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 3rd Aug 2009, 16:39
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,903
I know of at least one F-111F chap who went supersonic over Iraq during GW1 .

There's a chap called Joe Cherrie who is something of a TSR2 buff and he was of the view that the name 'Eagle' was in the running, but has since said that, as far as he can ascertain, no name was actually selected, at least not formally.

This'd be in keeping with the policy which led to the decision not to formally announce the name for the F-111K (Merlin being the choice for that), with the info failing to emerge for some years because of the project's cancellation.

As for squadrons, as Pr00ne says, there is some evidence that 40 was to reform (it had last been a Canberra squadron) with re-equipment of extant units the most likely step forward after that.

7 and 15 (XV for those who prefer it that way, although the use of roman numerals for rendering squadron numbers was banned by the Air Council in the 60s...) were subsequently declared by AOC-in-C Bomber Command as his two preferred numberplates for the F-111 (obvioulsy overtaken by events); there is circumstantial evidence that they were the two preferred numberplates for a couple of the other TSR2 units.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2009, 18:01
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,130
00,

P1154 was killed of because it never would have worked! The RN did not want 2 engines, P1154RN was always single engined. They wanted 2 crew because it's job in the FAA was to be a high level interceptor, hardly a good mix with the RAF requirement for a single seat strike attack aircraft.
The RN pulled out of P1154 first when they opted for the McD F-4K, leaving the RAF to struggle along alone with the P1154 until the engine issues convinced even the Ar Staff that it was a non starter.

I was present at the Shoeburyness trials of the plenum chamber equipped Pegasus demonstrator and to your claims of 'serious ground erosion' you have to add the rather more serious problem of serious airframe erosion! It did not work!

P1216 would have gone nowhere for the simple reason that back then NOONE wanted VTOL or even VSTOL apart from a small element in the RAF and the USMC and RN.

I still insist that Claymore was going to be the name for TSR2, Merlin for F111. Incidentally, the TRUE UK potential success story that was scrapped was the P1121, a sort of cross between an F-105 and an F-4. IT was going to be called Hurricane.............
pr00ne is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2009, 19:27
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,377
Hurricane 2, I was told by a chum who worked on it.

But the bell mouth intake didn't really meet the intake mass flow requirements and it only had a single engine. Not a very good one either, if the RN's Buccaneer S1 experience was anything to go by!

I would agree that P1154 would have needed a HUGE amount of development work; however, there was a less ambitious 'fast Harrier' (whose designation I forget) which might have worked.

Wislon and the other closet communists in power at the time didn't like the idea that TSR-2 could take a nuclear weapon to Mother Russia, so it had no chance whatsoever after Mountbottom stabbed it in the back - if 'Tinkerbelle' didn't support it, why should the fellow travellers in Westminster?

Barstewards!!

Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Aug 2009 at 19:48.
BEagle is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2009, 00:54
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,130
Oh come on BEagle!

You know damn well that rubbish about Wilson not liking TSR2 because it could get to Moscow with a nuke is baloney!
If he was SO concerned why on earth did he proceed with the little matter of Polaris?

TSR2 had the range requirement it did for use in the Far East, mainly in the ferry configuration. When the pull out from East of Suez made that redundant the RAF had no requirement for an aircraft of such range. The RAF lost interest in taking instant sunshine to Moscow when the deterrent passed to the RN and has had no involvement in it since.

You were on Vulcans post the deterrent so you don't need ME to tell you what your targets were in the theatre nuclear role, they were very similar to the ones I had in RAFG on the toom but it is betraying nothing to say that Moscow was not among them!

Wilson found it incredibly easy to cancel TSR2, even though he didn't scrap it at the same time as P1154 and HS681 as Healey was keen and others were concerned on the affects on the aircraft industry. It was the Air Staff that eased the path to cancellation............

Agree on the half way house between P1154RAF and Harrier though, I think some artists impressions surfaced at the time but I cannot recall any details
pr00ne is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2009, 16:25
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
"No get out" clauses ...

The clause to "keep the French in" the Concorde programme seems to have been carried over to the Typhoon and caused no little squirming in the White Halls, as the biter got bit once again ...*

Re: Roly Beamont's comments on there being no need for MRCA/Tornado if TSR2 had not been stopped rather beg the question - with Tornado, the RAF (eventually) got a "near TSR2" more cheaply as the cost was shared with Germany and Italy. Dropping the internal war-load carriage shortens the fuselage (but needs a bigger fin due to the shorter moment arm), while swing-wings avoid the complications of blown flaps and perhaps make the aircraft more "handy" at low speeds than the TSR2 is said (thanks, BEagle for that info!) to have been. TSR2 can thus be seen as a pregenitor of Tornado, so something at least was saved from the wreckage ...


