TSR2 (Signed prints available.)
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the prints!
Someone asked me what size they are. They are overall, just about 25" x 15."
I might add that I will be happy to email a picture of 'Bee' signing the prints in April 2001 - with each print sold.
PPP
Someone asked me what size they are. They are overall, just about 25" x 15."
I might add that I will be happy to email a picture of 'Bee' signing the prints in April 2001 - with each print sold.
PPP
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sent my cheque off yesterday (HP15 6DR)
The photo sounds cool...
I only saw Bee in person once - flying an SE5a from Old Warden, but a great man, who could write as well as he flew. But then he did fly some truly inspirational aeroplanes.
I was an aviation-mad schoolboy in Somerset during the TSR 2 debacle. The cancellation broke my heart, and made me politically aware... suffice to say that no labour government will ever get a vote from me!
Last year I made a couple of business trips to Ottawa, and I made a point of visiting the excellent aviation museum at Rockcliffe. It's extraordinary that the comparable Arrow affair is still an open wound there, and the museum shop is full of Arrow books, films, pictures and other memorabilia - I'm drinking tea from my Avro Arrow mug, and using my Avro Arrow mousemat as I write! Sadly, only diehard aviation enthusiasts seem to give the TSR 2 a thought in the UK; only a couple a weeks ago I had an argument with a work colleague (who should know better) who insisted that the TSR 2 was designed by Barnes Wallis and had swing wings....
The photo sounds cool...
I only saw Bee in person once - flying an SE5a from Old Warden, but a great man, who could write as well as he flew. But then he did fly some truly inspirational aeroplanes.
I was an aviation-mad schoolboy in Somerset during the TSR 2 debacle. The cancellation broke my heart, and made me politically aware... suffice to say that no labour government will ever get a vote from me!
Last year I made a couple of business trips to Ottawa, and I made a point of visiting the excellent aviation museum at Rockcliffe. It's extraordinary that the comparable Arrow affair is still an open wound there, and the museum shop is full of Arrow books, films, pictures and other memorabilia - I'm drinking tea from my Avro Arrow mug, and using my Avro Arrow mousemat as I write! Sadly, only diehard aviation enthusiasts seem to give the TSR 2 a thought in the UK; only a couple a weeks ago I had an argument with a work colleague (who should know better) who insisted that the TSR 2 was designed by Barnes Wallis and had swing wings....
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you EF, I got your cheque and the print will be on its way tomorrow with three others ordered today. Enjoy.
Your friend obviously doesn't have his facts right. He is thinking of Wallis' Swallow that could have done 3 round trips a day to Australia! Now there's a thought!
PPP
Your friend obviously doesn't have his facts right. He is thinking of Wallis' Swallow that could have done 3 round trips a day to Australia! Now there's a thought!
PPP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1965 Budget (James Callaghan)
The second budget of the new Labour Government. Brought in Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. The favourable tax treatment of businessmen's entertainment allowances was ended. The Budget was followed by one of the most complex finance bills ever. The opposition to the Finance Bill was led for the Conservatives by Edward Heath who did much to enhance his reputation. The Chancellor was forced into a number of concessions to get the bulk of his legislation through.
TV graphics, 1965
The cancellation of the TSR-2 One of the bitterest battles surrounded the scrapping of the TSR2 project, a strike-reconnaisance aircraft which was regarded as taking up too many resources which, so the Chancellor believed, should be re-deployed into industries like car making. The TSR-2 was replaced by the US F-111 fighter, until it too fell victim to defence cuts.
Can you believe it...? if any anything might have inspired our car makers to produce well engineered products with a modicum of R&D investment in them, it might have been the example set by a succesful aircraft industry !
The second budget of the new Labour Government. Brought in Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. The favourable tax treatment of businessmen's entertainment allowances was ended. The Budget was followed by one of the most complex finance bills ever. The opposition to the Finance Bill was led for the Conservatives by Edward Heath who did much to enhance his reputation. The Chancellor was forced into a number of concessions to get the bulk of his legislation through.
TV graphics, 1965 The cancellation of the TSR-2 One of the bitterest battles surrounded the scrapping of the TSR2 project, a strike-reconnaisance aircraft which was regarded as taking up too many resources which, so the Chancellor believed, should be re-deployed into industries like car making. The TSR-2 was replaced by the US F-111 fighter, until it too fell victim to defence cuts.
