TSR2

[Loose rivets]

Mods, not being a long term visitor to this site, this may not be appropriate due to historical postings, but I invested an hour in this YTube, and the effect has been to make me start a new thread rather than leave a side-discussion buried in the Hawker Hunter (called Kermit?) crash thread.

I was edge-of-my-seat enthralled for almost all the <hour's reporting of all the questions I'd long wondered about. To have Roland Beamont's in depth reminiscing was wonderful. Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins gave in depth and I felt, honest, recall on the government's deeply detailed research on the matter. It left me with the feeling that Wilson was a lone player much of the time. Circa 50 mins in, Jenkins' whole mood and body language changed as he revealed probably rather private opinion on the crucial moments. It was about our disproportionate investment in aviation and advance research rather than making aircraft we know we can sell to the world. Frankly, I'd been astonished by James Hamilton-Paterson's revelations of our gargantuan investment so soon after the war.

My comment on the Hunter thread about the complexity of the on board electronics I think is probably near the mark. This film shows a lot of the boxes in situ with the weight of each unit. Pie in the sky in 1960? But then, a moon landing would have taken much the same processing, though not as much of it.

Nothing explains the destruction, and you see it in miserable reality. Then Roland Beamont's closing words . . .



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edClNWhKFEU

[DaveReidUK]

edClNWhKFEU

[Brewster Buffalo]

I'm posting another book recommendation and its "TSR2 - Britain's Lost Bomber by Damien Burke - Crowood Press 2010 - a very detailed and perhaps the definitive account of the project.

[Discorde]

The Feb 1965 edition of 'Air Pictorial' (https://www.steemrok.com/airpic/6502/feb65.html)features on its cover a Chris Wren cartoon bewailing the cancellation of the TSR-2 &c and includes editorial condemnation of the new Government's decision.

[SPIT]

If you read a book titled Project Cancelled it opens you eyes as to the stupidity of SOME OFFICIALS re their view of Aviation in the 50/60s

[DHfan]

My wife doesn't like me reading that book. I do too much growling and snarling.

[EXDAC]

Thanks for sharing this.

If MRCA had gone the same way I would probably have earned my living in the building trade instead of aerospace. There seemed to be quite a few parallels between the two programs but, unlike TSR2, MRCA survived and had a long service life.

[Herod]

Back in the time of the long delay to service, the MRCA stood for "Must refurbish Canberras....again"

[Asturias56]

If you read a book titled Project Cancelled it opens you eyes as to the stupidity of SOME OFFICIALS re their view of Aviation in the 50/60s

IIRC the AIr Staff also had a good share of the blame - they just slogged on , adding tasks to the aircraft, seemingly oblivious to the cost issues and the growing political storm

[DHfan]

Stanley Hooker blamed the RAF officers in Operational Requirements.

[Discorde]

Some of the delay (and cost escalation) was due to sorting out undercarriage problems. Why was the geometry and retraction mechanism so complex? Why didn't they choose the conventional 1-axle-2-wheel configuration, which would also (perhaps) have obviated vibration probs.

[DHfan]

That would have been fine if in their infinite wisdom Operational Requirements hadn't specified the ability to take off from firm grass.

After they added the extra link, as seen on XR222 at Duxford I think, I believe the problem was solved.

Considering how advanced the specification was, personally I think it was amazing that they were well on their way to complying with most, if not all, of the requirements.

[Loose rivets]

The undercarriage horrified me. An all-in wrestler born with the legs of a ballerina.

[Bill Macgillivray]

As a very young, very junior officer, in the very early '60's I was (amazingly!) about to relinquish my PR Canberra tour and become a very small "cog" in the TSR2 programme. In retrospect I guess that it was to my advantage that it all turned to "worms" and I carried on as normal! However, you always wonder about the alternative!

[134brat]

Frank Barnett-Jones TSR2 Phoenix or folly is another book worth reading, quite scarce though.

[Asturias56]

Odd to think that if we had bought TSR2 it would have bee out of service by now - probably replaced by the F-35.

[SLXOwft]

I was on a Civil Service College course in the '90s where the MoD guy running it claimed to have been involved in TSR2 (his age made it plausible) - he was very pro the cancellation, in his opinion it would never have worked - IIRC he said the avionics units were too large to work without mutual interference in the available space.

