Tsr2
engineer(retard),
Devaluation in 1967 was a fact, I remember it well!
The F-111 order for the RAF was cancelled in 1968 after being placed in 1965, I'd hardly call that "quickly dropped"
The RAF was not left without a potential Canberra replacement at all, after TSR-2, which was started in 1959, came F-111K, after that came the AFVG, after that came the UKVG, after that came Buccaneer and eventually MRCA.
BEagle,
I was being a tad pedantic.
You will not find me canvassing for Blair old chap as I have no time for the man, I was all for him in 1997, not now and especially not since Iraq in 2003.
I have never supported him personally and I hope for a Labour victory on May 5th but with a reduced majority and a push then to replace Blair sooner rather than later in that term.
Devaluation in 1967 was a fact, I remember it well!
The F-111 order for the RAF was cancelled in 1968 after being placed in 1965, I'd hardly call that "quickly dropped"
The RAF was not left without a potential Canberra replacement at all, after TSR-2, which was started in 1959, came F-111K, after that came the AFVG, after that came the UKVG, after that came Buccaneer and eventually MRCA.
BEagle,
I was being a tad pedantic.
You will not find me canvassing for Blair old chap as I have no time for the man, I was all for him in 1997, not now and especially not since Iraq in 2003.
I have never supported him personally and I hope for a Labour victory on May 5th but with a reduced majority and a push then to replace Blair sooner rather than later in that term.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry prOOne have to agree largely with BEags. I think a good deal of what you say is probably correct but I would draw your attention to Roland Beamont's film, which he made and expressly says that Jenkins, Healy and Callaghan were instrumental in destroying TSR2.
The government used as an excuse that it was too complex an aeroplane. In the event this was utter nonsense. A price of £750m was stated for a run of 150 aircraft, a similar number of F-111's was quoted at £450m. The RAAF probably paid three times that amount after all the bugs had been eliminated years later.
I use a quote "The crowning stroke of political perfidy was the order to destroy immediately all the jigs and cease flying the prototype unless BAC was prepared to meet all costs." The continuance of the TSR2 programme would have sustained the work force for years and the invaluable data from the tests and would have been especially valuable for Concorde. A senior BAC official is said to have pointed out that "such tests would be embarrassing for the government when they revealed the true measure of TSR2's superiority over the F- 111!"
It is on record that Jenkins blamed Healy, Healy blamed the other two and all ended up not knowing what the hell they had actually done!
'Bee' Beamont told me that had TSR2 been completed there would have been no need for Tornado (I'm sorry I am repeating this) but the fact is that TSR2 had a lot going for it and 'Bee' also stated that it would have reached M2.8 or better.
The government used as an excuse that it was too complex an aeroplane. In the event this was utter nonsense. A price of £750m was stated for a run of 150 aircraft, a similar number of F-111's was quoted at £450m. The RAAF probably paid three times that amount after all the bugs had been eliminated years later.
I use a quote "The crowning stroke of political perfidy was the order to destroy immediately all the jigs and cease flying the prototype unless BAC was prepared to meet all costs." The continuance of the TSR2 programme would have sustained the work force for years and the invaluable data from the tests and would have been especially valuable for Concorde. A senior BAC official is said to have pointed out that "such tests would be embarrassing for the government when they revealed the true measure of TSR2's superiority over the F- 111!"
It is on record that Jenkins blamed Healy, Healy blamed the other two and all ended up not knowing what the hell they had actually done!
'Bee' Beamont told me that had TSR2 been completed there would have been no need for Tornado (I'm sorry I am repeating this) but the fact is that TSR2 had a lot going for it and 'Bee' also stated that it would have reached M2.8 or better.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne
Attention to detail old chap "quickly dropped" does not appear anywhere in my post.
Also after the Canberra comment I wrote "I do not believe everything I read and that comment was unreferenced."
I still have not seen any substantiation of your claims that you say are open source. Given the ructions over the TSR2 cancellation, to order an American replacement in the same year would have been crass. Especially given the power of the unions at that time and that its replacement was still in development.