Can you believe it...? if any anything might have inspired our car makers to produce well engineered products with a modicum of R&D investment in them, it might have been the example set by a succesful aircraft industry !
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR 2 was only one of a sequence of cancellations - HS-1154, HS-681, SR177 and AFVG come to mind - and they would have cancelled Concorde if they could have got away with it. One or two (like HS-681) may have deserved cancelling but TSR 2 was needed and was already showing that it worked well and could be a world-beater. The Government admitted that they needed a new aircraft by ordering F111 - which at the time was experiencing far worse technical development problems than TSR 2 - and showed breathtaking incompetence by paying the US a huge sum of money, then cancelling the order before they actually got any aircraft. Much poorer but still having no aeroplane, they bought F4 Phantoms, but decided to spend another huge sum of money re-engining them with Speys, and getting sucked into very difficult and troubled development program. Somewhere along the way, they realised that the RAF still hadn't got the new aeroplanes they'd promised, so they refurbished some ex-RN Buccaneers to tide them over.
Just shows that mind-numbing incompetence wasn't invented by the current Government, however hard they try to claim ownership...
Just shows that mind-numbing incompetence wasn't invented by the current Government, however hard they try to claim ownership...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a technical note and because of the comparison with the swing-wing F-111 makes it even more fascinating...
.. and not many people know this
The TSR-2 may well have originally been conceived, to reduce low altitude/high-speed gust response still further, with a variable 'pitch' wing mounting.
That is, the wing could pivot about its aerodynamic centre in pitch, to a small extent.
Look at a GA of the wing planform, and you will see chordwise panel lines at the outboard edge of the engine intakes, where they effectively meet the fuselage.
A very novel idea (and a potentially weighty one) to have a main spar pivot bearing through the fuselage.
I have read of this only once, in a reasonably authoritative appraisal of the aircraft, and could only conclude that once a reasonable w/t adn theoretical analysis of its gust-response had been made and found satisfactory, and due to its controversial nature, the idea was dropped thereafter or hushed up, being subsequently built with the potential for it, but without the hardware in place.
Those early test-flight certainly seemed to confirm to WC Beamont and the test programme, that nothing quite as smooth as this in thick air and rough weather had taken to the skies before...
Also, earlier, there was a suggestion that the cockpit was isolated from the airframe for much the same low-level gust response reasons... wheras in fact, I believe, it was simply that some very good resonance analysis had allowed the EE design team to place the pilot at a resonance node, rather than an anti-node.
More evidence that a design team far in advance of others, was destroyed by 'mindless meddling' by all concerned in its cancellation...
Yes, we could not really afford to build it ...
But equally, and so it proved, it probably cost the country dearly...
The same has happened in govt software acquistion now... having destroyed the teams who could, then 'buy in' contractors efforts that can't!
.. and not many people know this
The TSR-2 may well have originally been conceived, to reduce low altitude/high-speed gust response still further, with a variable 'pitch' wing mounting.
That is, the wing could pivot about its aerodynamic centre in pitch, to a small extent.
Look at a GA of the wing planform, and you will see chordwise panel lines at the outboard edge of the engine intakes, where they effectively meet the fuselage.
A very novel idea (and a potentially weighty one) to have a main spar pivot bearing through the fuselage.
I have read of this only once, in a reasonably authoritative appraisal of the aircraft, and could only conclude that once a reasonable w/t adn theoretical analysis of its gust-response had been made and found satisfactory, and due to its controversial nature, the idea was dropped thereafter or hushed up, being subsequently built with the potential for it, but without the hardware in place.
Those early test-flight certainly seemed to confirm to WC Beamont and the test programme, that nothing quite as smooth as this in thick air and rough weather had taken to the skies before...
Also, earlier, there was a suggestion that the cockpit was isolated from the airframe for much the same low-level gust response reasons... wheras in fact, I believe, it was simply that some very good resonance analysis had allowed the EE design team to place the pilot at a resonance node, rather than an anti-node.
More evidence that a design team far in advance of others, was destroyed by 'mindless meddling' by all concerned in its cancellation...
Yes, we could not really afford to build it ...