[hec7or]

I knew a SQN LDR Nav who was on the project and he was of the same opinion, I mentioned it to him once and it made him shudder! (a few choice words were uttered)

[DHfan]

Odd to think that if we had bought TSR2 it would have bee out of service by now - probably replaced by the F-35.

TSR2 was a bomber, presumably the F-35 is a fighter so not really like for like,

Do we actually have a bombing capability since the Tornado was withdrawn?

[Asturias56]

I thought the "bomber" designation went out with the Vulcan - since then it's always been Strike - which of course was the second letter of the TSR2 - it wasn't a TBR2

[Barksdale Boy]

I thought the "bomber" designation went out with the Vulcan - since then it's always been Strike - which of course was the second letter of the TSR2 - it wasn't a TBR2
Strike had quite a different meaning, i.e. as opposed to attack.

[Asturias56]

It really isn't of any great significance - if it has come into service it would eventually have replaced several other types and it was clearly designed to

Bomber Command was wound up in '68 IIRC

[DHfan]

Bomber Command was wound up in '68 IIRC

Three years after TSR2 was cancelled, and incorporated into Strike Command I believe.

I know what the initials stand for, but as far as I'm concerned an aircraft designed to carry a bomb internally is a bomber, among any other roles it's used or needed for.

[Asturias56]

ahhh but then a B-58 was not a bomber?? ;)

[POBJOY]

Aside from the engine and avionics suspect development times, the basic concept of the TSR2 undercarriage having to be 'grass friendly' beggars belief.
The RAF had made the decision pre 1940 that modern monoplane aircraft needed a stable firm surface to operate from, and that situation was most certainly confirmed later when Wisley had to have a runway laid for the Valiant trials. Even today a grass surface can quickly become unsuitable with rain and in the UK that is a factor that must be considered normal. In fact in aircraft performance, information on grass use usually states 'dry grass firm subsoil'.
Just that one factor alone for the TSR2 gives a good picture on the lack of sensible input that seems to have prevailed for the project. Had anyone done the sums for factoring in the take of run required for 'grass use' then it would have been clear that that alone would have sent the very idea into the sin bin. The basic airframe seems to have been suitable, and indeed with a proven reliable powerplant this would have left more time to develop the advanced avionics and terrain following features it needed. Extra power in a true combat situation for t-off could have been provided by rocket packs and then dropped. Of course we ended up with NO CAPABILITY as the 'low level' V force would have been a one shot option, and eventually we had to wait for the Subs to give us cover.

[DHfan]

Don't forget that the length of take-off run was also specified, and even from grass it still had to be "short".

AFAIK, TSR2 never took off from anywhere apart from Boscombe Down and Woodford so nobody knows what would have happened on grass.

Re Asturias56's comment. I didn't say that only aircraft with internal bomb stowage were bombers.

[spekesoftly]

AFAIK, TSR2 never took off from anywhere apart from Boscombe Down and Woodford ......
.

Suggest you mean Warton, and not Woodford ?

[DHfan]

Oops. Well, it's close-ish...

[Asturias56]

"just that one factor alone for the TSR2 gives a good picture on the lack of sensible input that seems to have prevailed for the project"

years ago I read a commentary that suggested that the TSR2 was seen as the last , greatest , chance for a new manned strategic/bomber/strike/recce aircraft by many in the RAF and so everyone tried to make sure their "specialism" was added to the spec - it truly became a dream aircraft - the practicalities that it would have to meet and the costs of doing all these tasks in one aircraft never seemed to have occurred to anyone

[wub]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x939/tsr2_cd26fd91420ef59bcccf00d0f038975b15f76abf.jpg
Here's the one currently at Cosford, about to leave RAF Henlow in 1975

[Brewster Buffalo]

In order to minimise the take off roll even more the TSR2 also incorporated the ability to extend its nose wheel leg by 0.76m though lack of roll control might have made take offs in a significant crosswind tricky.

In the YouTube video listed above Roland Beamont says the whole project was too ambitious.

In retrospect you wonder whether a joint project with the French or the USA might have been more successful even though that would mean less work for the British aircraft industry.

