TSR-2 Files
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR-2 Files
Does anyone know if any files relating to TSR-2 are still classified? If so it surely cannot be for technological reasons as we are talking about 1960s kit. That only leaves political reasons. If so, what are they trying to hide after five decades.
I only ask as I heared on my car radio recently that the Blair regime had prevented release of TSR-2 documents.
I only ask as I heared on my car radio recently that the Blair regime had prevented release of TSR-2 documents.
I know that one of the retained files is titled something like 'TSR2: Weapons Carriage', so it's not all political conspiracy...
There are a fair few retained files with interesting titles from that era (not just TSR2 related) which deal with 'weapons' and it is reasonable to assume that these are/were of the sort which go off which a somewhat larger 'bang!'...
There are a fair few retained files with interesting titles from that era (not just TSR2 related) which deal with 'weapons' and it is reasonable to assume that these are/were of the sort which go off which a somewhat larger 'bang!'...
Last edited by Archimedes; 25th Oct 2013 at 11:03.
Gentleman Aviator
I definitely need to go to Specsavers....
.... for a nano-second I thought the Thread Title was TSR-2 Flies!
..... or maybe it's just the daily sex - sorry, I mean dyslexia!
.... for a nano-second I thought the Thread Title was TSR-2 Flies!
..... or maybe it's just the daily sex - sorry, I mean dyslexia!
Last edited by teeteringhead; 25th Oct 2013 at 12:21.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 2001, I was at a Treasury retirement drinks do, and the lady retiring had been involved in the cancellation debate at the beginning of her career. She remembered it vividly, and was very clear on what actually caused the cancellation: the growth in the cost estimates from early 1964 to spring of 1965 - and specifically in the first quarter of 1965. It was a case of "how high will the bill go?" as each "final bill" was superseded by an ever higher figure. Worse, though XR219 looked beautiful and when the gear retraction / oscillation problem was fixed, it was unlikely to have been in squadron service before 1969/70.
At this point, two things appear to have happened; first, the Treasury progressively lost confidence in the Air Ministry's (MoD from 1964) ability not only to control, but crucially to predict, the costs of TSR-2. Second, there was serious opposition to the aircraft from the MoD and the RAF itself - it was so expensive it was gobbling up all of the available procurement cash.
As a result, when Beamont launched XR219 into the Wiltshire sky in Sep 64, the tectonic plates that govern these things in Whitehall were already firmly against the programme, especially as the Tories had left an unaffordable defence procurement budget. The only thing in her view that would've saved TSR-2 at that point was a high level of confidence in the budgeting in the first quarter of 1965, which was the opposite of what happened.
All terribly sad - but that was the story as she remembered it.
S41
At this point, two things appear to have happened; first, the Treasury progressively lost confidence in the Air Ministry's (MoD from 1964) ability not only to control, but crucially to predict, the costs of TSR-2. Second, there was serious opposition to the aircraft from the MoD and the RAF itself - it was so expensive it was gobbling up all of the available procurement cash.
As a result, when Beamont launched XR219 into the Wiltshire sky in Sep 64, the tectonic plates that govern these things in Whitehall were already firmly against the programme, especially as the Tories had left an unaffordable defence procurement budget. The only thing in her view that would've saved TSR-2 at that point was a high level of confidence in the budgeting in the first quarter of 1965, which was the opposite of what happened.
All terribly sad - but that was the story as she remembered it.
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 25th Oct 2013 at 13:20.
AIRCRAFT. Discussions on future aircraft production programme: purchase of US aircraft;... | The National Archives
The files are not classified.
If someone want to ask for the docs, I suggest to hire a researcher (I did that several times, PM if you want further info). It is cheapear, easier and faster.
And I am from Argentina, but with a credit card and dropbox (R), distance is not an issue.
Also, a cabinet office file named "The TSR. 2 or the F-111A." is available online at the NA site: Record Type: Memorandum Former Reference: C (65) 57 Title: The TSR. 2 or... | The National Archives
Another one: "Hardship Claim by the British Aircraft Corporation following the Cancellation of the TSR. 2". at Record Type: Memorandum Former Reference: C (66) 9 Title: Hardship Claim... | The National Archives
Regards!
