TSR-2 (Merged a few times)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill GB
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a end of school teenager in the 60s I can remember sitting half way up Peny-gent watching the TSR2 fly between the two hills in the Ribble head Valley on and around Ingleborough , and on towards the sea at Lancaster, never thought I was watching history in the making!
Peter R-B
Vfr
Peter R-B
Vfr
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2
NICKDC,
Take a look at a Jaguar and you'll see a lot of TSR2; if that aircraft is anything to judge by, we're a lot better off without the thing, like most Wart on products !
A modernised Buccaneer, with cockpits designed by humans, would still be a force to be reckoned with, and isn't it surprising the F-35 is going back to internal weapon carriage ?!
I was once told at Boscombe that a loaded Tornado at high speed could just about reach the Isle of Wight from there...
I don't buy the 'loony leftie' theories, and IMHO reckon the TSR2 was a very restricted machine, at best.
For all tory lovers, take note that BAe Kingston had a full scale mock-up of the P-1216 supersonic VSTOL fighter in the late'80's, which made the F-35 look like a Sopwith Camel, but when Margaret Thatcher was shown it she refused funding - the Sea Harrier had already saved her political arse...
Take a look at a Jaguar and you'll see a lot of TSR2; if that aircraft is anything to judge by, we're a lot better off without the thing, like most Wart on products !
A modernised Buccaneer, with cockpits designed by humans, would still be a force to be reckoned with, and isn't it surprising the F-35 is going back to internal weapon carriage ?!
I was once told at Boscombe that a loaded Tornado at high speed could just about reach the Isle of Wight from there...
I don't buy the 'loony leftie' theories, and IMHO reckon the TSR2 was a very restricted machine, at best.
For all tory lovers, take note that BAe Kingston had a full scale mock-up of the P-1216 supersonic VSTOL fighter in the late'80's, which made the F-35 look like a Sopwith Camel, but when Margaret Thatcher was shown it she refused funding - the Sea Harrier had already saved her political arse...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And would that be due to design excellence, or small numbers and luck ?!
The Jag' was infamous for bleeding off speed whenever asked to turn.
The Tornado wouldn't have lasted a minute in WW2; however fancy your ( vietnam vintage ) jamming pods, they won't stop bullets or cannon shells !
It took a lot of effort to even make the Jaguar able to designate targets...
The Jag' was infamous for bleeding off speed whenever asked to turn.
The Tornado wouldn't have lasted a minute in WW2; however fancy your ( vietnam vintage ) jamming pods, they won't stop bullets or cannon shells !
It took a lot of effort to even make the Jaguar able to designate targets...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DZ, the shape of an aircraft tends to be the result of its intended use. Buccaneer is a product of its age, as indeed Jaguar and Tornado were,
F35 needs weapons bays for stealth and stealth only, otherwise it becomes neccesary to design stealthy expendable stores. This is why there are similarities in aircraft types doing similar tasks. Remember it does take rather longer to design, test and introduce an aircraft into service than it does to build the Airfix kit of it.
As for your drivel regarding Tornado survivability in WW II and Jaguars designation capability, I guess you are on a slightly different planet than the rest of us.
Regards Kb
F35 needs weapons bays for stealth and stealth only, otherwise it becomes neccesary to design stealthy expendable stores. This is why there are similarities in aircraft types doing similar tasks. Remember it does take rather longer to design, test and introduce an aircraft into service than it does to build the Airfix kit of it.
As for your drivel regarding Tornado survivability in WW II and Jaguars designation capability, I guess you are on a slightly different planet than the rest of us.
Regards Kb
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitbag
I very probably am from a different planet by the sound of it - greetings from Earth, we come in peace...
Internal weapon carriage has a lot more going for it than just stealth !
ie a fully loaded Phantom was slower than a likewise Buccaneer...the only aircraft I know which virtually ignores stores is the Harrier, by virtue of its' engine characteristics ( ask Roy Braybrook, or better still Mr Farley ).
As for Tornado survivability, how come they fell in droves in the first few days of GW1 ( and the F3's were kept back as they were and still are an embarrasment ) to be later sent on medium altitude sorties only, which the RB199 was not designed for to say the least.
If they couldn't manage the Iraqi's at low level, I don't see the Skyshadow or chaff & flares stopping AAA over WW2 Germany either !
As for the TFR, I believe it isn't used much these days - rather obviously it gives a 'here we come' signal, even if the precise direction is obscured.
Fine for wazzing about as a sports-car to impress the girlfriend, ( at least I hope it's a girlfriend ) and it did indeed set some IAS low level records, but hopeless as a war machine.
Realization of this led to the deletion of JP233 from the inventory, a suicide weapon if ever there was one ... yes it was claimed, conveniently, to contravene the Geneva Convention - at the test range where I saw it used, it was well known to have a pathetic effect - if any - on the target runway.
Internal weapon carriage has a lot more going for it than just stealth !
ie a fully loaded Phantom was slower than a likewise Buccaneer...the only aircraft I know which virtually ignores stores is the Harrier, by virtue of its' engine characteristics ( ask Roy Braybrook, or better still Mr Farley ).