[DHfan]

My late dad was one of the police motorcycle outriders who escorted TSR2 to Henlow in 1967(?)
As a result, after Dad chatting to somebody, the two of us were allowed to visit Henlow a few weeks later. I don't recall seeing XR220 but we did see many of the aircraft collected for the Battle of Britain film, including the He111 and Ju87 now at Hendon.

XR220 was fully airworthy and due to fly on the afternoon of the day the axe fell.

It took years for me to realise, but it's Beamont, not Beaumont.

[deltahotel]

Anyway, it's ugly. And we got the Buccaneer!

[Asturias56]

No - the one thing you can say its it looked good...................

[chevvron]

Anyway, it's ugly. And we got the Buccaneer!
No; the Buccaneer preceded TSR2.
I remember those shots taken by USAF trackers during Red Flag where they couldn't depress their 'weapons' low enough for a simulated hit on the Buccs.

[deltahotel]

The Buccaneer was a replacement for TSR2 after F111 fell through. And much better looking.

[Asturias56]

What is astounding was the absolute vehement prejudice by the RAF against the Buccaneer just because it was FAA.

They eventually had a choice between the Bucc or a Cessna 150 (alledgedly! ;)) and very, very reluctantly adopted the Bucc with a rending of garments and a gnashing of teeth that resounded for years

[deltahotel]

No rending or gnashing from Bucc aircrew, I assure you.

[DHfan]

The Buccaneer was a replacement for TSR2 after F111 fell through. And much better looking.

When TSR2 was cancelled the Buccaneer had already been in service with the Navy for two years.

[deltahotel]

Indeed, but TSR2 was destined for RAF service and was ultimately replaced for that by the Buccaneer.

[CAEBr]

What is astounding was the absolute vehement prejudice by the RAF against the Buccaneer just necause it was FAA.


Quite, driven to a large extent by Mountbatten's support for the RN's Buccaneer and his campaign against the TSR2, with the RAF viewing him as a major reason why they didn't get the aircraft they wanted. Politics eh, who would have thought it ?

[DHfan]

Mountbatten was also instrumental in talking the Australians out of TSR2 and I think recommending the Buccaneer.

That worked well, they eventually got F-111s - years late and considerably more expensive than expected.

[chevvron]

When TSR2 was cancelled the Buccaneer had already been in service with the Navy for two years.
And it stayed in service for GW1 when it was supposedly to be replaced by Tornados.

[pax britanica]

Brewster B

Having made the comment myself that TSR2 was uneconomic I think youare completley right about the JV approach. I suppose to a degree it actually happened with the Jaguar and later the Tornado . It seemed to em the idea of building something as complex as TSR2 was anon starter because it had no large market . Yanks wouldnt buy it , French probably not so thats RAF and the Aussies who are/were not exactlya stategic power .

Usual UK introspection and over confidence sadly , 50% of the work on a JV with France would have been much better than 100% of nothing..

PB

[Brewster Buffalo]

Although not asked to do so Blackburn did submit in 1958 an improved version of the Buccaneer for the TSR2 specification but as it didn't meet the speed, range and landing/take off requirements it was rejected.

Blackburn tried again in 1960 offering re-engined and enlarged versions which could go supersonic, though not to Mach 2, and which had the range, providing external tanks were used. However there was no improvement to the rough field requirement. At that point design and development of the TSR2 was well under way and so, again, there was no RAF interest.

The avionics isssue raised in posts 17 & 18 would probably applied to the Buccaneer as well.

Of course if they knew in 1960 that the project would go way over budget and be delayed then maybe the improved Buccaneer would have got the nod.....

[POBJOY]

What is astounding was the absolute vehement prejudice by the RAF against the Buccaneer just because it was FAA.

They eventually had a choice between the Bucc or a Cessna 150 (alledgedly! ;)) and very, very reluctantly adopted the Bucc with a rending of garments and a gnashing of teeth that resounded for years

I am sure 1,000 C150 could have confused the Russian radar scanners !!!!

[Barksdale Boy]

I am sure 1,000 C150 could have confused the Russian radar scanners !!!!
Mathias Rust seemed to achieve it alone.

[Asturias56]

I am sure 1,000 C150 could have confused the Russian radar scanners !!!!

and so cheap! well by the time the Air staff and BAe had finished they'd probably have cost £ 100 million a copy

[dixi188]

Was the TSR2 TFR system the same as the F111's Marconi Elliot system?