As for dropping it, do you not believe the high unit cost of the aircraft in production in 68 was as much a factor in cancellation as devaluation in 67.
regards
Retard
Attention to detail old chap "quickly dropped" does not appear anywhere in my post.
Also after the Canberra comment I wrote "I do not believe everything I read and that comment was unreferenced."
I still have not seen any substantiation of your claims that you say are open source. Given the ructions over the TSR2 cancellation, to order an American replacement in the same year would have been crass. Especially given the power of the unions at that time and that its replacement was still in development.
As for dropping it, do you not believe the high unit cost of the aircraft in production in 68 was as much a factor in cancellation as devaluation in 67.
regards
Retard
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
engineer(retard)
Afraid it does old chap!
Second line of your second paragraph on your post time dated at 27th April 2302 reads;
“After the cancellation of the BAC TSR2 in 1965 the RAF was left without an adequate Canberra replacement, and plans to buy the American F111 were quickly dropped after a detailed examination of the aircraft.”
Anyway.........................
An option on the F-111K was actually secured before the TSR-2 cancellation was announced.
High unit cost had already reduced the order to a mere 50, the ever worsening economic situation that led to the cancellation of TSR-2 in 1965 also led to cancellation of F-111K in 1968. The F-111 was also in big technical trouble in 68 and that must have contributed but I firmly beleive it was an economic decision based on the state of the UK economy rather than the cost of the F-111.
Afraid it does old chap!
Second line of your second paragraph on your post time dated at 27th April 2302 reads;
“After the cancellation of the BAC TSR2 in 1965 the RAF was left without an adequate Canberra replacement, and plans to buy the American F111 were quickly dropped after a detailed examination of the aircraft.”
Anyway.........................
An option on the F-111K was actually secured before the TSR-2 cancellation was announced.
High unit cost had already reduced the order to a mere 50, the ever worsening economic situation that led to the cancellation of TSR-2 in 1965 also led to cancellation of F-111K in 1968. The F-111 was also in big technical trouble in 68 and that must have contributed but I firmly beleive it was an economic decision based on the state of the UK economy rather than the cost of the F-111.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I read somewhere that Mrs Healy was a card carrying member of the Communist party? (and long after it fell out of vogue with the then younger set!), but, of course, she wouldn't have tried to influence her husband, would she?
I might buy the Labour promoted story that the cancellation was on ecomomic grounds had they not ordered the destruction of the tools and jigs etc. that was just sheer spite and a precursor to the swingeing defence cuts of 1967. Labour have always put welfare before defence, always will, even though the threat from the East in the sixties was considerable.
PrOOne, a bit more information about the Far East if you please, where would TSR2 have been based, Singapore, Brunei? You mention the requirement for a long range capability, what 'enemies' would these be then that were so far away yet presented a real threat to the West and could not have been dealt with by the USA who were already well established in the far east both on land, at sea and under the sea ?
I might buy the Labour promoted story that the cancellation was on ecomomic grounds had they not ordered the destruction of the tools and jigs etc. that was just sheer spite and a precursor to the swingeing defence cuts of 1967. Labour have always put welfare before defence, always will, even though the threat from the East in the sixties was considerable.
PrOOne, a bit more information about the Far East if you please, where would TSR2 have been based, Singapore, Brunei? You mention the requirement for a long range capability, what 'enemies' would these be then that were so far away yet presented a real threat to the West and could not have been dealt with by the USA who were already well established in the far east both on land, at sea and under the sea ?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne
First point accepted, but as I stated it was from an open source quote that I did not believe.
So from your explanation, the governement of the day ordered the F1-11 before announcing the cancellation of the TSR-2 without informing industry, the workforce, the opposition or the general public.
Before this thread, I had believed that the TSR2 debacle was the result of poor project management by the ministries of the day. However, the slant that you put on it points to gross underhand political machinations. Heads should have rolled for this.
Regards
retard
First point accepted, but as I stated it was from an open source quote that I did not believe.
