"Thre is also "The Murder of the TSR2", but can't remember the author.
watp,iktch"
Stephen Hastings IIRC. (written much too close to the event to be considered anything but very subjective I suggest )
The discussion of the arguments surrounding the cancellation of this aircraft runs on and on over the years with all shades of opinion being supported by a very selective rendition of largely second-hand "facts".
Doubtless the "experts" will entertain us for years to come.

Beagle,

I accept that that was the TSR2 "design" sortie. But do you have any information which confirms that it could achieve it? As I said, I heard that it couldn't.

To be honest, I simply don't know.

But I have no reason to doubt the payload/range figures, nor the specific fuel consumption of the TSR2's engines, given normal development time scales.

Although I remain convinced that the Wislon government's cancellation was for more than mere fiscal reasons....

...and we lost a world-beater as the result :ugh:

Harold Wilson, George Brown and Healey, were the up and comming PM and gang, they could not face down the unions with the amount of cash the TSR2 was needing , plus the now much written about knowledge that Wilson and others were in the pocket of the Rooshians.

The ex colony of The god ole boys were offering such goodies as the F111 and the Phantom as a VERY cheap stand in, so to cash strapped Wilson and his gang of misfits this seemed the easy way out, the rest as they say is history.

My father in law worked for English Electric at that time, and he was one of many people who was tasked to destroy press tools and other such priceless items and spares whilst being closely watched to ensure rigid compliance .

Sniff out the Rooshian connection with The Gannex wearing Pipesmoker, then you will start to find reasons.

Vfr
Peter R-B:suspect:

Was it simply too good?
 

Nickdc: No. (and there's more: I know who really killed Princess Di. ditto JFK *)


There is a reason why, these 42 years, no TV prog has "exposed" the truth: it's because there is nothing to expose. The nuclear deep penetrator/Moscow role, grafted on in 1960, was taken by Macmillan's Polaris, confirmed by Wilson. A scarce tactical asset the length of Vulcan became unriskable against the low-value precision targets, like one tank, that its hot, frail sensors sought: RAF could deal with them cheaper with F-4D, so Wilson offered to buy 50 TSR.2 for an East of Suez Task. Geo.Edwards/BAC wouldn't play ball on money - he could just have taken the £750Mn. on offer and later blamed, say Ferranti (10% of total R&D cost) after the User was hooked (see Astute, Nimrod MRA4) - so CAS was able to do the sensible thing: buy a fixed price batch from a planned US run >3,000.
Sources:B.Jackson/Lord Bramall, MC, ex-CGS/CDS, The Chiefs,Brassey’s,92,P361:1964 Tory Minister Thorneycroft TSR.2 “an albatross round our necks (Healey) took the decision which would have had to be taken by (PT. MoD was saying TSR.2) would have (to go) it was just that (Labour) took the opprobrium.” Maj.D.Healey(Anzio beachmaster),The Time of My Life,Penguin,1990, P272: Post-681/1154 Sir R.Dobson,Chairman of HSAL “which lost work by our decision, gave a TV interview which put all the blame on the Conservative “twerps”:‘(in) light of what has happened before (it) is very difficult to quarrel with Jenkins and Healey’”.


Conspiracies and smears, as rehashed here, like all drama require suspension of disbelief. The only Tory Minister to go public on fellow-travelling was gadfly Sir Cranley Onslow, to be ’72/4 Trade Minister (Aerospace), who blamed the influence of CND unilateralists. The only reputable historian to do so is Maj.Gordon Corrigan (5 TV), Blood,Sweat and Arrogance,Weidenfeld,2006, who with no attribution refers to Jim Callaghan's (Chancellor in April,1965) "KGB liaison". Ah, yes,Wilson, he that inherited a Yellow Sun 2 Force where “loss of 70-90% (was) conceded” by Planners" A.Pierre,Nuclear Politics,OUP,1972,P184, who bequeathed SSBNs, laydown WE177A/B, and funding that led to their highly credible delivery by RAFG. Ah, yes, Lt.Callaghan, who secured Trident C4 (Mrs.T made it D5).


Neither Wilson, Healey, nor the Kremlin, was responsible for the move from P.1154/TSR.2, via F-111K, to Harrier GR.1/F-4M/Buccaneer S.2/Jaguar/Tornado. That was CAS Sir Charles (to be CDS, MRAF, Lord) Elworthy DSO (1941 W/C, low level Blenheim). Nor was it wrecker Capt.D.Sandys, WIA 1941 that deleted much in April,1957, but CDS MRAF Sir W.Dickson, DSO,AFC. There were very good reasons for all of it, which is why they did not resign.


There is a techno-story for TV, such as by The Discovery Channel, tracing avionics and pivots from first sketches, 1956, to deployment of Tornado, 1982. But too good? No. Go to T.Buttler's Secret Projects, Bombers, MCP,2003, P124 and see the schemes to the TSR.2 replacement Requirement, OR.355 put out in October,1961 for Service c.1975.



(*: the driver and the crazy. Sorry Oliver Stone. The truth is boring).

"I understand that the main purpose of the TSR2 was to deliver nuclear weapons to the heart of the Soviet Union. It was designed to do this supersonic at low level...."

I thought it was supposed to be a Canberra not a V bomber replacement?

Quote:

I'm developing a documentary on TSR2

Where and when will this doc be shown?

SSD

>>>It was then realised that supersonic intrusion into the SU at low level was impossible, if you wanted the aircraft and crew back. The Buccaneer was the best airframe in the world to do the same job at subsonic speeds. This was why it was transferred from the RN to the RAF.<<

Some of the V-force pilots said that they didn't expect to get back either and saw the trip as a one-way.

And, if I recall correctly, the Buccaneer was given the RAF role only after the Labour govt had spent further millions on the abortive attempt to buy the F111. And yes, it did carry that role out well.

