagle' was in the running, but has since said that, as far as he can ascertain, no name was actually selected, at least not formally.

This'd be in keeping with the policy which led to the decision not to formally announce the name for the F-111K (Merlin being the choice for that), with the info failing to emerge for some years because of the project's cancellation.

As for squadrons, as Pr00ne says, there is some evidence that 40 was to reform (it had last been a Canberra squadron) with re-equipment of extant units the most likely step forward after that.

7 and 15 (XV for those who prefer it that way, although the use of roman numerals for rendering squadron numbers was banned by the Air Council in the 60s...) were subsequently declared by AOC-in-C Bomber Command as his two preferred numberplates for the F-111 (obvioulsy overtaken by events); there is circumstantial evidence that they were the two preferred numberplates for a couple of the other TSR2 units.

[pr00ne]

00,

P1154 was killed of because it never would have worked! The RN did not want 2 engines, P1154RN was always single engined. They wanted 2 crew because it's job in the FAA was to be a high level interceptor, hardly a good mix with the RAF requirement for a single seat strike attack aircraft.
The RN pulled out of P1154 first when they opted for the McD F-4K, leaving the RAF to struggle along alone with the P1154 until the engine issues convinced even the Ar Staff that it was a non starter.

I was present at the Shoeburyness trials of the plenum chamber equipped Pegasus demonstrator and to your claims of 'serious ground erosion' you have to add the rather more serious problem of serious airframe erosion! It did not work!

P1216 would have gone nowhere for the simple reason that back then NOONE wanted VTOL or even VSTOL apart from a small element in the RAF and the USMC and RN.

I still insist that Claymore was going to be the name for TSR2, Merlin for F111. Incidentally, the TRUE UK potential success story that was scrapped was the P1121, a sort of cross between an F-105 and an F-4. IT was going to be called Hurricane.............

[BEagle]

Hurricane 2, I was told by a chum who worked on it.

But the bell mouth intake didn't really meet the intake mass flow requirements and it only had a single engine. Not a very good one either, if the RN's Buccaneer S1 experience was anything to go by!

I would agree that P1154 would have needed a HUGE amount of development work; however, there was a less ambitious 'fast Harrier' (whose designation I forget) which might have worked.

Wislon and the other closet communists in power at the time didn't like the idea that TSR-2 could take a nuclear weapon to Mother Russia, so it had no chance whatsoever after Mountbottom stabbed it in the back - if 'Tinkerbelle' :uhoh: didn't support it, why should the fellow travellers in Westminster?

Barstewards!!

[pr00ne]

Oh come on BEagle!

You know damn well that rubbish about Wilson not liking TSR2 because it could get to Moscow with a nuke is baloney!
If he was SO concerned why on earth did he proceed with the little matter of Polaris?

TSR2 had the range requirement it did for use in the Far East, mainly in the ferry configuration. When the pull out from East of Suez made that redundant the RAF had no requirement for an aircraft of such range. The RAF lost interest in taking instant sunshine to Moscow when the deterrent passed to the RN and has had no involvement in it since.

You were on Vulcans post the deterrent so you don't need ME to tell you what your targets were in the theatre nuclear role, they were very similar to the ones I had in RAFG on the toom but it is betraying nothing to say that Moscow was not among them!

Wilson found it incredibly easy to cancel TSR2, even though he didn't scrap it at the same time as P1154 and HS681 as Healey was keen and others were concerned on the affects on the aircraft industry. It was the Air Staff that eased the path to cancellation............

Agree on the half way house between P1154RAF and Harrier though, I think some artists impressions surfaced at the time but I cannot recall any details

[Jig Peter]

The clause to "keep the French in" the Concorde programme seems to have been carried over to the Typhoon and caused no little squirming in the White Halls, as the biter got bit once again ...*

Re: Roly Beamont's comments on there being no need for MRCA/Tornado if TSR2 had not been stopped rather beg the question - with Tornado, the RAF (eventually) got a "near TSR2" more cheaply as the cost was shared with Germany and Italy. Dropping the internal war-load carriage shortens the fuselage (but needs a bigger fin due to the shorter moment arm), while swing-wings avoid the complications of blown flaps and perhaps make the aircraft more "handy" at low speeds than the TSR2 is said (thanks, BEagle for that info!) to have been. TSR2 can thus be seen as a pregenitor of Tornado, so something at least was saved from the wreckage ...


