TSR2 Out of Service Date

[alrite]

An interesting thought Alrite; care to expand?

I think you will find that TSR2 had (still would have?) a longer range, higher service ceiling, bigger weapons load and was a lot faster than Tornado. Seems to me TSR2 wins hands down!

I'll grab the operational figures and will have a go lol (short of time atm). But Yes the TSR-2 has a longer max./ferry range, higher max (bar F3) service ceiling, however stick it with a decent load of fuel/weapons and at a speed just below the mach at 100ft it wont get the same range figures nor height ( which is not important whatsoever for its role) at all). A larger weapons load, I think it differs by 1-2000lbs which is totally irrelevant, and thats ignoring in any operational mission, weights never reach near there maximums e.g max loaded weight, they cary only whats needed etc.. And the Tornado would have attacked in groups, massively increasing its situational awareness, hense surviability. And for max speed, a clean tornado at sea level can go mach 1.3, at height the IDS can do 2.2, the F3 2.25, whih are greater figures given than any TSR-2. But again I'll grap the figures and do a comparison.

I am also intrigued by:

The Bucc went further (unrefuelled), flew lower and as fast and carried (in UK service) 4 Sea Eagles, the Tornado didn't go as far and only carried 2 Sea Eagles. The only advantage for the Tornado was it carried ECM on wing pylons, but then the concept of operations utilised in the Bucc's era was different to that of the Tornado. Even Nimrod, with its 2 Harpoons, had a better sea strike capability than a Tornado.

I does not matter how far you can go, or what you carry unless you can get there and hit the target with pinpoint accuracy. And the tornado does not just carry ECM on its wing pylons, alot of the counter air systems are inside the airframe. The Tornado had a better all weather attack capability than the buccaneer, and could fly as low over sea, as can many aircraft really. Once again the Tornados would be flying in pairs, 4 Sea Eagles would be enough for one mission, and combine them with Hindenburgen tanks, the range advantage of the Buccaneer has gone. Also, the Tornado has AIM-9 carriage and superonic dash capability in case it was attacked by other fighters, the Buccaneer does not. One point you can argue in the Buccaneers favour is that Sea eagle is basically a stand of weapon, as Storm shadow/Taurus, as its range exceed 60nm, which is alot lol, hense it would not have to get so far into "the danger zone".

Its just a shame we had to wait till the 80's when we could have more or less had the capability in the 60's.

Edited December 2, 2008 by alrite

[Giorgio N]

I've always thought the similarity of the Tornado would have meant similar export prospects - ie. Italy, Germany, Saudi Arabia.

Italy would not in my opinion have bought such a machine. The AMI tried to "sneak" in the phantom by expressing interest for the RF-4E, but this move was not approved because of costs consideration. With this in mind I can't see where the money for the TSR.2 would have come from. Partecipation in the Tornado program was a different story because it heavily involved the national industry, at that point the cost was balanced by other considerations.

Mind that for a while the italian armed forces toied with the idea of a national deterrent, although this centred around the use of Polaris missiles more than thepurchase of a bomber. Again political and economical reasons prevented any of this from happening.

Giorgio

[Geoff_B]

Couple of points.

The RAAF went with the F-111 as the offer at the time was cheaper than TSR2 (the apology letter from the Australian Prime Minister to The UK PM can be found on the net).

The West Germans actually wanted the to take up the ones earmarked for the RAAF when it was cancelled.

The Tornado is an RAF TSR2 wish-it-was, as they attempted to claw back what was lost when first TSR2 and then F-111 was cancelled. Plenty of articles on the developement of Tornado relate to this.

G

[alrite]

The Tornado is an RAF TSR2 wish-it-was, as they attempted to claw back what was lost when first TSR2 and then F-111 was cancelled. Plenty of articles on the developement of Tornado relate to this.

G

That is very true. Last year I read a book about the history of the Panavia Tornado and was very surprised how sneakily the UK procured the Tornado through the design stage. If it was upto the Germans, Italians, or even Dutch etc.. initally, it would have been a rather different beast. For example only the RAF wanted mach 2 capability, the rest were happy without it, as they had the ADV/F3 in mind. The Tornado was very much taolored to the RAF needs indefinitley.

[Paul Bradley]

The AMI tried to "sneak" in the phantom by expressing interest for the RF-4E, but this move was not approved because of costs consideration.

Interestingly, the Canadians were seriously considering the Spey Phantom at one point, to be built in Canada with Spey engines for the Royal Navy and Canadian Forces. They baulked at the ever-rising price and ordered F-5s instead.

[Roland Pulfrew]

And for max speed, a clean tornado at sea level can go mach 1.3, at height the IDS can do 2.2, the F3 2.25

Being able to do it clean is of no use, you have to be able to do it with a war load on. TSR2 had already exceeded M1.1 at low level during its very limited trials and that could have been done with 6000 lbs of weapons carried internally.

weights never reach near their maximums e.g max loaded weight, they carry only what's needed etc

Hmmm. Not sure on that. One of the reasons for air-to-air refuelling is to allow the smaller aircraft to get airborne with the max payload possible (to achieve the mission) and then be refuelled in-flight to ensure that they have the range to complete their missions. So max weapons load carried from take-off and then range achieved by AAR. Would have applied to both Tornado and TSR2, only TSR2 had greater payload and range to start with.

combine them with Hindenburgen tanks, the range advantage of the Buccaneer has gone

As would any speed advantage for the Tornado

Once again the Tornados would be flying in pairs, 4 Sea Eagles would be enough for one mission

As would the Buccaneers, so that is 8 Sea Eagles. And if you think that 4 of anything would have been enough, of anything, during the Cold War may I suggest the Weapons Employment Course.