[Brewster Buffalo]

Was the TSR2 TFR system the same as the F111's Marconi Elliot system?
Ferranti developed the TSR2 tfr; Texas instruments did the same for the F-111 based on some British research.

[chevvron]

Ferranti developed the TSR2 tfr; Texas instruments did the same for the F-111 based on some British research.
TSR2 had Terrain Following Radar; F111 had Terrain Avoidance Radar

[EXDAC]

TSR2 had Terrain Following Radar; F111 had Terrain Avoidance Radar

Had Ferranti ever demonstrated the TFR capabilty to be used in TSR2? If so, what happened to that capabilty? MRCA ground mapping and terrain following radars went to TI. I know the contract awards for MRCA were influenced by politics but why go to USA for the radars if Ferrani, or any other Panavia partner, had the capability?

[Timelord]

TSR2 had Terrain Following Radar; F111 had Terrain Avoidance Radar

Hmm, interesting. Please can you expand on how F111 wasn’t TFR, and how you define avoidance and following?

TL (ex Vulcan Nav Rad and GR1 back seater)

[chevvron]

A chiefy in the air radar bay at Bruggen told me back in '86 but I'm afraid I don't remember the exact details; he made it quite clear the TFR in his Tornados was nothing like as good as the TAR in F111s.
I'm afraid it all went over my head as a controller even though my brother joined as an ARM at Cosford in 1961.(I vaguely recall somethng about 200ft in there somewhere.)

[Timelord]

I know nothing of the TSR2 system but quite a lot about the Tornado system. It was made by Texas Instruments who also made the F111 system and I’m pretty sure they had very similar capabilities; ie automatic control of the aircraft to maintain a set clearance height above the terrain. I have always called that TFR. Terrain avoidance radar (in my world) was use of the mapping radar to keep above the terrain. Nowhere near as good as TFR but in the hands of a good operator, who had nothing else to do, might stop you hitting a hill.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Had Ferranti ever demonstrated the TFR capabilty to be used in TSR2?........


Ferranti tested the TFR capability in, what else, a Buccaneer. Film of these trials was available on YouTube but sadly has now disappeared.


Possibly Ferranti's TFR might have used in the AFVG; if it hadn't been cancelled..

[DuncanDoenitz]

Went with the Halton branch of the RAeS to a lecture by crew members of the newly-arrived F-111s at Upper Heyfoed in the early 70's. They certainly left us with the impression that it was a terrain-following function of the radar/AFCS, and was entirely autonomous; even selectable between "hard" and "soft" ride.

[megan]

From the manual Duncan

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/352x374/ab266_97d934ddf8788b3079c1d502daca47bc1d08050a.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1060x1323/ab267_675245e6b5da52b3dd75764fa799474a2f6da807.png

[Sue Vêtements]

I don't really understand why 0 is "hard" and 0.75 is "soft". Seems like it should be the other way round



well by the time the Air staff and BAe had finished they'd probably have cost £ 100 million a copy

It feels like they're not far of that mark now :eek:

[Asturias56]

I know the feeling......................... you can pay $30- $80k for a 1975 C150 these days - I don't think they cost that new!!

[DH106]

I don't really understand why 0 is "hard" and 0.75 is "soft". Seems like it should be the other way round
You have to reference it from your standard 1g flight => 0.75g equates to minus 0.25g relative, whereas 0g equates to minus 1g relative.

[Sue Vêtements]

oh I see. Makes sense I guess

[Timelord]

oh I see. Makes sense I guess

You don’t sound convinced: Straight and level flight is 1g so pushing over to .75 g is less of a push than pushing over to 0g. Incidentally, the sim I used to work in was delivered with the HUD reading 0g when S and L . It took a surprisingly long time before anybody noticed.

[DuncanDoenitz]

You don’t sound convinced: Straight and level flight is 1g so pushing over to .75 g is less of a push than pushing over to 0g. Incidentally, the sim I used to work in was delivered with the HUD reading 0g when S and L . It took a surprisingly long time before anybody noticed.
You instructed on the Space Shuttle sim?

[megan]

The g figures given are for the pushover (cresting a ridge line), without getting the books out, a HARD pull up was +3.8 g.