*PS. I do realise that France wasn't in the Tornado programme, but the principle applies ...

[Jig Peter]

For the Canberra/B-57, a big surprise for both sides was the need for Martin to change all English Electric's drawings and metal specs to US standards - a much bigger job than anyone expected.
(But the job was worth it, !).
The British services would never have got Harrier if the US Marines hadn't pushed very hard.
Not much assimilation there ...

[BEagle]

You were on Vulcans post the deterrent so you don't need ME to tell you what your targets were in the theatre nuclear role, they were very similar to the ones I had in RAFG on the toom but it is betraying nothing to say that Moscow was not among them!

Oh really?

[OBAman]

Two factual misconceptions on the thread I would like to correct (I'm not getting involved with the arguments, lol)

First, the P.1154RAF was single engined, by the time of cancellation the P.1154RN had evolved into a two seat *twin engined* design in which the nozzles were cross linked to avoid assymetric thrust loss. ie one engine exhaused out of the front port and rear starboard nozzles and the other one vice versa via a complex overlapping ducting arrangement. This model was a disaster waiting to happen and it was right it should go. The simpler single engined RAF model however *could* have proceeded successfully.

The P.1121 did not use the same engine as the NA 39. The Gyron Junior was the engine in the NA 39 and in the P.1121 it was the Gyron, despite the name, it was a very different and much bigger engine. How successful that might have been can never be known but the failures of the Junior should not be used as a yardstick.

[BEagle]

Asymmetric thrust or a single engine failure at low speed in a V/STOL aircraft needing significant jet-borne lift is something which has always pretty well ruled out the twin engined V/STOL concept......

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/nenemeteor.jpg

Back in the 1950s, some brave souls flew this twin-Nene deflected-jet Meteor IV research aircraft down to about 70KIAS - without a bang seat. I hate to imagine what would have happened if one engine had failed at such low speeds on the approach...it would have rolled inverted in about half a heart beat. So presumably the tests were conducted at a sufficient altitude for the hapless pilot, in the event of an engine or duct failure, to throttle back the other engine, recover the thing to a gliding attitude and then decide whether to attempt a force landing or to hit the silk....

[tornadoken]

BE: Pop has tried to close down reruns of same old on TSR.2, but you have revived the closet commie smear on Wilson, thus Lt.Callaghan,RN (Br.Pacific Fleet) and Maj.Healey,MC (Anzio Beachmaster), so:

TSR.2 was more thermionic than thermonuclear (see the open equipment bay at Cosford and weep for any readiness). When Elworthy became CAS, 1/9/63, O.R/AST.355 was to replace it with a VG system with (hybrid, on way to digital) kit, thus small, operable, affordable. Minister Thorneycroft saw TSR.2 as “an albatross round our necks (Healey) took the decision which would have had to be taken by (us. MoD was) writing (it) would have (to go) it was just that (Labour) took the opprobrium” B.Jackson/E.Bramall (CGS, 1979-82), The Chiefs, Brassey’s, 92, P361.

