TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I suppose 7 Squadron must be a possibility too as the number was unused until they formed on Canberras at St.Mawgan.
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 28th Jul 2009 at 21:40.
Originally Posted by D120A
I have always thought that they would have left it as TSR2.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
"...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
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2 had met virtually all of its design spec requirements
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Do we need supersonic strike fighters
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?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Something like the Jaguar, with updated avionics, might have done us very well in the present era, though.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just realised this thread has drifted way of the original topic posted on page 1. Apologies - no intent at thread hijack intended by me.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2 antecedents...
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 ???
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 ???
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.