But equally, and so it proved, it probably cost the country dearly...
The same has happened in govt software acquistion now... having destroyed the teams who could, then 'buy in' contractors efforts that can't!
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP, you will be pleased to know that I remembered and its awaits you. As a matter of fact I have pre-packed 15 prints and 5 have already been posted with a further 2 to-morrow.
I am delighted with this re-awakened interest - that will put more money into the fund.
Those of you who get The Mail will have noticed today, in their letters page, that a question has been answered about the TSR2, quite well actually, as to how the project got cancelled..........it all starts with...............well you know anyway.
BTW, I omitted to say, although it has been mentioned before, one of our stalwart PPRuNer's is the artist of the watercolour and was instrumental in getting the prints for free from a friend of his who owned a print house. A most generous gesture by both people.
There is still goodness to found!
PPP
I am delighted with this re-awakened interest - that will put more money into the fund.
Those of you who get The Mail will have noticed today, in their letters page, that a question has been answered about the TSR2, quite well actually, as to how the project got cancelled..........it all starts with...............well you know anyway.
BTW, I omitted to say, although it has been mentioned before, one of our stalwart PPRuNer's is the artist of the watercolour and was instrumental in getting the prints for free from a friend of his who owned a print house. A most generous gesture by both people.
There is still goodness to found!
PPP
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be true to say though, that the UK could have had an aircraft of very similair capability to the TSR2, but cheaper and carrier capable if they'd have tried to buy the The North American A-5/RA-5 Vigilante from the yanks.
All this talk of conspiracy suggests that TSR2 was nothing other than a job creation scheme that got too expensive, even for the Labour government of the day - or am I just being provocative?
All this talk of conspiracy suggests that TSR2 was nothing other than a job creation scheme that got too expensive, even for the Labour government of the day - or am I just being provocative?
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably! However, Roland Beamont asserted VERY strongly that had TSR2 continued in production it would have lasted many years in the front line, and that there would not have been ANY requirement for Tornado. In both cases the workforce was safe.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HM
Yes it did and with a digital computer taken from the Vigilante to tie the TFR into the flight control system, there being no British made computer capable at the time.
One wonders just what fun and games would have been involved getting that system working, had the project got that far. Certainly getting the Tornado digital intake scheduling going about 10 years later was no picnic. Digital computers in aircraft control systems is today a non-trivial problem, in 1965, it would have been a major issue for an industry with zero experience, in that discipline.
Arguably it was the addition of kit like this, to relativly simple airframes, that transformed new aircraft development from a task that could be completed in months- as it was in the fifties-, to endeavours that take years, as now. - This I would suggest is what eventually caused the demise of Britains independent aviation industry, not government interference.
indeed, didn't it have good provision for a forward looking radar too, purportedly for terrain following?
One wonders just what fun and games would have been involved getting that system working, had the project got that far. Certainly getting the Tornado digital intake scheduling going about 10 years later was no picnic. Digital computers in aircraft control systems is today a non-trivial problem, in 1965, it would have been a major issue for an industry with zero experience, in that discipline.
Arguably it was the addition of kit like this, to relativly simple airframes, that transformed new aircraft development from a task that could be completed in months- as it was in the fifties-, to endeavours that take years, as now. - This I would suggest is what eventually caused the demise of Britains independent aviation industry, not government interference.
Last edited by Jetex Jim; 8th Feb 2008 at 21:51. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of conspiracy suggests that TSR2 was nothing other than a job creation scheme that got too expensive, even for the Labour government of the day - or am I just being provocative?
Nobody above used the conspiracy word did they...? though there was a book published soon after, 'The Murder of the TSR-2', that perhaps did. One of the few books published in this country that the govt. attempted to remove from bookshops - the copy I read had the whole of the summary on the inner dust-covers overprinted with heavy xxxxx's.... By Order, HM Govt. !
I don't believe it was what you suggest... a job creation scheme. There was a firm requirement (at the time) for something that wouln't get knocked out of the sky before it got anywhere near a target, even though today it looks like it would have just been a cold-war deterrent, but would have had a useful role right up to Desert Storm... maybe even still in service.
There are probably a few good reasons why this aircraft and its story lives on in spirit yet creates such incredible angst...