Here is the US State Dept.'s record of Wilson/LBJ meeting 7/12/64 to reconcile UK's parlous finances, US notions of a Multilateral Nuclear Force to give FRG a finger on its nuclear defence, and LBJ's desire for a UK presence in Vietnam:(PM:UK)"should have the best weapons (hence) desirability of buying (some from US). Quite apart from the economic benefits (UK) needed to maintain its R&D. This would have to be discussed (if UK) were to "go American" for certain weapons (US purchases would) reduce (Defence GNP share fr.)7½% to 5%. (Sec.Def McNamara: the) only way (was) to make hard decisions regarding equipment (and) destroy the myth that an arms industry is necessary for economic expansion. (US) could help (by) working out a cooperative R&D program. (UK was funding) certain projects which made no sense militarily (a) waste of money (-) TSR.2 (and) certain other projects. (US+UK) could benefit through greater integration (What) US needed (was) a firm (UK) policy of acting as a world power (then) US could help with the problem of the 5%” (of UK GNP. US) “could not be the gendarmes of the universe (what) others are doing has a great effect on what (US can do. UK has a) multiplying effect on our own role” For.Relations, V.XII, W.Europe, UK236, Memo., Conversation, Defense Problems. N’nl Archives & Records Admin., RG 59, Ball Papers: Lot 74 D272, MLF No.4.95/09/11; For.Relations,’64-68, Vol.XIII, W.Europe: Pres./PM 7-9/12/62.

Outcomes included: ditching polyglot (MLF) "poppycock" (ex-CIGS, Montgomery); keeping UK out of Vietnam, but in (for awhile) East of Suez with F-111K and CVA-01; nuclear co-operation which caused deployment of WE.177, Chevaline, Trident D-5; credit/fixed price for F-111K/C-130K/F-4M/Lance; and emergence of BAC Warton as UK's Military Aircraft Centre of Excellence on the back of Saudi Magic Carpet, which was part of McNamara's offset. HSAL Chairman Sir R.Dobson, who “lost work by our decision, gave a TV interview (putting) all the blame on Conservative “twerps” ‘(in) light of what has happened before (slippage/cost of UK types, it) is very difficult to quarrel with (Wilson)’” Healey,Memoirs,P272.

Elworthy,DSO,DFC, remained CAS, then 1/4/67-13/4/71 CDS, through the iterations F-111K/AFVG/UKVG until the Strike solution became (MRCA)Tornado. It is crankWright to persist that all this was done at Moscow's behest.

[PPRuNe Pop]

BE: Pop has tried to close down reruns of same old on TSR.2, but you have revived the closet commie smear on Wilson, thus Lt.Callaghan,RN (Br.Pacific Fleet) and Maj.Healey,MC (Anzio Beachmaster)

And I shall do so again if these same old points are laboured again and again without taking cognizance of what 'Bee' Beamont actually said on the subject (as I have reiterated before, in this thread, as said to me and a colleague, by him, during a leisurely lunch in a Wilton pub in April 2000) and in his book about the whole sorry mess. Jenkins, Callahan and Healy WERE the instigators of it's cancellation - Wilson just went along with it, commie or not. As for the F111 and Mountbatten's (I prefer BEagle's 'Mountbottom!) decision to use a sidewinder swipe at TSR2 it became clear who he was 'working' for.

There was without doubt a high degree of complicity and a good measure of plain old fashioned skulduggery.

The aeroplane was sold down the river, which would have been good if it were designed as a seaplane.

The idea of people proposing notions of their own as to how the project was clobbered is, in my view, always a non-runner. Just knowing someone who worked on the TSR2 is not the same as the spoken words of Petter and Beamont who were at the very head of the project and were told before anyone else.

'Bee' Beamont made a BBC documentary on the subject and I and my colleague were told by him that not one single word of that docu was untrue.

Finally, 'Bee' did say to us that if TSR2 had not be cancelled there never would have been a need for Tornado. Would anyone like to challenge that view - from the Chief Test Pilot of both projects?

[Jig Peter]

Strictly speaking, Mr. Beamont was right. Had TSR2 not been cancelled, we'd have had a "Tornado before its time", so many years earlier (and I might have stayed in the Service ???).
Because a lot of the TSR2's tasks were still needed, Tornado became necessary, with "added cooperation", hence more cheaply ...
:8

(edited 'cos of typo ...)

[Tim McLelland]

I thought it almost went without saying that if TSR2 had entered service, then Tornado would never have happened. That's obvious to anyone!

As for Beamont's comments, it's always worth remembering who he was and what his background was. Whilst I wouldn't argue with anything he said, it's worth taking some of his comments with a pinch of salt as he was speaking from a less-than neutral position in the whole saga.