As for Tornado survivability, how come they fell in droves in the first few days of GW1 ( and the F3's were kept back as they were and still are an embarrasment ) to be later sent on medium altitude sorties only, which the RB199 was not designed for to say the least.
If they couldn't manage the Iraqi's at low level, I don't see the Skyshadow or chaff & flares stopping AAA over WW2 Germany either !
As for the TFR, I believe it isn't used much these days - rather obviously it gives a 'here we come' signal, even if the precise direction is obscured.
Fine for wazzing about as a sports-car to impress the girlfriend, ( at least I hope it's a girlfriend ) and it did indeed set some IAS low level records, but hopeless as a war machine.
Realization of this led to the deletion of JP233 from the inventory, a suicide weapon if ever there was one ... yes it was claimed, conveniently, to contravene the Geneva Convention - at the test range where I saw it used, it was well known to have a pathetic effect - if any - on the target runway.
JP233 was withdrawn because it's submunitions included land mines. The UK is a signatory to the agreement not to use landmines.
From Wiki: 'There is a myth that a number of British Tornadoes were lost to Iraqi ground fire while carrying out JP233 attacks during Operation Desert Storm. Only one of the JP 233 missions were shot down, and that was three minutes after the attack had been completed. The other Tornado losses were incurred when lofting 'dumb' bombs on Iraqi air defense installations.'
'But with the increasing availability of standoff attack munitions capable of the same mission with little risk to the flight crew and aircraft, as well as the British entry into the Land Mines Treaty (which declares the HB-876 illegal), the JP233 has been withdrawn from service.'
Given you are wrong about that I'm guessing the rest of your post is in error too.
From Wiki: 'There is a myth that a number of British Tornadoes were lost to Iraqi ground fire while carrying out JP233 attacks during Operation Desert Storm. Only one of the JP 233 missions were shot down, and that was three minutes after the attack had been completed. The other Tornado losses were incurred when lofting 'dumb' bombs on Iraqi air defense installations.'
'But with the increasing availability of standoff attack munitions capable of the same mission with little risk to the flight crew and aircraft, as well as the British entry into the Land Mines Treaty (which declares the HB-876 illegal), the JP233 has been withdrawn from service.'
Given you are wrong about that I'm guessing the rest of your post is in error too.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2
I agree we'd gone off topic, apologies for my part in that ( though I stand by what I said & have not seen any reliable argument yet !).
The TSR2 had a very high wing loading, and despite the illustrations with Jaguar - style over-wing pylons was certainly not a fighter ( nor was the Jag' ) it was a largeish aircraft with tiny wings, would have been hopeless at higher altitudes - an example of how it should be done might be the B-1 Lancer...
Low level penetration is hopeless nowadays - radar isn't the only sensor to say you're coming - and as I mentioned, even in WW2 which countermeasures stop cannon shells ?!
The TSR2 had a very high wing loading, and despite the illustrations with Jaguar - style over-wing pylons was certainly not a fighter ( nor was the Jag' ) it was a largeish aircraft with tiny wings, would have been hopeless at higher altitudes - an example of how it should be done might be the B-1 Lancer...
Low level penetration is hopeless nowadays - radar isn't the only sensor to say you're coming - and as I mentioned, even in WW2 which countermeasures stop cannon shells ?!
"Low level penetration is hopeless nowadays - radar isn't the only sensor to say you're coming - and as I mentioned, even in WW2 which countermeasures stop cannon shells ?!"
...darkness?
The F-111 performed pretty well in Vietnam ...flying some 4000 sorties between October 1972 and March 1973 with a combat loss rate of 6 (0.15%) lowest of any combat type...which was the time period when the TSR2 would have been in service..
...darkness?
The F-111 performed pretty well in Vietnam ...flying some 4000 sorties between October 1972 and March 1973 with a combat loss rate of 6 (0.15%) lowest of any combat type...which was the time period when the TSR2 would have been in service..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-111 etc
Hello BB,
you seem to have proved my point ! The F-111 and TSR2 ( maybe the latter ) were suitable for their time only - and neither had any magical way of deflecting bullets, as I recall all 'peasants' were trained to fire upwards whenever they heard an aircraft.
So 'darkness' is of zero effect, unless given silent engines ! Though there is I suppose the hope they took out a few of their own aircraft...
The F-111 at least has a decent wing loading.
you seem to have proved my point ! The F-111 and TSR2 ( maybe the latter ) were suitable for their time only - and neither had any magical way of deflecting bullets, as I recall all 'peasants' were trained to fire upwards whenever they heard an aircraft.
So 'darkness' is of zero effect, unless given silent engines ! Though there is I suppose the hope they took out a few of their own aircraft...
The F-111 at least has a decent wing loading.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people may find this site interesting, although somewhat biased in point of view re the actions of certain key players it does go into useful detail about the requirements for the aircraft: http://www.spyflight.co.uk/main.htm and select TSR2.