The files are not classified.
If someone want to ask for the docs, I suggest to hire a researcher (I did that several times, PM if you want further info). It is cheapear, easier and faster.
And I am from Argentina, but with a credit card and dropbox (R), distance is not an issue.
Also, a cabinet office file named "The TSR. 2 or the F-111A." is available online at the NA site: Record Type: Memorandum Former Reference: C (65) 57 Title: The TSR. 2 or... | The National Archives
Another one: "Hardship Claim by the British Aircraft Corporation following the Cancellation of the TSR. 2". at Record Type: Memorandum Former Reference: C (66) 9 Title: Hardship Claim... | The National Archives
Regards!
A whole lot of stuff here...
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net...-Hindsight.pdf
A few specific things struck me when I read this.
The low-level radar bombing accuracy was still at a point where a bucket of sunshine was needed, but there was no support (on either side of the political spectrum) for more low-yield tac nukes.
The avionics system seems to have been rather similar to the F-111 Mk II suite - the one used on the F-111D variant, which spent its entire career at Cannon AFB in the wilds of New Mexico, like a crazy aunt confined to a remote asylum.
There were some horrible maintainability issues with things like engine changes.
They would have been much better off sticking to EE's original Mach 1.7 goal, and also expended a lot of effort trying to operate off short runways, which is a bit GLWT with a 55-ton aircraft.
The program management was fubared, with subs running late and not reporting the fact, in the hope and belief that either the prime or another sub would be in worse shape and let them off the hook.
I suspect that if more people had known in 1965 just how much more time and money it was going to take to put operational jets on the ramp, there would have been much less controversy over the cancellation decision.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net...-Hindsight.pdf
A few specific things struck me when I read this.
The low-level radar bombing accuracy was still at a point where a bucket of sunshine was needed, but there was no support (on either side of the political spectrum) for more low-yield tac nukes.
The avionics system seems to have been rather similar to the F-111 Mk II suite - the one used on the F-111D variant, which spent its entire career at Cannon AFB in the wilds of New Mexico, like a crazy aunt confined to a remote asylum.
There were some horrible maintainability issues with things like engine changes.
They would have been much better off sticking to EE's original Mach 1.7 goal, and also expended a lot of effort trying to operate off short runways, which is a bit GLWT with a 55-ton aircraft.
The program management was fubared, with subs running late and not reporting the fact, in the hope and belief that either the prime or another sub would be in worse shape and let them off the hook.
I suspect that if more people had known in 1965 just how much more time and money it was going to take to put operational jets on the ramp, there would have been much less controversy over the cancellation decision.
you know, reading some of the comments here, I feel no better about TSR-2! I always assumed it was a purely political decision. The more I read though, it would appear that we had an aircraft industry that was, at best naïve........and at worst, downright incompetent! Combine that with successive governments of equal or greater incompetence, and you have the "perfect storm".........my god, we really did throw away our dominance in aviation! I hope we never really do find out exactly where it all went wrong!!!!!!!!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Archimedes, I bet that is left hand right hand stuff. Details of operational clearances, design, numbers etc etc are all in the public domain.
A friend of mine lacks only weapons serial numbers to complete his WE177 research. He has even produced a wiring schematic for the different versions.
What could be in the TSR2 file I have no idea.
A friend of mine lacks only weapons serial numbers to complete his WE177 research. He has even produced a wiring schematic for the different versions.
What could be in the TSR2 file I have no idea.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I think much angst was over the brutal way the project was terminated with jigs being destroyed. It was the same as the MRA4 fiasco and the AEW3 before that. The only difference is that the TSR2 airframes made it to museums whereas perfectly good Nimrod airframes were deliberately destroyed.