But I do wonder what there is new to establish on the subject. I don't think there is much we don't know. The financial position of the UK economy at the time, some below-the-radar pressure from the US, inter-service rivalry led by Mountbottom and the traditional Labour Party hostility to the services all meant she was pretty much doomed.

Still, I would be interested to see any programme showing her in flight

Quite a lot of discussion about TSR2 on some of these threads:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/search.php?searchid=958819

There was a BBC doco some years back which occasionally appears on the History channel of Foxtel.

95% of the time when something goes wrong it is a stuff up.

The conspiracy only occurs 5% of the time and it is to hide the stuff up!

Those of you who think the United States was behind it need to consider the cancellation of the B-70 and A-12/F-12A/SR-71 on this side of the Atlantic in the same time frame. The later even included an order to break up the tooling.

It was simply a bad time for advanced projects everywhere.

quote : "Who was it offending. Look no further than Uncle Sam and his aviation cohorts whom I suggest placed so much political arm twisting on the then Labour Cabinet that they had little option but too cancel TRS2 and a number of other projects."

I agree, one of the other projects was the little known Blue Water battlefield tactical missile which was cancelled by the feeble Macmillan goverment in 1962 due to US pressure.

Wasn't Blue Water the one that, it was claimed by its detractors, used to blow its Bedford launch vehicle over on firing?

Not as bad as Swingfire which, so I'm told, occasionally had its gyros 'toppled' by the launch, and subsequently reversed course and took out its own launcher.
I was told this by a Cpl who was i/c a Milan team.

Cancellation of TSR-2 was only one of a number of major UK projects cancelled at this time in a misguided attempt to keep the economy from slipping further out of control. There were others such as the Channel Tunnel (yes, it was going ahead at the time though to a smaller scale than what eventually materialised).

Interestingly at Monino Soviet Air Force museum outside Moscow there is a prototype of a very potent-looking Sukhoi 100 which, just like TSR-2, and at the same time, was cancelled at the prototype stage. There is a sad-looking notice under the nose making the point that "It was NOT cancelled due to any deficiency of the design", obviously put up by someone with project involvement, just like those who defend TSR-2 so vigourously.

The one "high tech" project to escape in the 1960s was Concorde, and this was attributed entirely to MP Tony Benn having a marginal Labour seat at the Concorde factory in Bristol (he'd already lost the seat once and regained it). He was Minister of Technology at the time and key to the decision, and also Minister for saving his own job it seems. The Channel Tunnel was in leafy Conservative Folkestone, TSR-2 was designed in bourgeoise Weybridge (built in Preston I believe but all those I know who were involved were at Weybridge) ..... you get the picture.

Prototypes were built at Brooklands (Weybridge) but I believe production aircraft were to be built at Warton.

There were THREE politicians who were involved in the 'death' of the TSR2. Jim Callaghan, Roy Jenkins and Denis Healy. In the documentary that the BBC did, with a huge input by 'Bee' Beamont, all three denied it! Their "nothing to do with me" stance was nothing short of lies. Then, of course, there was Mountbatten, who had little of an aviation background but who stabbed the TSR2 project in the back, with the help of the lying three above, by making a supermarket style offer of three F-111's for the price of one TSR2 to the Australian government. The RAAF were said to have paid three times the originally quoted price by the time the bugs had been eliminated, years later.

I met 'Bee' in April 2001 at a signing ceremony of our TSR2 prints at which time, over an extended lunch, he related a few stories which Tim Deadman, a PPRuNer and I sat enthralled by. He also made it clear that the TSR2 should not have been killed off. He told of his test flights, some of which were conducted up and down a N/S line from Warton over the sea. He achieved supersonic speeds frequently and told that the TSR2 would have been capable of 2.3M. He also said that had the project not been cancelled there would have been NO requirement for the Tornado!

TSR2 was a worldbeater and would have still been flying today probably! 'Bee' seemed to always carry his design sortie and I noted a few posts back that BEagle had posted one. That is it EXACTLY. Quite something.

Here today, nothing has changed. The politicians still interfere on the back of a distinct lack of knowledge and control. They will never learn that the money they need to enforce their own power hungary ill thought out ideas comes from the people. I just to see the true figures exposed after the Tories get back.

But, sadly, with a quick return to the topic!!! The finest builders of aircraft have been let down time after time after time! Sickening!

The one "high tech" project to escape in the 1960s was Concorde, and this was attributed entirely to MP Tony Benn having a marginal Labour seat at the Concorde factory in Bristol (he'd already lost the seat once and regained it).

I thought Concorde survived because of the 'no get-out' clause negotiated with the French by Conservative minister Julian Amory. It was, ironically, devised so that the French couldn't pull out and leave the Brits with all the costs.

Ironically, it turned out to be us that wanted out, but were tied in by that clause!

SSD

Prune Pop - it was reportedly 5 for 1 Buccaneers which that fool Mountbottom (probably the worst CDS of the era) used to pull out of his pusser's grip when back-stabbing TSR2...... The concept of paying for 5 times as many crews didn't cross his blinkered naval mind, it seems.

I'm told that TSR2 was a bit of a pig to fly at low speed (as was the Buccaneer) - but outstanding at high speed.

BEags, I bow to your correction. Indeed it was. Infuriating wasn't it!!

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

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...

Would that be the same Jaguar thats attended most of the wars since Op Granby without a loss to enemy action?

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...

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 :ok:

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.

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.

Back to the topic please.

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 ?!

"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..

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.

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.

...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

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

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

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? :ooh:

From a side view, the B1 always looks to me like a scaled up Hunter.

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR.2 simply got the first three right."
- Sir Sydney Camm

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

Allegedly the CF-105 programme was riddled with Soviet agents.....