1) It was used as a pawn to bring together and effectively nationalise competing aircraft makers in the military sector postwar... when those makers did so, they were betrayed at the final cut of the dice, and very badly so... a promise was broken, at national/govt. level
2) A lot of very skilled design engineers, technicians, fitters and craftsmen were made redundant, or threatened it. Bare in mind that not very long before, trying to build thousands of aircraft and engines for WWII, Britain had found itself very short of just those skills, indeed, as I referred to earlier, the Spitfire itself was threatened circa '38/'39 due to the complexity of some of it's structure - the wing for instance, could not just be farmed out to any old sub-contractors and built to exacting standards (which it required). So those skilled craftmen had undergone, in those days, long apprenticeships, in a whole multitude of trades.
3) the aircraft itself never got a fair hearing at the end of it's quite extraordinary initial test-flight programme - and was self-evidently lightyears ahead of its competition, in the same way the Mosquito was in concept and reality, that I like to compare it to.
4) The way BAC were told to destroy all jigs and tools immediately , as well as the design drawings, was just a bridge too and it seemed to so many directly involved that here was the cold face of socialism - bent on destroying a whole industry at one stroke.
To immediately order a competitor that had barely started cutting metal was also hard to swallow - unless they were to be given to the UK gratis in exchange for desisiting in being so ill-mannered as to follow the incredibly succesful export orders of the Canberra with another winner - which they weren't aot to do, building in heavy cancellation penalties which we signed up to no doubt without a galnce at the small print.
It probably would have been better to mothball the whole project, and take a five year moratorium on future requirements while things simmered down
Oh! And never listen to a US salesman... half-truths can be the blackest and most damaging of lies.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose one point would be that it was not as revolutionary as is often claimed, the Vigilante appears to have met a spec. similair perhaps even more demanding.
Because we know that planes like the Vulcan, with mission systems not that much more complex than the Lancaster, were in service for years; its tempting to think the TSR2 would have stayed in service as long. But such aircraft were laughingly long in the tooth by the time they were retired, and only ran on as long as they did because of delays to their replacements.
Modern projects, like the MRA4 and Typhoon are immensly more complex than the beautiful jets of the fifties. TSR2 would have been the first of that generation. Could Britain have made it going alone? ask the guys waiting for the MR4 Nimrod, its largely British - aside from the Boeing built mission kit.
Its sometimes stated that the TSR2 was quashed because of American pressure, has anyone ever seen anything in public record? Its been 40 years now.
Perhaps the workers at Vickers and the like deserved better, but the workers at Ford and what became British Leyland did war work too, almost every manufacturing company in wartime Britain did war work, maybe Wilson and Callaghan rembered that when they put a bit of that government money- that normally keeps the defence industry going - their way.
Because we know that planes like the Vulcan, with mission systems not that much more complex than the Lancaster, were in service for years; its tempting to think the TSR2 would have stayed in service as long. But such aircraft were laughingly long in the tooth by the time they were retired, and only ran on as long as they did because of delays to their replacements.
Modern projects, like the MRA4 and Typhoon are immensly more complex than the beautiful jets of the fifties. TSR2 would have been the first of that generation. Could Britain have made it going alone? ask the guys waiting for the MR4 Nimrod, its largely British - aside from the Boeing built mission kit.
Its sometimes stated that the TSR2 was quashed because of American pressure, has anyone ever seen anything in public record? Its been 40 years now.
Perhaps the workers at Vickers and the like deserved better, but the workers at Ford and what became British Leyland did war work too, almost every manufacturing company in wartime Britain did war work, maybe Wilson and Callaghan rembered that when they put a bit of that government money- that normally keeps the defence industry going - their way.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of those computers would have been analogue or hybrid devices - only 20 years later being re-fitted with full digital systems...
Why are we talking about inlets when the TSR-2 already had what it needed, it wasn't designed with a complex shock-recovery variable geometry ramp system, but moveable conical inlets... and they obviously worked OK.
Diving into a whole new realm of digitisation of this that and the other function, prematurely, when analogue circuits or clever fundamental design ruling out it's necessity would suffice has admittedly dogged countless aviation projects... UK Chinook acquisition for one!
