Combat aircraft are not designed to look good or graceful, although a long time age I flew two which were.

dook,

Surely one must be the Hunter. What was the other?

PM for I42.

The origins of the Tornado were in the AFVG, OK initially a BAC design but the French had some input. They must have liked the general idea because just look at the Mirage G.

I was gonna say that too.
As far as I remember, the AFVG (Anglo French Variable Geometry) design looked pretty similar to the MRCA design which was hatched just a few years after the French decided to pull out of AFVG.

It was quite big as a result of the range requirements. Very small wing as a result of the speed requirements.

The Olympus 22R was a real beast and would have quite a poor sfc, particularly compared with the RB199.

Flight of the Bat I believe.

According to the excellent "Project Cancelled" by Derek Wood* The TRS2 programme was cancelled because its technical objectives were unachievable with the technology of the day. Not the airframe performance (which was within reasonable distance of the requirement) but the extremely ambitious fully-integrated nav-attack system on which the mission performance was based. At the time the available systems engineering science simply wasn't up to predicting the on-board processing workload and the data exchange capacity needed. Having looked at the requirement I would suggest we could do it these days, but it's still a non-trivial requirement that would take sevral years and a few million lines of code to implement. I agree with Derek's view that it was well beyond the available technology at the time.

The invisibility of the problem was compounded by the way that the customer (the government) insisted on splitting the work between a large number of main contractors (I think Derek counts 17) to spread the benefit across the largest possible number of constituencies with very vague lines of technical authority and decision-making. Again, at the time the project management techniques and processes to manage and monitor the performance of such an artificially- diversified project just didn't exist. And again, these days those techniques probably DO exist, but we would still regard it as a very silly (aka "risky") way to structure a capital project.

Without the integrated nav-attack system the TSR2 was unable to perform its required mission, and it was to unmanoeuverable (and butt-ugly) to be an airshow-queen, so they cancelled the whole thing.

The RAF F-111K programme was cancelled because the costs had spiralled (exaccerbated by unfavourable exchange rate changes) and because they had seen a decidedly troubled development programme of the Australian version which was delaying the RAF in-service date to the extent that the RAF had needed to lease a couple of dozen additional F4s to cover the shortfall. Then throw in the detail that the planned mission requirement had changed when the UK decided to withdraw forces from east of Suez bases and the whole programme essentially no longer met the need.

AIUI the F-111k had a range of around 1,600 miles (without A-A refuelling) which would leave it well over 1,000 miles short for a return trip to Moscow from the UK, compared to around 3,000 miles for the TSR2 (which wouldn't), so I don't think the reported conversation with the RAF pilots sounds that reasonable to me.

PDR

* A really good, well researched and authoritative read by the same guy who produced the definitive history of the Battle of Britain in the book "Narrow Margin"

Was that the one where the attacking aircraft flew underneath a scheduled Trident going to Warsaw or somewhere for the first part of the flight 'cos I heard it was written round a Buccaneer not a TSR 2.

This Wren cartoon featured on the front cover of the Feb 1965 edition of 'Air Pictorial'. Not sure who 'Shackleton' is.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ad49a929ca.jpg

From Wikipedia: Edward Shackleton was the younger son of the famous explorer. In Harold Wilson's government, he served as Minister of Defence for the RAF 1964–67. The TSR-2 was cancelled in April 1965.

Quite correct. The "Bat" was a very thinly disguised TSR-2

Surely, looking at contemporary developments, Concorde converted to military configuration with an internal bomb bay, would have answered all the questions posed in this thread. Sustained Mach 2.05, digital technology, long range and of course nothing ever looked more "right". It got away from Tonado F2 easily with 100 grannies in shirt sleeves sipping champagne so "only" missiles to worry about.

Nope. Concorde would have suffered from all the problems that the V bombers and the AVRO 730 did - namely, vulnerability to SAMs.

Have you looked at the turning circle of Concorde? And the height it would lose in a high g turn at altitude?

That "sustained Mach 2.05" is only achieved at over 50,000 feet. I don't have the data to hand, but I'm fairly sure I have a reference at home suggesting Concord's max sustainable sea-level speed on dry power is subsonic. TSR2 was intended to do a sustained Mach 1.3ish a ground-hugging altitudes. Concord also has all the manoeuverability of a steam train.

The whole "military concord" thing is strictly plane-spotter wet-dream stuff.

PDR

TSR-2 With Hindsight is pretty damning, and I don't think it would be plausible to condemn all the contributors as socialist traitors. Wing Commander Beamont's testimony surely applies to the flight characteristics of the airframe, and is impressive, but that's only the start. Could one calculate the mean time between failures for electronics of that complexity using 1960s technology? It was scrapped by the Labour Government because their predecessors left it for them to do, confident that the UK aviation industry would be happy to pour all the opprobrium onto the Labour Party, and ignore the fact that Wedgwood Benn was an ardent supporter of Concorde (one of many things he got wrong). It's like suggesting that airships would have been viable if it hadn't been for the botching of R101.

Not that I'm a fan of the Wilson government, or of any aspect of the UK Labour Party after Gaitskell, but some failures are not caused by politics.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps TSR-2 would have been decisive in the Falklands?

With my hindsight, I believe TSR-2 was doomed from the outset. Everything that could have been calculated to be a bad idea was selected.
The RAF picked the figures they wanted out of thin air, from memory particularly range and sea-level speed, when say 90% of the performance was relatively simple to achieve although still impressive.
The government decided Vickers were to be the main contractor on what was basically an English Electric design, despite them having no supersonic expertise. To add to that, they then decided that apart from the basic airframe, it was to be effectively designed by committee.
I think it's Hooker's book that describes a meeting that was adjourned because there were too many people there. It was to resume with only people that absolutely had to be there and when they did, there were even more.

Amazingly, despite the teething troubles and the limited number of test flights, it appears to me the aircraft itself was well on its way to probably achieving the requirements.
The electronics are far beyond me, especially for that era as I've no idea what was feasible, but what always staggers me is the size of the avionics bay in XR220 at Cosford. It's looks the size of a small room yet modern electronics to do the same job would probably fit in a shoe box with space to spare.

The TFR in the TSR 2 was unique to that aircraft at that time in that it would automatically fly the aircraft via autopilot at a set height above ground. I think a later version was fitted to Tornado GR1/4.
The radar in the F111 was 'terrain avoidance' not 'terrain following'; it would warn the pilot of reduced vertical separation from the surface and the pilot then had to take action to correct.

The Tories would have cancelled it had the General Election gone the other way, this was no Socialist conspiracy. P1154 simply did not work and we still can't do VSTOL Plenum Chamber Nozzle after-burning now. RR tried it again in the 80's and still couldn't manage it.

Oh, and as for TSR-2/F-111K/MRCA and Moscow, that is a real distraction. The range requirement for TSR-2 came from the Far east and not Europe. When we pulled out of the Far east the range commitment went too.

I wonder if the TSR2 went ahead, would it have been a mixture of Vulcans & TSRS.

I feel that the airframe would probably have "worked". However given the level of technology available at the time I am very unsure whether the avionics would have performed adequately. Those interested might like to read:

TSR2 - Precision Attack to Tornado by John Forbat ISBN 978 0 7524 3919 8

YS

Chevvron,

You are quite right that the F-111 didn't have a TFR.

It had two.