Did Concorde kill TSR2?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rising cost of fuel made Concorde into a Vanity project.
If you wanted a supersonic airliner, Concorde was the only game in town. The TU144 had a hopelessly short range and the US SST had got no further than a wooden mock-up. Unfortunately the prospect of hundreds of Concordes on the world's airline routes brought about the banning of supersonic flight over land around 1970 (so very late in the Concorde program), because of the sonic boom.
About the same time, the cost of oil (and therefore fuel) rocketed. But perhaps the most significant factor by far in sealing Concorde's financial doom was actually Boeing selling the 747 as an airliner; it brought about a fundamental change in the airline industry.
Wide bodied airliners enabled airlines to reduce the seat / mile cost, and therefore target a customer base who previously were not considered wealthy enough to pursue. The focus of the industry changed from luxury and speed, to economy. And economy has been the industry driver ever since.
That killed Concorde's chances of financial success, either in its original form or as the enhanced 'Model B' (which was of course never built). It found a niche market on the North Atlantic where the 14 production aeroplanes served that small but profitable market (for privatised BA at least - not for pre-privatisation BA and maybe Air France) for 27 glorious years.
Of course, with only 14 commercial airframes produced most of the development and some of the production costs were met by the British and French taxpayers. And I'm pretty sure my dad didn't disapprove of his tax pounds being spent on that beautiful white bird!
Financial disaster, sure. But so was the US Apollo space program. But both stem from a time when we did magnificent things just because we could - before the accountants started running everything.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 80
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Did Concorde kill TSR2...contintinued
Many years ago I remember going to an airshow at Cranfield, or was it Cosford, and seeing in the back of a hangar a beautiful white aircraft covered in dust - TSR2. I also remember as a boy being taken up to the airport at Nairobi to see the Britannia and Comet out on proving trials. Much later, long after Handley Page had crashed, when I worked at Heathrow I well remember the intense feeling of pride at seeing Concorde, and when it passed over Reading my old Dad would stand up in his garden and salute. Sad fact is, though they were all brilliant aircraft, they were not commercially successful. Why? Could the fault lie with the very poor record of us British in terms of development, sales and production. True, we were brilliant innovators but after that, not so good. Think about Penecillin, nuclear power and all the other things we have given the world only to have to buy them back. To think that we rely upon our French neighbours to run our electricity network whilst we jeer,rant and criticise them and other Europeans is beyond me. So, did Concorde polish off the TSR2? Probably not, perhaps we just weren't rich, powerful or organised enough to take on all those challenges at the time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the watter...
Age: 77
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All thise with an interest in the TSR 2 and it's cancellation ought to read this...
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/document...-Hindsight.pdf
It's 200 pages and as authoritative as one could wish.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/document...-Hindsight.pdf
It's 200 pages and as authoritative as one could wish.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 80
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deep in it, Molemot...
...and many thanks for suggesting a read of the RAF Historical Society report. I'm only one third of the way thru, but what a story of incompetence and chicanery at the highest levels. Its surprising any aircraft were made at all. Can't wait to get back to the big read.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think that all these posts must also add a mix of "US dollars in pockets" ala the F104G debacle, cash in bent politico's pockets straightens out most wrinkles!..
P R-B
P R-B
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 80
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only dollars...
Peter-RB. I've read claims that the huge BAC/Saudi Arabia Lightning deal some years ago was liberally sprinkled with the stardust of loose cash, and that fingers were pointed at a number of highly-placed British government representatives. Grease and palms have a magnetic attraction, I suppose, no matter what the rules say.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In certain parts of the world, deals don't get done unless palms are greased. They call them 'commissions', not bribes, of course. It's no good being sniffy about it - no grease, no contract.
Usually, responsible western companies cannot participate in such arrangements, but they do need to do business in those countries. Which is why they usually work through a 'local agent' who takes care of all that sort of stuff.
