Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

TSR-2 (Merged a few times)

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

TSR-2 (Merged a few times)

Old 18th Jan 2009, 23:35
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: PORTUS SETANTIORUM
Age: 73
Posts: 310
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
it would be stretching credibility to suggest that the US had enough influence to force a foreign government/manufacturer into destroying every bit of a project just because they thought it might be some sort of commercial threat to the F-111
What if that foreign government was almost bankrupt and was begging for a bail out?
Fishtailed is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 02:04
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 624
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Didn't the 'Cousins' force a cancellaton of the Israeli IAI Lavi fighter, even though they funded it, which was alledged to be a direct competitor to the F16 and a whole lot more capable?
Bullethead is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 05:56
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 529
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The only export customer for the F111 was Australia, who originally wanted the TSR2 but switched because they realised it was going to be cancelled. Then when it was cancelled the RAF ordered F111, only cancelling that at a very late stage. So the TSR2 certainly could be considered a threat to the F111. In hindsight perhaps they should have been the same aircraft.
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 08:35
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well in short:-

What if that foreign government was almost bankrupt and was begging for a bail out?
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.

wanted the TSR2 but switched because they realised it was going to be cancelled

Not true - the Australian Public Records Office holds the original documents exchanged between the Prime Ministers and the simple fact was that Australia chose F-111 because they were offered a better deal.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 09:26
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems the most natural course of action of any to me that the makers of a new, advanced piece of defence equipment were asked to destroy everything associated with it when it was cancelled.

The alternative would have been to keep all jigs, models, blueprints etc etc under secure, guarded, audited conditions, indefinitely. Remember this was a time when the airliners from the East looked (un)surprisingly similar to their Western counterparts.

Shame, but no conspiracy, just plain good economic sense (unless you are an aviation enthusiast!).

And don't forget, the US are quite happy to assimilate other people's hardware if it's better than their own (Canberra, Harrier). Much easier than putting pressure on an Ally to dump a project (giving a left wing govt perfect anti-US PR at the same time...)

Imagine how good the Tornado would have seemed now if they'd cancelled that at a late stage....
52049er is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 13:49
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually that's another point you have there that I hadn't even considered - if the TSR2 design was that great, you would indeed think that the US would have either pursued it themselves, or come-up with something remarkably similar. As it was, it seems that they were happy enough using another "borrowed" British concept - the swing wing!
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 17:05
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 529
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You could equally argue that the F111 can't have been any good or BAC would have copied it. The two were designed in parallel so neither could have copied the other. At the time the US still hoped to operate the F111 from carriers, and the TSR2 designers rejected VG on the basis that not enough research had been done. Apparently not being impressed with (or even fully aware of) what Vickers had done.
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 22:33
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I don't suppose there would be any appetite for copying the F-111 - we simply bought it instead!
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 13:40
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...as the US did with those truly groundbreaking a/c, the Canberra and Harrier - ie no need to copy/sabotage/pressurise. If the TSR2 was really that good, that's what they'd have done.

As someone said, dying is the best career move a rock star can make....
52049er is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 16:31
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 529
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
By that line of argument the Starfighter must have been vastly better than the Lighting, and the Lancaster and Hunter should obviously have been cancelled as soon as they had flown.

There is a wide range of possibilities in between "so brilliant and innovative the US buy it even though they didn't invent it" and "so bad it should never be out into service."
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 18:10
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't quite understand what you're getting-at there to be honest!
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 18:49
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 529
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I was responding to the "it can't have been any good or he US would have adopted it" lobby.
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 00:16
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gentlemen, go back to page 1 and read, or reread, tornadoken's post.

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.

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.
PLovett is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 13:27
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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%:



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.
ionagh is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 13:53
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2009, 18:23
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
tornadoken is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 14:42
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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.
WebPilot is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 16:01
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 18:57
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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."
WebPilot is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2009, 22:45
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No Misdeeds: See the Big Picture.

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.
tornadoken is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.