Unfortunately there's a bit of an "Elvis Syndrome" associated with TSR2. The aircraft was undoubtedly a good one but it has been surrounded by urban myths, hype, conspiracy tales and other assorted rubbish for decades.

[Surrey Towers]

Unfortunately there's a bit of an "Elvis Syndrome" associated with TSR2. The aircraft was undoubtedly a good one but it has been surrounded by urban myths, hype, conspiracy tales and other assorted rubbish for decades.

And how would you know that pray? Were you there, privy to the conversations between the CTP and Mr Petter? In the office when the three musketeer's and the dishonest Mountbatten got a scandalous conspiracy under way? I rather doubt it.

You know about as much as the rest of us I suspect - that which was written by the TP's and a VERY few others.

In any event it was a scandal that dishonest politicians teamed up to kill the project off.

[GLIDER 90]

Afternoon All

Just wondering would the TSR2 with some modifications, still be in service today had it not been scrapped in 1965?

[Quemerford]

I'd say no, simply because the RAF doesn't now operate anything front-line of that age, even when one considers upgrades etc.

If you compare it to the (roughly) contemporary and (sort-of, if you squint regarding role etc) Mirage IV, I think a possible scenario would have seen the type retired as a strike aircraft in the mid-90s and then soldiering on as a tac recce machine for maybe another 10 years?

I suspect that if it had stayed in the low-level role it would have suffered from fatigue a fair deal and also painted a large radar picture, so maybe a bit of a liability in a modern combat scenario. Though the Buccaneer did OK in later years it seems.

And when you assume that the RAF wouldn't have needed Phantoms or Buccaneers, and maybe even not MRCA/Tornado, you realize what an impact it could have had. I can imagine TSR.2s stationed in the Falklands and been very good as long-range, missile-armed interceptors (like a modern-day Avro Arrow) and also gained a maritime strike role with Martel; probably also Sidewinders for Gulf War 1 etc. The possibilities are endless.

[Haraka]

Yes, but when you consider that it cost as much as a Frigate..........

[surely not]

There is an excellent review on line by a wide selection of those involved in the TSR2 project, which also includes excerpts from Government papers about the project.

The overall conclusion is that it was a badly managed project which didn't/couldn't meet the unrealistic performance targets.

TSR2 project review (https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-17B-TSR2-with-Hindsight.pdf)

[rjtjrt]

TSR 2 was not a pretty or graceful aircraft in the photo’s I have seen.
Are there any that make it look good?

[dook]

Combat aircraft are not designed to look good or graceful, although a long time age I flew two which were.

[India Four Two]

dook,

Surely one must be the Hunter. What was the other?

[dook]

PM for I42.

[Dr Jekyll]

. I do realise that France wasn't in the Tornado programme, but the principle applies ...

The origins of the Tornado were in the AFVG, OK initially a BAC design but the French had some input. They must have liked the general idea because just look at the Mirage G.

[chevvron]

The origins of the Tornado were in the AFVG, OK initially a BAC design but the French had some input. They must have liked the general idea because just look at the Mirage G.
I was gonna say that too.
As far as I remember, the AFVG (Anglo French Variable Geometry) design looked pretty similar to the MRCA design which was hatched just a few years after the French decided to pull out of AFVG.

[Buster15]

TSR 2 was not a pretty or graceful aircraft in the photo’s I have seen.
Are there any that make it look good?

It was quite big as a result of the range requirements. Very small wing as a result of the speed requirements.

The Olympus 22R was a real beast and would have quite a poor sfc, particularly compared with the RB199.

[Doctor Cruces]

I haven't read the books either but I do remember sitting on a airfield in 1968, listening to two Boscome Down test pilots discussing it (anything was better than trying to teach me to fly).

They said that the reason that it was scrapped was that it would not do what it was meant to do - fly to Moscow supersonic at low level and return. It could not carry enough fuel.

The same thing applied to the F111 which is why we didn't buy that either.

They could both do the trip just subsonic but the Buccaneer could do that better than either of them. This was why the Buccaneer was transferred from the Navy to the RAF.