Usually, responsible western companies cannot participate in such arrangements, but they do need to do business in those countries. Which is why they usually work through a 'local agent' who takes care of all that sort of stuff.
I don't think the TSR2 would've worked very well at high speed and low-level. The cockpit is a long way from the center of pressure - it would've been a very bouncy ride, like riding along on a springboard mounted on the front of a car driving over rough terrain.
On the contrary. The TSR2 had an excellent ride at low level - and there was no need for such a low level high speed strike bomber to have much in the way of 'dogfighting' manoeuvrability.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary. The TSR2 had an excellent ride at low level - and there was no need for such a low level high speed strike bomber to have much in the way of 'dogfighting' manoeuvrability.
Just don't try turning much at that speed! Or rapid climb / descents either, as in following terrain at low level. You need more wing to do that, at the expense of rough air comfort and straight line efficiency.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading 'TSR2 - bombing the myth'
Might I suggest the "Aeroplane Icons" TSR2 special or my book on TSR2 (published by Ian Allan/Classic). In both publications you can read the real story of TSR2, rather than the nonsensical tales that have been peddled for fifty years.
There was absolutely no link between TSR2 and Concorde. The US never made any hints about favouring Concorde if TSR2 was cancelled. In fact, McNamara was in favour of TSR2 being built, because it supported US foreign policy at that time.
TSR2 was cancelled because it was costing a fortune and the UK defence budget was struggling, because so much money had been diverted to the nuclear deterrent. It was this factor that drove the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper, rather than the much-quoted "obsession with missiles" that Sandys supposedly suffered from. The basic fact was that Britain couldn't afford the defence procurement programme as it stood, and TSR2 was hugely over-budget and still getting more expensive to the tune of millions, every week.
Healey tried to find an alternative that suited the RAF (he asked the RAF what they wanted). The RAF asked for TFX (F-111) and Healey managed to secure a favourable deal with the US. The trump card was the knowledge that TFX could be paid-for on credit, and spread over successive budgets.
The "Supersonic Harrier" was cancelled simply because the Navy lost interest in it. Mountbatten fell in love with the Phantom because it required large aircraft carriers, and would therefore ensure that Mountbatten got his romantic global carrier force that he was fighting for. The fact that the Supersonic Harrier would probably have never worked in any case (thanks to its plenum chamber burning system that would have destroyed the carrier decks) was simply an additional factor. Even so, Healey fought to keep the subsonic Harrier alive after this project was terminated.
Ultimately it was the RAF that abandoned TSR2. CAS decided to dump it weeks before the Government met to debate it and abandon it. F-111 was a much better proposition on cost grounds, and promised to be just as good as TSR2. The fact that the role for which TSR2 (and F-111) was being bought for disappeared (when Britain withdrew from East of Suez) simply proved that both aircraft would have been pointless in any case. There is no evidence to indicate whether TSR2 would have been a huge success or a dismal failure. All that is known is that it handled well in terms of flying qualities. Everything else is a matter of debate. Many of the aircraft's systems were still under development, some were distinctly crude, and there's every reason to imagine that some would have failed to deliver.
The story of TSR2 jigs being destroyed to prevent possible further development is an old one, and it's rubbish. This never happened. The jigs (and everything else) were simply destroyed as a matter of standard practise after the programme ended. The Government had no interest in destroying every trace of TSR2. In fact, they agreed to allow the two airworthy examples to continue flying, but only at BAC's expense. It was BAC that refused to continue development at a fixed price and it was BAC that refused to pay to continue flying the two aircraft on research duties.
There are countless stories about TSR2 that have been regurgitated in books and magazines for fifty years. Sadly, they are almost all based on the nonsense that was written shortly after TSR2's cancellation, in an infamous book written by Stephen Hastings. In that book, Hastings peddled a lot of ill-informed assertions that supported his political agenda, and most of this material was used as the basis of every subsequent TSR2 story. Sadly, a lot of the "facts" were simply not true.
