Far be it for me to argue with John Farley but it sounds like he completely missed the point of TSR2 as BEagle suggested.

There was never any question of it being a fighter bomber as it wasn't part of the design brief. It was supposed to be supersonic at very low level using terrain following radar and the small wing was to cope with what I think was called gust response or something along those lines.
I read one report where the Lightning chase pilot said he had to climb to get out of turbulence and the TSR2 pilot said what turbulence? Job done.

My memory of general chatter was exactly that, and mumblings about the electronics not being up to the job of terrain hugging.

Surprisingly it was! under armament there was a requirement for the internal carriage of 24 x 3" rockets...."to be employed in shallow dive attacks."
I suspect this requirement might have been there to get Army support for the project rather than a serious intent for a secondary fighter-bomber role.

I don't think I'd ever heard that before but, to me, it reinforces the stupidity of Operational Requirements to suggest that a Mach 2+ bomber could be used in a secondary role for ground support.
Still nothing to do with maneuverability though...