So from your explanation, the governement of the day ordered the F1-11 before announcing the cancellation of the TSR-2 without informing industry, the workforce, the opposition or the general public.
Before this thread, I had believed that the TSR2 debacle was the result of poor project management by the ministries of the day. However, the slant that you put on it points to gross underhand political machinations. Heads should have rolled for this.
Regards
retard
It was a combination of:
Absurdly complicated project management.
Underhand left wing socialist politicians.
Mountbottom's biased anti-RAF opinion.
The only good thing apart from the a/c itself was the hard work put in by the work force and Bee's flight test team!
Absurdly complicated project management.
Underhand left wing socialist politicians.
Mountbottom's biased anti-RAF opinion.
The only good thing apart from the a/c itself was the hard work put in by the work force and Bee's flight test team!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, ATRIXO, such innocence! Atrixo - isn't that a hand cream?
We had a good go at this subject 2 or 3 years ago but I can't find the thread anymore.
Was not the devaluation in question brought about by our dropping the gold standard and, therefore, the exchange rate pegged at about $2.78 to the £? I seem to remember it dropped instantly to $2.4 to the £.
Setting aside my jingoistic tendencies and my emotions, I still feel that the best option for the RAF would have been the F-111, which would have fulfilled the strike, attack and recce roles ably. I just can't see the TSR2 making any kind of a tactical turn at any level whereas the F-111 had reasonable turning ability and still had decent performance with a fair range. (Sorry, not very specific there.) I can't remember what the AD options would have been, but the Lightning would have been replaced in the late 70s/early 80s - probably by something other than the F-4 and possibly a Euro-mess. The F-111 would have been phased out in the late 90s in favour of a different Euro-mess. There would have been no RAF F-4s or Buccaneers, no Jaguars, Tornadoes (both types) or Typhoons. We would all be moaning instead about other costly, ineffective white elephants.
We had a good go at this subject 2 or 3 years ago but I can't find the thread anymore.
Was not the devaluation in question brought about by our dropping the gold standard and, therefore, the exchange rate pegged at about $2.78 to the £? I seem to remember it dropped instantly to $2.4 to the £.
Setting aside my jingoistic tendencies and my emotions, I still feel that the best option for the RAF would have been the F-111, which would have fulfilled the strike, attack and recce roles ably. I just can't see the TSR2 making any kind of a tactical turn at any level whereas the F-111 had reasonable turning ability and still had decent performance with a fair range. (Sorry, not very specific there.) I can't remember what the AD options would have been, but the Lightning would have been replaced in the late 70s/early 80s - probably by something other than the F-4 and possibly a Euro-mess. The F-111 would have been phased out in the late 90s in favour of a different Euro-mess. There would have been no RAF F-4s or Buccaneers, no Jaguars, Tornadoes (both types) or Typhoons. We would all be moaning instead about other costly, ineffective white elephants.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<<
Was not the devaluation in question brought about by our dropping the gold standard and, therefore, the exchange rate pegged at about $2.78 to the £? I seem to remember it dropped instantly to $2.4 to the £.
>>>
Not really. The UK left the gold standard for the last time (having previously left it in WWI) 35 or so years before the 1967 devaluation from $2.80 to $2.40. The devaluation was caused mainly by pressure on the reserves, which were having to be spent like there was no tomorrow in order to defend the high value of sterling.
Moving on, I always felt there was too little attention (compared with the TSR-2 and P.1154) paid to what we may have lost with the HS681 cancellation. However, I find information about the HS681 pretty hard to come by. Can anyone say something about what it was like, designed to do etc., or direct me to a website ? I understand it was like a C-17, 30 years before the C-17 was designed.... Thanks.
Was not the devaluation in question brought about by our dropping the gold standard and, therefore, the exchange rate pegged at about $2.78 to the £? I seem to remember it dropped instantly to $2.4 to the £.
