PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Aviation History and Nostalgia (https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia-86/)
-   -   TSR-2 (Merged a few times) (https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/63009-tsr-2-merged-few-times.html)

Tim McLelland 28th Jul 2009 16:18

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.

Footless Halls 28th Jul 2009 17:45

Weren't they supposed to be going to call it the Claymore?

GeeRam 29th Jul 2009 10:20


Originally Posted by D120A
I have always thought that they would have left it as TSR2.

I've seen mention of it was going to be called Eagle had it got into RAF service...?

Double Zero 29th Jul 2009 18:50

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.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU 30th Jul 2009 10:25

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?

Brewster Buffalo 30th Jul 2009 10:54

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

Tim McLelland 30th Jul 2009 14:39

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!

BEagle 30th Jul 2009 20:05

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.

Blacksheep 30th Jul 2009 22:03


TSR2 had met virtually all of its design spec requirements
Apart from needing an extensive redesign of the landing gear and completely new air conditioning and equipment cooling systems. :rolleyes:

Tim McLelland 30th Jul 2009 23:33

Undercarriage and air conditioning glitches were less-than fundamental;)

Gainesy 31st Jul 2009 09:40


I would prefer " squadrons such as 7 , IX, 10, 12 etc."
Don't you mean IX(B)?

OBAman 1st Aug 2009 01:14

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

pr00ne 1st Aug 2009 13:00

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.

911slf 1st Aug 2009 13:31

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?

kiwibrit 1st Aug 2009 13:41

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.

Gainesy 1st Aug 2009 17:31

ISTR that F-111s went supersonic into Iraq in GW1, not sure if that was just the FB-111s or all shades of 111.

kiwibrit 1st Aug 2009 21:04

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.

Jig Peter 2nd Aug 2009 16:26

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 ???
:8

Skylion 2nd Aug 2009 16:42

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.

pr00ne 2nd Aug 2009 23:47

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.

Double Zero 3rd Aug 2009 14:43

Tsr2, P1154
 
GBZ,

Happy to share what limited knowledge I have, though offered by others with a lot more 'gen who I won't name here...

TSR2, tiny wings and expected to overfly the target, which was a daft idea even in WWII, as the Tornado found out the hard way in Gulf War 1 ( jamming gear doesn't stop AAA, and god knows what a TSR2 would have been like at even medium, still vulnerable altitude ).

The P1154 was killed by inter-service politics, for example the R.N. insisting on two engines, which is hard work on a VSTOL aircraft !

I believe the Harrier was the right choice & way to go.

Plenum chamber burning ( the VSTOL equivalant of an afterburner ) did work, I was along for the trials in the 1980's, the major snag was that it couldn't be operated from grass or carriers due to the serious ' ground erosion '.

The supersonic Russian Yak 141 ' Freestyle ' successfully used PCB, and also had advanced controls similar to the VAAC Harrier & F-35B; it was researched by a few NATO Test Pilots, but scuppered by funds, as was the slightly earlier British P-1216 project.

The P-1216 could have possibly been a true world-beater for ' U.K. Ltd ' , complete with forward swept carbon fibre wings in one version - a full scale mock-up was made at Kingston, but funding was refused; culprit, M.Thatcher, who'd already had her political arse saved by the Harrier, now in peacetime she didn't fancy spending money, sod future citizens, technology & factories !

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm equally anti-labour, but it should be noted the 'tories were all for selling HMS Invincible to Australia in 1981, so hardly pro - defence as some would believe.

One good thing about the Pegasus engine on the Harrier is that while being a touch on the crude side, it has a ' high torque ' effect even at medium throttle, so the aircraft doesn''t mind going to high subsonic speeds even if carrying high drag stores; bearing in mind the problems of aiming & releasing stores at supersonic speeds, this seems a good solution to me.

Archimedes 3rd Aug 2009 16:39

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.

pr00ne 3rd Aug 2009 18:01

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.............

BEagle 3rd Aug 2009 19:27

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' :uhoh: didn't support it, why should the fellow travellers in Westminster?

Barstewards!!

pr00ne 4th Aug 2009 00:54

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

Jig Peter 4th Aug 2009 16:25

"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 4th Aug 2009 16:42

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 ...

BEagle 4th Aug 2009 18:08


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?

OBAman 12th Aug 2009 12:07

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.

BEagle 12th Aug 2009 12:37

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....

tornadoken 14th Aug 2009 13:44

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.

PPRuNe Pop 14th Aug 2009 14:29


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?

Jig Peter 14th Aug 2009 16:43

.... "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 ...
:8

(edited 'cos of typo ...)

Tim McLelland 16th Aug 2009 13:08

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.

Surrey Towers 16th Aug 2009 15:12


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.

GLIDER 90 20th Oct 2018 16:10

TSR2?
 
Afternoon All

Just wondering would the TSR2 with some modifications, still be in service today had it not been scrapped in 1965?

Quemerford 21st Oct 2018 06:21

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.

Haraka 21st Oct 2018 06:40

Yes, but when you consider that it cost as much as a Frigate..........

surely not 21st Oct 2018 11:39

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

rjtjrt 22nd Oct 2018 04:20

TSR 2 was not a pretty or graceful aircraft in the photo’s I have seen.
Are there any that make it look good?


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.