A first class airframe was still the pre-requiste then, and I don't believe the RAF would have too much trouble getting it to target, with whatever stage of development the nav systens were in... they'd certainly been thought about a lot, and a lot of pre-planning had been done, by big brains that weren't then trying to achieve the impossible - or that overly flattered themselves, despite their achievements. You can see some of them standing by the crew-ladder towards the end of the video linked on the first page...
Far too much speculation on the negative side I fear... it's not like we weren't in on the ground floor with radar development in this country, is it!
JtxJim ====
You can't stop~start that sort of development momentum too often, you lose the good guys and like as not we did...
Here are some projects that almost certianly suffered from cancellation of TSR2
Olympus data and development for Concorde
Aerodynamic data and development for Concorde
Nimrod AEW...
All subsequent miljets obviously suffered from some lack of continuity in design and engineering expertise carryover.
Yes, there was immmesne pressure from the US to cancel TSR-2 ~ from McNamara (if that's how you spell it).. .
Have you read the supersonic Miles M52 story about the all-moving tailplane ?
Tube Alloys reaearch and manpower
Whittles work (all handed over even before the thing had left the ground for the first time
Cavity Magnetron
All these things and more were conceded by the uk govt. in appeasement of so-called shortcomings in repayment of war loans, something we were still paying dearly for in 1965.
Why are we talking about inlets when the TSR-2 already had what it needed, it wasn't designed with a complex shock-recovery variable geometry ramp system, but moveable conical inlets... and they obviously worked OK.
Diving into a whole new realm of digitisation of this that and the other function, prematurely, when analogue circuits or clever fundamental design ruling out it's necessity would suffice has admittedly dogged countless aviation projects... UK Chinook acquisition for one!
A first class airframe was still the pre-requiste then, and I don't believe the RAF would have too much trouble getting it to target, with whatever stage of development the nav systens were in... they'd certainly been thought about a lot, and a lot of pre-planning had been done, by big brains that weren't then trying to achieve the impossible - or that overly flattered themselves, despite their achievements. You can see some of them standing by the crew-ladder towards the end of the video linked on the first page...
Far too much speculation on the negative side I fear... it's not like we weren't in on the ground floor with radar development in this country, is it!
JtxJim ====
You can't stop~start that sort of development momentum too often, you lose the good guys and like as not we did...
Here are some projects that almost certianly suffered from cancellation of TSR2
Olympus data and development for Concorde
Aerodynamic data and development for Concorde
Nimrod AEW...
All subsequent miljets obviously suffered from some lack of continuity in design and engineering expertise carryover.
Yes, there was immmesne pressure from the US to cancel TSR-2 ~ from McNamara (if that's how you spell it).. .
Have you read the supersonic Miles M52 story about the all-moving tailplane ?
Tube Alloys reaearch and manpower
Whittles work (all handed over even before the thing had left the ground for the first time
Cavity Magnetron
All these things and more were conceded by the uk govt. in appeasement of so-called shortcomings in repayment of war loans, something we were still paying dearly for in 1965.
Last edited by HarryMann; 8th Feb 2008 at 22:48.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for mentioning Tornado digital intake scheduling is because compared to digital radar terrain following, its considerably simpler. No doubt other systems would be analogue, if they were to have been British made, but I was referring to the most demanding one.
Perhaps the RAF would still have reached their target, the cold war deterent role having failed - would their journey have been necessary? Well having already shelled out for Polaris in 1962 perhaps the government of the day didn't think so.
Does that make a bomber deterent a neccessity or a job creation scheme, who can tell? But next time someone suggests cancelling Typhoon, MRA4 or anything else with an element made in Britain on it, I'll bet you the number of jobs lost comes out of the first BAE press release on the subject.
Perhaps the RAF would still have reached their target, the cold war deterent role having failed - would their journey have been necessary? Well having already shelled out for Polaris in 1962 perhaps the government of the day didn't think so.
Does that make a bomber deterent a neccessity or a job creation scheme, who can tell? But next time someone suggests cancelling Typhoon, MRA4 or anything else with an element made in Britain on it, I'll bet you the number of jobs lost comes out of the first BAE press release on the subject.
Last edited by Jetex Jim; 8th Feb 2008 at 23:01. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fair enough...