>>>
Not really. The UK left the gold standard for the last time (having previously left it in WWI) 35 or so years before the 1967 devaluation from $2.80 to $2.40. The devaluation was caused mainly by pressure on the reserves, which were having to be spent like there was no tomorrow in order to defend the high value of sterling.
Moving on, I always felt there was too little attention (compared with the TSR-2 and P.1154) paid to what we may have lost with the HS681 cancellation. However, I find information about the HS681 pretty hard to come by. Can anyone say something about what it was like, designed to do etc., or direct me to a website ? I understand it was like a C-17, 30 years before the C-17 was designed.... Thanks.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
NATO had 2 two aircraft requirements for VSTOL aircraft.
NBMR 3 called for a lightweight, single-role, VTOL strike aircraft capable of carrying a single nuclear weapon on a short-range tactical mission. It had to be able to take off and land vertically on unprepared fields near the FEBA.
NBMR 4 asked for a VTOL tactical transport aircraft in the C130 class able to support NBMR 3 in the field.
Britain, France, the USA and Germany all put effort into NBMR 3 but only Britain put design effort into NBMR 4.
The requirement for NBMR 3 evolved into the Kestrel. The NBMR 4 evolved into the HS681.
NBMR 3 called for a lightweight, single-role, VTOL strike aircraft capable of carrying a single nuclear weapon on a short-range tactical mission. It had to be able to take off and land vertically on unprepared fields near the FEBA.
NBMR 4 asked for a VTOL tactical transport aircraft in the C130 class able to support NBMR 3 in the field.
Britain, France, the USA and Germany all put effort into NBMR 3 but only Britain put design effort into NBMR 4.
The requirement for NBMR 3 evolved into the Kestrel. The NBMR 4 evolved into the HS681.
OLD RED DAMASK
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lancashire born. In Cebu now
Age: 70
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth is all out there, all open source and in the public domain, just a shame it doesen\'t fit every conspiracy theory and schoolboys memory.
Quite true, lasernigel. The identity of the criminal responsible for ordering the wanton destruction of all TSR2 drawings, jigs, part-constructed airframes and other items has never been revealed in the public domain.
But BAC were pretty spineless to go along with it so complicitly - they should have stood their ground against such government intimidation.
Things were so bad in the mid to late-60s under those lefty loonies Wislon. Brown, Healey et al that serious talk was in the air of a coup to sling the buggers out of office.
But BAC were pretty spineless to go along with it so complicitly - they should have stood their ground against such government intimidation.
Things were so bad in the mid to late-60s under those lefty loonies Wislon. Brown, Healey et al that serious talk was in the air of a coup to sling the buggers out of office.
In the autumn of 1962 BAC gave estimated performance figures. How true these would have been is another matter of course. But, they included a cruising speed of 0.9M-1.1M at sea level and 2.05M at altitude. Combat radius with external fuel would be 1500nms or 1000nms with a 2000lb internal bomb load on internal fuel only. Initial rate of climb would be around 50,000ft/min with a service ceiling of 60,000ft.
Presumably with it’s dedicated recce fit it’s likely that TSR.2 could well of been still in service today in the recce role instead of the PR.9 Canberra that will soon be gone with no suitable replacement on the horizon. With those performance figures only the SR-71 would have had it beat in the recce role I pressume.
As an insane idea
, perhaps British Airways/HM Govt. should have handed over the Concorde fleet to the RAF for re-configuring in the high-altitude high speed recce role……….with the Blackbird gone, nothing else would have had that high altitude, longish range, sustained high speed capability?
Presumably with it’s dedicated recce fit it’s likely that TSR.2 could well of been still in service today in the recce role instead of the PR.9 Canberra that will soon be gone with no suitable replacement on the horizon. With those performance figures only the SR-71 would have had it beat in the recce role I pressume.