DZ I should have brought this up earlier- Bucaneer didn't do the recce thing, and if you want to go for internal weapons only, TSR2 packed about twice as much as the Bucc. Start hanging stuff outside the frame and the speed/range equations go to the BAC product.
Personally speaking I am neither for nor against an unproven aircraft, it may have been great, then again it may not. If it was in service during the GW1 period would we have been putting up our hands in shame in deploying a complete attack force of 30 year old aircraft? What came after did a good job for many years after its sell by date, but I suspect it didn't do as good a job as the requirement that dictated TSR2 actually wanted.
DZ I should have brought this up earlier- Bucaneer didn't do the recce thing, and if you want to go for internal weapons only, TSR2 packed about twice as much as the Bucc. Start hanging stuff outside the frame and the speed/range equations go to the BAC product.
Personally speaking I am neither for nor against an unproven aircraft, it may have been great, then again it may not. If it was in service during the GW1 period would we have been putting up our hands in shame in deploying a complete attack force of 30 year old aircraft? What came after did a good job for many years after its sell by date, but I suspect it didn't do as good a job as the requirement that dictated TSR2 actually wanted.
...silent engines
"..the 474th TFW had plenty of flak shot at them, though most of it was aimed at the sound of their jets and thus fell far behind them.
...anti airfield strikes were generally effective. Like all F-111 operations they were single ship, first pass, low level TFR sorties.." at night of course
BB
...anti airfield strikes were generally effective. Like all F-111 operations they were single ship, first pass, low level TFR sorties.." at night of course
BB
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: lahr germany
Age: 84
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2 Cancellation
As a Canadian I have followed this thread with a sense of deja vu,Heard it all before,evil yanks, dumb politicos,conspiracies,in my case it was a different
aircraft namely the AVRO Arrow.IMHO both were very expensive one trick
ponies that it would have very difficult to adapt to any other role and as
such would have not remained in service for very long.That being said, in
both cases their cancellation did immence damage to their respective
aircraft industries.
Regards
aircraft namely the AVRO Arrow.IMHO both were very expensive one trick
ponies that it would have very difficult to adapt to any other role and as
such would have not remained in service for very long.That being said, in
both cases their cancellation did immence damage to their respective
aircraft industries.
Regards
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Home Counties
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2
I think there are a whole host of reasons why TSR2 was eventually cancelled. The RAF specification was over-complex, for instance it called for the aircraft to be able to operate from semi-prepared strips - why? It would have been a much less complex design if the requirement had followed on with the V-Force policy of operating from a variety of dispersed airfields with a 6000ft runways and some basic support facilities. As BEagle explained earlier, the over-promoted oaf of a CDS Mountbottom worked tirelessly behind the scenes to run down the TSR2 and promote the RN Buccaneer instead - hardly a ringing endorsement. There were also many high-level RAF officers who had their doubts and this view can only have gradually trickled down within the MOD. It would have been a great plane, a vast improvement on the Buccaneer, but it lacked both the necessary amount of high-level political and military support and, when money is tight, that will eventually prove fatal.
www.spyflight.co.uk/tsr2.htm
Heimdall
www.spyflight.co.uk/tsr2.htm
Heimdall
Last edited by Heimdall; 27th Feb 2007 at 07:58.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall reading of a US general type, who was over watching the demonstration of the prototype.
His attributed comment was basically that it was "a damn shame" that an arrangement could not be found where "you design it and we build it". In other words, not dissimilar to the Harrier and AV-8 projects.
Looking back on the technical and performance side of it all now, maybe the original TSR2 was more akin to the Kestrel. Once properly developed with an uprated engine and longer range, it may have turned into the kind of aircraft that was as far removed from the original as the AV-8 is from the Kestrel.
The US bods definitely seemed to be impressed with what it offered. Does anyone else see a slight resemblance to today's Rockwell B-1B, albeit scaled up with a swing wing? Or is it old age making me hallucinate?
His attributed comment was basically that it was "a damn shame" that an arrangement could not be found where "you design it and we build it". In other words, not dissimilar to the Harrier and AV-8 projects.
Looking back on the technical and performance side of it all now, maybe the original TSR2 was more akin to the Kestrel. Once properly developed with an uprated engine and longer range, it may have turned into the kind of aircraft that was as far removed from the original as the AV-8 is from the Kestrel.
The US bods definitely seemed to be impressed with what it offered. Does anyone else see a slight resemblance to today's Rockwell B-1B, albeit scaled up with a swing wing? Or is it old age making me hallucinate?
ARROW
I believe the Canadian Arrow was also subject to the complete destruction of all tooling and airframes.
Politicians do not like evidence of their stupidity left lying around for all to see.
How Blair and co must hate the site of the millenium dome!!!!!!!!!!!
The next expensive embarrasments will be the London olympic stadium and a couple of large (and much needed) aircraft carriers without fuel.
ericferret
Politicians do not like evidence of their stupidity left lying around for all to see.
How Blair and co must hate the site of the millenium dome!!!!!!!!!!!
The next expensive embarrasments will be the London olympic stadium and a couple of large (and much needed) aircraft carriers without fuel.
ericferret