Hope this helps to clear up a few points
Incidentally, it's not The TSR2, it's TSR2. It was the project name (in much the same way that Tornado was MRCA). The actual aeroplane was the Vickers-Supermarine Type 571
Might I suggest the "Aeroplane Icons" TSR2 special or my book on TSR2 (published by Ian Allan/Classic). In both publications you can read the real story of TSR2, rather than the nonsensical tales that have been peddled for fifty years.
There was absolutely no link between TSR2 and Concorde. The US never made any hints about favouring Concorde if TSR2 was cancelled. In fact, McNamara was in favour of TSR2 being built, because it supported US foreign policy at that time.
TSR2 was cancelled because it was costing a fortune and the UK defence budget was struggling, because so much money had been diverted to the nuclear deterrent. It was this factor that drove the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper, rather than the much-quoted "obsession with missiles" that Sandys supposedly suffered from. The basic fact was that Britain couldn't afford the defence procurement programme as it stood, and TSR2 was hugely over-budget and still getting more expensive to the tune of millions, every week.
Healey tried to find an alternative that suited the RAF (he asked the RAF what they wanted). The RAF asked for TFX (F-111) and Healey managed to secure a favourable deal with the US. The trump card was the knowledge that TFX could be paid-for on credit, and spread over successive budgets.
The "Supersonic Harrier" was cancelled simply because the Navy lost interest in it. Mountbatten fell in love with the Phantom because it required large aircraft carriers, and would therefore ensure that Mountbatten got his romantic global carrier force that he was fighting for. The fact that the Supersonic Harrier would probably have never worked in any case (thanks to its plenum chamber burning system that would have destroyed the carrier decks) was simply an additional factor. Even so, Healey fought to keep the subsonic Harrier alive after this project was terminated.
Ultimately it was the RAF that abandoned TSR2. CAS decided to dump it weeks before the Government met to debate it and abandon it. F-111 was a much better proposition on cost grounds, and promised to be just as good as TSR2. The fact that the role for which TSR2 (and F-111) was being bought for disappeared (when Britain withdrew from East of Suez) simply proved that both aircraft would have been pointless in any case. There is no evidence to indicate whether TSR2 would have been a huge success or a dismal failure. All that is known is that it handled well in terms of flying qualities. Everything else is a matter of debate. Many of the aircraft's systems were still under development, some were distinctly crude, and there's every reason to imagine that some would have failed to deliver.
The story of TSR2 jigs being destroyed to prevent possible further development is an old one, and it's rubbish. This never happened. The jigs (and everything else) were simply destroyed as a matter of standard practise after the programme ended. The Government had no interest in destroying every trace of TSR2. In fact, they agreed to allow the two airworthy examples to continue flying, but only at BAC's expense. It was BAC that refused to continue development at a fixed price and it was BAC that refused to pay to continue flying the two aircraft on research duties.
There are countless stories about TSR2 that have been regurgitated in books and magazines for fifty years. Sadly, they are almost all based on the nonsense that was written shortly after TSR2's cancellation, in an infamous book written by Stephen Hastings. In that book, Hastings peddled a lot of ill-informed assertions that supported his political agenda, and most of this material was used as the basis of every subsequent TSR2 story. Sadly, a lot of the "facts" were simply not true.
Hope this helps to clear up a few points
Incidentally, it's not The TSR2, it's TSR2. It was the project name (in much the same way that Tornado was MRCA). The actual aeroplane was the Vickers-Supermarine Type 571
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Age: 44
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle, thanks for that. I would be really interested in your opinion as an operator as to how TSR-2 would have compared with the Bucc, the Tornado and the F-111, particularly from the airframe standpoint.
Mountbottom was totally wrong about TSR2! He once I asked me what I flew and I told him that I was doing the Bucc course - but would have far preferred to be on a TSR2 course! He gave me a withering look and turned away - which at least meant that I didn't have to risk turning my back to him....