Costs of TSR-2
I read Humphrey Wynns' fine tome 'RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces' a while back, and if I recall correctly, one of the final nails in the TSR-2 coffin was when the relevant Ministry asked BAC for a cost update per aircraft, they were told that they couldn't guarantee it would be less than £5M per airframe.
Now in todays terms where Eurofighter Typhoons are costing in the region of £65M per airframe, that seems relative chicken feed. However in 1965, this was a gargantuan sum, especially as a Vulcan would cost around £750K per airframe.
I stand to be corrected regarding the exact figures....
Now in todays terms where Eurofighter Typhoons are costing in the region of £65M per airframe, that seems relative chicken feed. However in 1965, this was a gargantuan sum, especially as a Vulcan would cost around £750K per airframe.
I stand to be corrected regarding the exact figures....
Last edited by Treble one; 25th Oct 2013 at 19:05.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
111, the contemporary V-bomber figure was £1m.
I guess it would have been how you spin the numbers. Do you include GE, infrastructure, sneaky beaky support services etc? Things like the Decca 72M and the MRGs were switched to the Vulcan and were thus a benefit that had been largely paid for on another budget.
I guess it would have been how you spin the numbers. Do you include GE, infrastructure, sneaky beaky support services etc? Things like the Decca 72M and the MRGs were switched to the Vulcan and were thus a benefit that had been largely paid for on another budget.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN,
The other thing that was mentioned was the timescales: if TSR-2 wasn't going to be in service until 1969/70, then the RAF couldn't claim (however improbable it may look now) that TSR-2 would have been able to cover a credibility gap in the Moscow Criterion between BLUE STEEL and Polaris.
Without questioning the dedication and the bravery of the V-Bomber / BLUE STEEL crews, its ability to meet the Moscow Criterion by the late 1960s was clearly open to question. On this basis, an argument could've been made (and indeed was, with the 2 x WE177 fit with bulged bomb-bay doors) that TSR-2 for the strategic mission could've filled a gap - if the SSBNs hadn't been ready before, say, 1975.
But given that the Resolution SSBN programme went pretty smoothly, the credibility gap argument was never going to be enough to swing the argument in favour of TSR-2.
(Which is a shame, as it could've been completely brilliant, replaced F-111 etc etc etc. Whether it'd still be in service isn't clear to me, though. And N-a-B is clearly right about the engine installation - IIRC, Damien Burke's (absolutely excellent) TSR-2 book suggests that the production series would either have needed a significant redesign for the engine bays or would have been a complete maintenance nightmare.)
S41
The other thing that was mentioned was the timescales: if TSR-2 wasn't going to be in service until 1969/70, then the RAF couldn't claim (however improbable it may look now) that TSR-2 would have been able to cover a credibility gap in the Moscow Criterion between BLUE STEEL and Polaris.
Without questioning the dedication and the bravery of the V-Bomber / BLUE STEEL crews, its ability to meet the Moscow Criterion by the late 1960s was clearly open to question. On this basis, an argument could've been made (and indeed was, with the 2 x WE177 fit with bulged bomb-bay doors) that TSR-2 for the strategic mission could've filled a gap - if the SSBNs hadn't been ready before, say, 1975.
But given that the Resolution SSBN programme went pretty smoothly, the credibility gap argument was never going to be enough to swing the argument in favour of TSR-2.
(Which is a shame, as it could've been completely brilliant, replaced F-111 etc etc etc. Whether it'd still be in service isn't clear to me, though. And N-a-B is clearly right about the engine installation - IIRC, Damien Burke's (absolutely excellent) TSR-2 book suggests that the production series would either have needed a significant redesign for the engine bays or would have been a complete maintenance nightmare.)
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 25th Oct 2013 at 20:33.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any truth in that the Americans wanted TSR-2 cancelled? As it was so advanced for it's time that the Americans feared the Soviets would improve their air defences. Therefore America would have lost its supremacy.
I suppose cancelling the TSR-2 also removed a competitor for their F-111 exports too.
I suppose cancelling the TSR-2 also removed a competitor for their F-111 exports too.