As an insane idea
, perhaps British Airways/HM Govt. should have handed over the Concorde fleet to the RAF for re-configuring in the high-altitude high speed recce role……….with the Blackbird gone, nothing else would have had that high altitude, longish range, sustained high speed capability?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-Ram, I'm sure the range performance figures of 1-1500 miles were NOT at a sustained Mach1+at low altitude (Only the B-1A could do that and the fuel load of that jet was greater than the weight of the TSR.) Not sure about Backfire or Blackjack though. B1B greater range but not at supersonic speed either. In the '70s, me thinks that MRCA was planned to go all the way there and back at Mach1 BUT sadly struggles at <M0.9 if it needs range. My point is be cautious when the sales brochure quotes performance stats, they are rarely right, and despite test pilots 'loving' the aircraft, the performance graphs need to be examined in terms of overall combat performance & weapon delivery AT RANGE.
My point is be cautious when the sales brochure quotes performance stats, they are rarely right, and despite test pilots 'loving' the aircraft, the performance graphs need to be examined in terms of overall combat performance & weapon delivery AT RANGE.
Which is exactly why I wrote,
How true these would have been is another matter of course.
Which is exactly why I wrote,
How true these would have been is another matter of course.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Light Reading...
I commend a book to you all...(if you can get hold of a copy!)
"TSR2 - Pheonix or Folly?"
A right riveting read, tells of the storys of when flight test schedules were slightly more liberal. And the transit flight from Boscombe to Warton when the TSR2 out ran a Lightning T4, using one engine max dry and the other with reheat.
Also tells of the day that the project was scrapped, the second aircraft due to take to the skies had an actuator problem in the morning, test crew drove off to the cricket club for tea and watched the budget on television..... raced back to BD when they heard of its misfortune hoping to get the second aircraft to take to the skies. But alas, the ground crew were ordered to bolt crop through the avionics looms..... an order which ultimately came from the US, which included burning all documentations and destroying any jigs to make the aircraft! Not suggesting that our coalition partners were ever so slightly paranoid that the UK were producing a world beating aircraft.....
TBK
"TSR2 - Pheonix or Folly?"
A right riveting read, tells of the storys of when flight test schedules were slightly more liberal. And the transit flight from Boscombe to Warton when the TSR2 out ran a Lightning T4, using one engine max dry and the other with reheat.
Also tells of the day that the project was scrapped, the second aircraft due to take to the skies had an actuator problem in the morning, test crew drove off to the cricket club for tea and watched the budget on television..... raced back to BD when they heard of its misfortune hoping to get the second aircraft to take to the skies. But alas, the ground crew were ordered to bolt crop through the avionics looms..... an order which ultimately came from the US, which included burning all documentations and destroying any jigs to make the aircraft! Not suggesting that our coalition partners were ever so slightly paranoid that the UK were producing a world beating aircraft.....
TBK
PPRuNe Pop,
Beaumont was too close and too passionate a TSR-2 supporter to be a reliable source on its demise.
It WAS far too complex, partly as a result of a ridiculous high level supersonic requirement that was the one of the main reasons the RAF constantly turned its nose up at the Buccaneer.
As for destruction of jigs and tools, this happened on many projects and not just the TSR-2, when the Avro 730 supersonic bomber was cancelled the nearly complete fuselage was cut up and used as waste bins in the Woodford plant!
Jigs and tools are expensive, when a project is canned there is no justification in retaining or maintaining them, scrap is the only way of realising any value from them. If there was such a high level conspiracy to destroy all evidence of the TSR-2 how come there are two complete examples still in existence today?
engineer(retard)
Open source from Cabinet papers and Chiefs of staff committee meeting minutes, far too many too quote on here.
The option on F-111K was secured so as to not be held to ransom by the US over pricing after TSR-2 cancellation. In the Defence white paper of February 1965 it was openly stated that TSR-2 was going to be reviewed against the F-111 as a potential cheaper and less costly alternative.
Omark44,
Have a close look at the Tory and Labour record on defence budgets before making such a claim. The Labour Defence White paper of 1965 actually increased defence expenditure over that planned by the Tories in 1964.
Prior to the withdrawal from east of Suez the RAF had a much larger frontline in the Far East than it did in Germany. TSR-2 would have been based at RAF Tengah in Singapore. Indonesian confrontation was still ongoing at the time and Chinese intentions were far from clear.