As I said, this was the informed opinion of some current RAF test pilots at the time. I do remember reading a novel at about this time which seemed to be based on the TSR2 and, to stop the Soviet's cunning plan to takeover the West, the Brits had to demonstrate that they could deliver a bomb into Red Square. They used the TSR2 knowing it could not get back, and then quickly pick up the crew from a crash landing in the North Sea to show that they had returned. Can't remember the author bu it might have been James Beatty.


Flight of the Bat I believe.

[PDR1]

There is an excellent review on line by a wide selection of those involved in the TSR2 project, which also includes excerpts from Government papers about the project.

The overall conclusion is that it was a badly managed project which didn't/couldn't meet the unrealistic performance targets.

TSR2 project review (https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-17B-TSR2-with-Hindsight.pdf)

According to the excellent "Project Cancelled" by Derek Wood* The TRS2 programme was cancelled because its technical objectives were unachievable with the technology of the day. Not the airframe performance (which was within reasonable distance of the requirement) but the extremely ambitious fully-integrated nav-attack system on which the mission performance was based. At the time the available systems engineering science simply wasn't up to predicting the on-board processing workload and the data exchange capacity needed. Having looked at the requirement I would suggest we could do it these days, but it's still a non-trivial requirement that would take sevral years and a few million lines of code to implement. I agree with Derek's view that it was well beyond the available technology at the time.

The invisibility of the problem was compounded by the way that the customer (the government) insisted on splitting the work between a large number of main contractors (I think Derek counts 17) to spread the benefit across the largest possible number of constituencies with very vague lines of technical authority and decision-making. Again, at the time the project management techniques and processes to manage and monitor the performance of such an artificially- diversified project just didn't exist. And again, these days those techniques probably DO exist, but we would still regard it as a very silly (aka "risky") way to structure a capital project.

Without the integrated nav-attack system the TSR2 was unable to perform its required mission, and it was to unmanoeuverable (and butt-ugly) to be an airshow-queen, so they cancelled the whole thing.

The RAF F-111K programme was cancelled because the costs had spiralled (exaccerbated by unfavourable exchange rate changes) and because they had seen a decidedly troubled development programme of the Australian version which was delaying the RAF in-service date to the extent that the RAF had needed to lease a couple of dozen additional F4s to cover the shortfall. Then throw in the detail that the planned mission requirement had changed when the UK decided to withdraw forces from east of Suez bases and the whole programme essentially no longer met the need.

AIUI the F-111k had a range of around 1,600 miles (without A-A refuelling) which would leave it well over 1,000 miles short for a return trip to Moscow from the UK, compared to around 3,000 miles for the TSR2 (which wouldn't), so I don't think the reported conversation with the RAF pilots sounds that reasonable to me.

PDR

* A really good, well researched and authoritative read by the same guy who produced the definitive history of the Battle of Britain in the book "Narrow Margin"

[chevvron]

Flight of the Bat I believe.
Was that the one where the attacking aircraft flew underneath a scheduled Trident going to Warsaw or somewhere for the first part of the flight 'cos I heard it was written round a Buccaneer not a TSR 2.

[Discorde]

This Wren cartoon featured on the front cover of the Feb 1965 edition of 'Air Pictorial'. Not sure who 'Shackleton' is.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1176x962/air_pict_feb_65_v7_aca4b306e2a6e91d875327f1e4c5b6ad49a929ca. jpg

[GordonR_Cape]

From Wikipedia: Edward Shackleton was the younger son of the famous explorer. In Harold Wilson's government, he served as Minister of Defence for the RAF 1964–67. The TSR-2 was cancelled in April 1965.

[RedhillPhil]

Flight of the Bat I believe.
Quite correct. The "Bat" was a very thinly disguised TSR-2

[Blackfriar]

Surely, looking at contemporary developments, Concorde converted to military configuration with an internal bomb bay, would have answered all the questions posed in this thread. Sustained Mach 2.05, digital technology, long range and of course nothing ever looked more "right". It got away from Tonado F2 easily with 100 grannies in shirt sleeves sipping champagne so "only" missiles to worry about.