*PS. I do realise that France wasn't in the Tornado programme, but the principle applies ...
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2009, 16:42
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
US "assimilation"

For the Canberra/B-57, a big surprise for both sides was the need for Martin to change all English Electric's drawings and metal specs to US standards - a much bigger job than anyone expected.
(But the job was worth it, !).
The British services would never have got Harrier if the US Marines hadn't pushed very hard.
Not much assimilation there ...
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2009, 18:08
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,377
You were on Vulcans post the deterrent so you don't need ME to tell you what your targets were in the theatre nuclear role, they were very similar to the ones I had in RAFG on the toom but it is betraying nothing to say that Moscow was not among them!
Oh really?
BEagle is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2009, 12:07
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 61
Two factual misconceptions on the thread I would like to correct (I'm not getting involved with the arguments, lol)

First, the P.1154RAF was single engined, by the time of cancellation the P.1154RN had evolved into a two seat *twin engined* design in which the nozzles were cross linked to avoid assymetric thrust loss. ie one engine exhaused out of the front port and rear starboard nozzles and the other one vice versa via a complex overlapping ducting arrangement. This model was a disaster waiting to happen and it was right it should go. The simpler single engined RAF model however *could* have proceeded successfully.

The P.1121 did not use the same engine as the NA 39. The Gyron Junior was the engine in the NA 39 and in the P.1121 it was the Gyron, despite the name, it was a very different and much bigger engine. How successful that might have been can never be known but the failures of the Junior should not be used as a yardstick.
OBAman is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2009, 12:37
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,377
Asymmetric thrust or a single engine failure at low speed in a V/STOL aircraft needing significant jet-borne lift is something which has always pretty well ruled out the twin engined V/STOL concept......


Back in the 1950s, some brave souls flew this twin-Nene deflected-jet Meteor IV research aircraft down to about 70KIAS - without a bang seat. I hate to imagine what would have happened if one engine had failed at such low speeds on the approach...it would have rolled inverted in about half a heart beat. So presumably the tests were conducted at a sufficient altitude for the hapless pilot, in the event of an engine or duct failure, to throttle back the other engine, recover the thing to a gliding attitude and then decide whether to attempt a force landing or to hit the silk....
BEagle is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2009, 13:44
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 378
BE: Pop has tried to close down reruns of same old on TSR.2, but you have revived the closet commie smear on Wilson, thus Lt.Callaghan,RN (Br.Pacific Fleet) and Maj.Healey,MC (Anzio Beachmaster), so:

TSR.2 was more thermionic than thermonuclear (see the open equipment bay at Cosford and weep for any readiness). When Elworthy became CAS, 1/9/63, O.R/AST.355 was to replace it with a VG system with (hybrid, on way to digital) kit, thus small, operable, affordable. Minister Thorneycroft saw TSR.2 as “an albatross round our necks (Healey) took the decision which would have had to be taken by (us. MoD was) writing (it) would have (to go) it was just that (Labour) took the opprobrium” B.Jackson/E.Bramall (CGS, 1979-82), The Chiefs, Brassey’s, 92, P361.

Here is the US State Dept.'s record of Wilson/LBJ meeting 7/12/64 to reconcile UK's parlous finances, US notions of a Multilateral Nuclear Force to give FRG a finger on its nuclear defence, and LBJ's desire for a UK presence in Vietnam:(PM:UK)"should have the best weapons (hence) desirability of buying (some 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 (US purchases would) reduce (Defence GNP share fr.)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. (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%” (of UK GNP. US) “could not be the gendarmes of the universe (what) others are doing has a great effect on what (US can do. UK has a) multiplying effect on our own role” 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; For.Relations,’64-68, Vol.XIII, W.Europe: Pres./PM 7-9/12/62.

Outcomes included: ditching polyglot (MLF) "poppycock" (ex-CIGS, Montgomery); keeping UK out of Vietnam, but in (for awhile) East of Suez with F-111K and CVA-01; nuclear co-operation which caused deployment of WE.177, Chevaline, Trident D-5; credit/fixed price for F-111K/C-130K/F-4M/Lance; and emergence of BAC Warton as UK's Military Aircraft Centre of Excellence on the back of Saudi Magic Carpet, which was part of McNamara's offset. HSAL Chairman Sir R.Dobson, who “lost work by our decision, gave a TV interview (putting) all the blame on Conservative “twerps” ‘(in) light of what has happened before (slippage/cost of UK types, it) is very difficult to quarrel with (Wilson)’” Healey,Memoirs,P272.