After the announcement of the withdrawal from the Far East Healey talked of basing F-111Ks in Australia and there were plans for a very large base in the Indian Ocean.
BEagle,
Coup in the mid sixties as things were so bad? What nonsense, Labour were elected in October 1964 with a majority of 4 on 44% of the vote. In the General election of March 1966 that majority was increased to 98 with a Labour party share of 48% of the vote. Things were plainly NOT so bad for the majority of the British public.
The Wilson Govt inherited a Balance of payments deficit of over £800m, that was down to £270m by 1968.
Beaumont was too close and too passionate a TSR-2 supporter to be a reliable source on its demise.
It WAS far too complex, partly as a result of a ridiculous high level supersonic requirement that was the one of the main reasons the RAF constantly turned its nose up at the Buccaneer.
As for destruction of jigs and tools, this happened on many projects and not just the TSR-2, when the Avro 730 supersonic bomber was cancelled the nearly complete fuselage was cut up and used as waste bins in the Woodford plant!
Jigs and tools are expensive, when a project is canned there is no justification in retaining or maintaining them, scrap is the only way of realising any value from them. If there was such a high level conspiracy to destroy all evidence of the TSR-2 how come there are two complete examples still in existence today?
engineer(retard)
Open source from Cabinet papers and Chiefs of staff committee meeting minutes, far too many too quote on here.
The option on F-111K was secured so as to not be held to ransom by the US over pricing after TSR-2 cancellation. In the Defence white paper of February 1965 it was openly stated that TSR-2 was going to be reviewed against the F-111 as a potential cheaper and less costly alternative.
Omark44,
Have a close look at the Tory and Labour record on defence budgets before making such a claim. The Labour Defence White paper of 1965 actually increased defence expenditure over that planned by the Tories in 1964.
Prior to the withdrawal from east of Suez the RAF had a much larger frontline in the Far East than it did in Germany. TSR-2 would have been based at RAF Tengah in Singapore. Indonesian confrontation was still ongoing at the time and Chinese intentions were far from clear.
After the announcement of the withdrawal from the Far East Healey talked of basing F-111Ks in Australia and there were plans for a very large base in the Indian Ocean.
BEagle,
Coup in the mid sixties as things were so bad? What nonsense, Labour were elected in October 1964 with a majority of 4 on 44% of the vote. In the General election of March 1966 that majority was increased to 98 with a Labour party share of 48% of the vote. Things were plainly NOT so bad for the majority of the British public.
The Wilson Govt inherited a Balance of payments deficit of over £800m, that was down to £270m by 1968.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PrOOne,
Sorry but you are wrong to shove the matter of the jigs and tools into the same bin as the hundreds of others were put. At the time of the phones calls Roland Beamont (not Beaumont) had requested that as 200 was ready to fly that they got into air as soon as possible. This was turned down out of hand. All in the space of minutes!
It WAS indisputably a political matter and if you care to use Google you will find that the BAC site confirms it in no small detail. It was as I said done without thought or consideration and done in the most expiditious way possible. Well I suppose you can say 'thought' quite easily - just one thought - get it done before someone changes their mind.
It was even a POLITICAL move that placed the other prototypes on the Shoeburyness bombing range to be destroyed! It was a vicious and despicable action of politics.
Sorry but you are wrong to shove the matter of the jigs and tools into the same bin as the hundreds of others were put. At the time of the phones calls Roland Beamont (not Beaumont) had requested that as 200 was ready to fly that they got into air as soon as possible. This was turned down out of hand. All in the space of minutes!
It WAS indisputably a political matter and if you care to use Google you will find that the BAC site confirms it in no small detail. It was as I said done without thought or consideration and done in the most expiditious way possible. Well I suppose you can say 'thought' quite easily - just one thought - get it done before someone changes their mind.
It was even a POLITICAL move that placed the other prototypes on the Shoeburyness bombing range to be destroyed! It was a vicious and despicable action of politics.