[CNH]

Nope. Concorde would have suffered from all the problems that the V bombers and the AVRO 730 did - namely, vulnerability to SAMs.

Have you looked at the turning circle of Concorde? And the height it would lose in a high g turn at altitude?

[PDR1]

That "sustained Mach 2.05" is only achieved at over 50,000 feet. I don't have the data to hand, but I'm fairly sure I have a reference at home suggesting Concord's max sustainable sea-level speed on dry power is subsonic. TSR2 was intended to do a sustained Mach 1.3ish a ground-hugging altitudes. Concord also has all the manoeuverability of a steam train.

The whole "military concord" thing is strictly plane-spotter wet-dream stuff.

PDR

[FlightlessParrot]

TSR-2 With Hindsight is pretty damning, and I don't think it would be plausible to condemn all the contributors as socialist traitors. Wing Commander Beamont's testimony surely applies to the flight characteristics of the airframe, and is impressive, but that's only the start. Could one calculate the mean time between failures for electronics of that complexity using 1960s technology? It was scrapped by the Labour Government because their predecessors left it for them to do, confident that the UK aviation industry would be happy to pour all the opprobrium onto the Labour Party, and ignore the fact that Wedgwood Benn was an ardent supporter of Concorde (one of many things he got wrong). It's like suggesting that airships would have been viable if it hadn't been for the botching of R101.

Not that I'm a fan of the Wilson government, or of any aspect of the UK Labour Party after Gaitskell, but some failures are not caused by politics.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps TSR-2 would have been decisive in the Falklands?

[DHfan]

With my hindsight, I believe TSR-2 was doomed from the outset. Everything that could have been calculated to be a bad idea was selected.
The RAF picked the figures they wanted out of thin air, from memory particularly range and sea-level speed, when say 90% of the performance was relatively simple to achieve although still impressive.
The government decided Vickers were to be the main contractor on what was basically an English Electric design, despite them having no supersonic expertise. To add to that, they then decided that apart from the basic airframe, it was to be effectively designed by committee.
I think it's Hooker's book that describes a meeting that was adjourned because there were too many people there. It was to resume with only people that absolutely had to be there and when they did, there were even more.

Amazingly, despite the teething troubles and the limited number of test flights, it appears to me the aircraft itself was well on its way to probably achieving the requirements.
The electronics are far beyond me, especially for that era as I've no idea what was feasible, but what always staggers me is the size of the avionics bay in XR220 at Cosford. It's looks the size of a small room yet modern electronics to do the same job would probably fit in a shoe box with space to spare.

[chevvron]

Barnstormer1968,

With respect I hardly think the F-111 used any TFR developed for the TSR2 !


The TFR in the TSR 2 was unique to that aircraft at that time in that it would automatically fly the aircraft via autopilot at a set height above ground. I think a later version was fitted to Tornado GR1/4.
The radar in the F111 was 'terrain avoidance' not 'terrain following'; it would warn the pilot of reduced vertical separation from the surface and the pilot then had to take action to correct.

[pr00ne]

The Tories would have cancelled it had the General Election gone the other way, this was no Socialist conspiracy. P1154 simply did not work and we still can't do VSTOL Plenum Chamber Nozzle after-burning now. RR tried it again in the 80's and still couldn't manage it.

Oh, and as for TSR-2/F-111K/MRCA and Moscow, that is a real distraction. The range requirement for TSR-2 came from the Far east and not Europe. When we pulled out of the Far east the range commitment went too.

[GLIDER 90]

I wonder if the TSR2 went ahead, would it have been a mixture of Vulcans & TSRS.

[Yellow Sun]

I feel that the airframe would probably have "worked". However given the level of technology available at the time I am very unsure whether the avionics would have performed adequately. Those interested might like to read:

TSR2 - Precision Attack to Tornado by John Forbat ISBN 978 0 7524 3919 8

YS (https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=TSR2+Precision+Attack+to+Tornado)

[Stuck On The Ground]

Chevvron,

You are quite right that the F-111 didn't have a TFR.

It had two.