Yet TSR2 stood for Tactical Strike and Reconnaisance. The nuclear role was largely concealed, possibly because it had been thrust upon it at short notice and changes had to be made. Another suggestion was that the RAF wanted this capability built in if possible, yet as time went on and it became apparent it would be quite capable in this role, labour support for an anti-nuclear stance meant it was kept quiet by those promoting TSR2... effectively being another nail in its coffin (that is greater capability >> more likely to be cancelled!)
'twas obviously a lose lose situation, but I really don't think technical considerations came into it in the final analysis..
If the govt genuinely thought Polaris was all we needed and Duncan Sands had been right all along then ordering F-111 straight away was an equally cynical move...
I think the RAF lacked the good men, the MOS and two Govts. had created a right mess...
Any organisation feeling any genuine responsibitlity to the people they served would have taken stock, maybe not admitted it, but put everything on hold for a while, under any pretence they liked, let's say fiscal constraints... and certainly not betrayed the whole industry by forcing the immediate destruction of all jigs, tools and designs.
That was the step, hinting at security issues, that led to accusations of conspiracy in some places and it was that step that brought about the wholesale condemnation within and without the industry for cynical and spiteful politics...
Please don't follow the theorists and claim the project's cancellation in any way was really because it technically flawed; Roland Beamont who had fought in the air since 1939 knew well that what he was flying was much more than a simple step up from the Canberra or V-Bombers... it was a quantum leap forward in just a few years and if you prefer someone equivocating in retrospect...
'...it would have undoubtedly been the 'least worst option' at that time and for maybe 20 or 30 years thereafter'
Yet TSR2 stood for Tactical Strike and Reconnaisance. The nuclear role was largely concealed, possibly because it had been thrust upon it at short notice and changes had to be made. Another suggestion was that the RAF wanted this capability built in if possible, yet as time went on and it became apparent it would be quite capable in this role, labour support for an anti-nuclear stance meant it was kept quiet by those promoting TSR2... effectively being another nail in its coffin (that is greater capability >> more likely to be cancelled!)
'twas obviously a lose lose situation, but I really don't think technical considerations came into it in the final analysis..
If the govt genuinely thought Polaris was all we needed and Duncan Sands had been right all along then ordering F-111 straight away was an equally cynical move...
I think the RAF lacked the good men, the MOS and two Govts. had created a right mess...
Any organisation feeling any genuine responsibitlity to the people they served would have taken stock, maybe not admitted it, but put everything on hold for a while, under any pretence they liked, let's say fiscal constraints... and certainly not betrayed the whole industry by forcing the immediate destruction of all jigs, tools and designs.
That was the step, hinting at security issues, that led to accusations of conspiracy in some places and it was that step that brought about the wholesale condemnation within and without the industry for cynical and spiteful politics...
Please don't follow the theorists and claim the project's cancellation in any way was really because it technically flawed; Roland Beamont who had fought in the air since 1939 knew well that what he was flying was much more than a simple step up from the Canberra or V-Bombers... it was a quantum leap forward in just a few years and if you prefer someone equivocating in retrospect...
'...it would have undoubtedly been the 'least worst option' at that time and for maybe 20 or 30 years thereafter'
Last edited by HarryMann; 9th Feb 2008 at 20:01.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Harry, in those days strike was synonomous with nuclear. Tactical in this context was to differentiate from strategic. You may recall that not long after this Bomber Command became Strike Command in recognition of is primary nuclear strike role.
The Vulcan and Victor were Strategic Strike Bomber, Tanker and Reconnaissance Aircraft whereas the Canberra as a Tactical Strike Bomber.
The name TSR2 therefore was a perfectly apt description.
The Vulcan and Victor were Strategic Strike Bomber, Tanker and Reconnaissance Aircraft whereas the Canberra as a Tactical Strike Bomber.
The name TSR2 therefore was a perfectly apt description.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, a very apt description, wasn't arguing against it. It was known within the industry that Strategic attack with Nuclear weapons was a role that was not being shouted about much as that General Election approached...
But nuclear standoff weapon delivery profile came along quite a time into this aircrafts development - that was my understanding. Why did it have to be modified (yet again) if this was not the case?
But nuclear standoff weapon delivery profile came along quite a time into this aircrafts development - that was my understanding. Why did it have to be modified (yet again) if this was not the case?