Also, the Tornado has AIM-9 carriage and supersonic dash capability in case it was attacked by other fighters, the Buccaneer does not

The Bucc could also carry AIM9 (but at the loss of a pylon for a Sea Eagle) although I accept that a clean IDS might be slightly faster than a Bucc

F3 might have a theoretical top speed of M2.3 and a high service ceiling, but have you ever seen one sustain it? At height? With external stores? Sadly it's all hypothetical, as the aircraft was cancelled prematurely.

[Skull Leader]

Might I reccomend a thread all unto itself for that discussion? It appears there is plenty to say and not a bit of it in relation to the TSR.2

[alrite]

Being able to do it clean is of no use, you have to be able to do it with a war load on. TSR2 had already exceeded M1.1 at low level during its very limited trials and that could have been done with 6000 lbs of weapons carried internally.

True, but the IDS/GR1 could break the barrier with stores, and once the stores have been dropped, and the used fuel tanks jettisoned nothing can catch the Tornado on the deck, nothing. But the difference of 0.1-.15 of a mach is not very important tbh. The one problem I have with he TSR-2 at low level, very high sunbsonic-low supersonic, sustained flight are the engines. The RB199'S were developed specially for it, the former's had to also perform at mach 2 high altitude cruise which in all honeslty is exceptional, now whether the efficiency on the deck would be on par with the Turbo Unions is unknown unfortunately.

Hmmm. Not sure on that. One of the reasons for air-to-air refuelling is to allow the smaller aircraft to get airborne with the max payload possible (to achieve the mission) and then be refuelled in-flight to ensure that they have the range to complete their missions. So max weapons load carried from take-off and then range achieved by AAR. Would have applied to both Tornado and TSR2, only TSR2 had greater payload and range to start with.

Fuel weight maximums are reached, as you say, it can be topped up in the air but MTOW are very rarely reached. Think in the Nuke strike role the Tornado would only carry one small WE177C, maybe 2 (not sure), which is not the same as carrying two JP233'S as in the second Gulf War (Or call it 1st). The TSR-2 I believe was destined to carry 4 WE177 type,low yield bombs (though at the time they wanted something like the WE177C) which again does not approach the max take of weight. The thing you have to keep in mind is that the Tornado has the highest empty weight vs max weight there is (literally doubles its weight), bar the F-16, where as the TSR-2 empty weight to max.loaded was not as stark.

And with External tanks especially the 2250L tanks, the range advantage goes to the Tornado, and the weapons load is an insignificant 1-2000lb's difference. But then stick the TSR-2 with external tanks, I dont know what the Max theoretical range could be, but in that case it may be higer than the Tornado's but then not with the same weapons load. The Tornado may be small, but its an extremely compact and clever design.

As would any speed advantage for the Tornado.

The only reason to ever "gun it" would be if enemy fighters or a certain missle was fired, in which case the stores, such as the tanks would be dropped, and the speed advantage rescued. Even with the tanks the speed is the same as the Buccaneer though anyways, so its a range advantage at the very least.

As would the Buccaneers, so that is 8 Sea Eagles. And if you think that 4 of anything would have been enough, of anything, during the Cold War may I suggest the Weapons Employment Course.

However, once again, if you cannot get there (Im not saying the Buccaneer couldnt, but in certain situations it would be a very tricky thing to do for the Bucc) there is no point carrying more. Well whatever on how many are needed on a sortie, what e do know is the Bucc could carry twice as many for a decent range. The Tornado could carry 4 though theoretically, but I dont know if they were every actually intergrated into the wing pylons.

The Bucc could also carry AIM9 (but at the loss of a pylon for a Sea Eagle) although I accept that a clean IDS might be slightly faster than a Bucc.

Forgive my Buccaneer ignorance, I did not know it had the AIM-9, but if it was carried it would loose a Sea Eagle, but was it part of the operational sea stike load? Slightly A clean Tornado on the deck can do 1.3, a Buccaneer carnt even come close to breaking the barrier in, low level, sustained flight. And a fully loaded GR4/IDS/GR1 can hit just under the mach, and a lightly loaded can push through it all the way to 1.15.

F3 might have a theoretical top speed of M2.3 and a high service ceiling, but have you ever seen one sustain it? At height? With external stores? Sadly it's all hypothetical, as the aircraft was cancelled prematurely.

Nope, the TSR-2 has it on sustained high alt, mach 2 flight, but then you could say the Tornado was never designed to do that, as the TSR-2 was not for AtA combat.

[mrvr6]

If I remember correctly there were a few RADAR bits still used to train us Avionics Technicians a few years ago

With regards to the size issue, has anyone who has built a model of a TSR 2 have a model of a Tornado/Jaguar that they could pose next to it for a photo please?

I'm not trying to settle the discussion as such - I'm actually curious to see for myself as I have stood in awe of the TSR 2 and have been up close to Tornados and they both 'feel' (for what of a better way to express myself! ) the same size to me

Danny

there ya go even though the tsr is further away from the camera you get the gist of it