Elworthy,DSO,DFC, remained CAS, then 1/4/67-13/4/71 CDS, through the iterations F-111K/AFVG/UKVG until the Strike solution became (MRCA)Tornado. It is crankWright to persist that all this was done at Moscow's behest.
tornadoken is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2009, 14:29
  #311 (permalink)  
Cool Mod
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,192
BE: Pop has tried to close down reruns of same old on TSR.2, but you have revived the closet commie smear on Wilson, thus Lt.Callaghan,RN (Br.Pacific Fleet) and Maj.Healey,MC (Anzio Beachmaster)
And I shall do so again if these same old points are laboured again and again without taking cognizance of what 'Bee' Beamont actually said on the subject (as I have reiterated before, in this thread, as said to me and a colleague, by him, during a leisurely lunch in a Wilton pub in April 2000) and in his book about the whole sorry mess. Jenkins, Callahan and Healy WERE the instigators of it's cancellation - Wilson just went along with it, commie or not. As for the F111 and Mountbatten's (I prefer BEagle's 'Mountbottom!) decision to use a sidewinder swipe at TSR2 it became clear who he was 'working' for.

There was without doubt a high degree of complicity and a good measure of plain old fashioned skulduggery.

The aeroplane was sold down the river, which would have been good if it were designed as a seaplane.

The idea of people proposing notions of their own as to how the project was clobbered is, in my view, always a non-runner. Just knowing someone who worked on the TSR2 is not the same as the spoken words of Petter and Beamont who were at the very head of the project and were told before anyone else.

'Bee' Beamont made a BBC documentary on the subject and I and my colleague were told by him that not one single word of that docu was untrue.

Finally, 'Bee' did say to us that if TSR2 had not be cancelled there never would have been a need for Tornado. Would anyone like to challenge that view - from the Chief Test Pilot of both projects?
PPRuNe Pop is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2009, 16:43
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 89
Posts: 437
Cool .... "No need for Tornado" ..

Strictly speaking, Mr. Beamont was right. Had TSR2 not been cancelled, we'd have had a "Tornado before its time", so many years earlier (and I might have stayed in the Service ???).
Because a lot of the TSR2's tasks were still needed, Tornado became necessary, with "added cooperation", hence more cheaply ...


(edited 'cos of typo ...)
Jig Peter is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2009, 13:08
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
I thought it almost went without saying that if TSR2 had entered service, then Tornado would never have happened. That's obvious to anyone!

As for Beamont's comments, it's always worth remembering who he was and what his background was. Whilst I wouldn't argue with anything he said, it's worth taking some of his comments with a pinch of salt as he was speaking from a less-than neutral position in the whole saga.

Unfortunately there's a bit of an "Elvis Syndrome" associated with TSR2. The aircraft was undoubtedly a good one but it has been surrounded by urban myths, hype, conspiracy tales and other assorted rubbish for decades.
Tim McLelland is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2009, 15:12
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 54
Unfortunately there's a bit of an "Elvis Syndrome" associated with TSR2. The aircraft was undoubtedly a good one but it has been surrounded by urban myths, hype, conspiracy tales and other assorted rubbish for decades.
And how would you know that pray? Were you there, privy to the conversations between the CTP and Mr Petter? In the office when the three musketeer's and the dishonest Mountbatten got a scandalous conspiracy under way? I rather doubt it.

You know about as much as the rest of us I suspect - that which was written by the TP's and a VERY few others.

In any event it was a scandal that dishonest politicians teamed up to kill the project off.
Surrey Towers is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2018, 16:10
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 23
Question TSR2?

Afternoon All

Just wondering would the TSR2 with some modifications, still be in service today had it not been scrapped in 1965?
GLIDER 90 is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2018, 06:21
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Wilts
Posts: 80
I'd say no, simply because the RAF doesn't now operate anything front-line of that age, even when one considers upgrades etc.

If you compare it to the (roughly) contemporary and (sort-of, if you squint regarding role etc) Mirage IV, I think a possible scenario would have seen the type retired as a strike aircraft in the mid-90s and then soldiering on as a tac recce machine for maybe another 10 years?

I suspect that if it had stayed in the low-level role it would have suffered from fatigue a fair deal and also painted a large radar picture, so maybe a bit of a liability in a modern combat scenario. Though the Buccaneer did OK in later years it seems.

And when you assume that the RAF wouldn't have needed Phantoms or Buccaneers, and maybe even not MRCA/Tornado, you realize what an impact it could have had. I can imagine TSR.2s stationed in the Falklands and been very good as long-range, missile-armed interceptors (like a modern-day Avro Arrow) and also gained a maritime strike role with Martel; probably also Sidewinders for Gulf War 1 etc. The possibilities are endless.
Quemerford is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2018, 06:40
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 69
Posts: 1,378
Yes, but when you consider that it cost as much as a Frigate..........
Haraka is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2018, 11:39
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,518
There is an excellent review on line by a wide selection of those involved in the TSR2 project, which also includes excerpts from Government papers about the project.

The overall conclusion is that it was a badly managed project which didn't/couldn't meet the unrealistic performance targets.

TSR2 project review
surely not is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 04:20
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 839
TSR 2 was not a pretty or graceful aircraft in the photo’s I have seen.
Are there any that make it look good?
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2018, 14:20
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 3,359
Combat aircraft are not designed to look good or graceful, although a long time age I flew two which were.
dook is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.