Jump to content

TSR2 Out of Service Date


Richard E

Recommended Posts

History would have been different and therefore funding would have been freed up that could have allowed for upgrades.

The funding freed would have gone elswhere :winkgrin: any excuse to cut spending! :)

Would have thought over a longer and longer time the expense of keeping fleet airbourne would be in the end the deciding factor, and who are we to know that some problem could occur later in it's life causing retirement, and reading this thread the letters EAP keeps popping up in my head, (strange I know!) perhaps it would have had a different life (and parts!) - in the sense of the requirement of a fighter, had the TSR2 got its fair share of service..........interesting thread this, so many on why the thing was cancelled, none of when its life would end!

Edited by Steve Zodiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cornish said:
I think at the moment people would also have had to choose between donating to "Vulcan To The Sky" or "TSR To The Sky".

Both of which are/would have been admiralable causes. :)

Had the TSR 2 gone into service would it have been as iconic as the Vulcan? :hmmm:

Looking at the Tornado and how it's been upgraded over the years I guess that the TSR 2 would've been on it's way out now in something like a GR3 or 5 gise. :unsure:

As for a replacement? I really don't know! :shrug:

The Government seem to prefer to keep British jobs rather than buy something 'off the shelf' from America so I suspect that they would have brought something new off BAe Systems, assuming that the British aviation industry continued after the TSR 2 (not to mention that BAe proved with the Hawk that it's not completely dead yet :huh: ).

And if we could buy 'off the shelf' what would we get? :unsure: I don't think we'd have gone for the F-15. F-16 or F-18 because it's practically RAF tradition to buy something in develpment that will go over budget and be several years late in service :rolleyes: Would Uncle Sam let us, and could we afford to, buy the F-22 Raptor maybe? :beer:

Danny

Edited by Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets be honest i was talking to a lighning pilot once and to quote him at the time of lighnings retirement " the airframe is too old and can't keep up with modern technology much the same as the tsr 2 would have been if you look at it realisticaly instead of with rose coloured spectacles it would have if gone into service retired about the same time as the lightning and it was a big if if it would have ever been taken on in the first place

it had a very small wing area limiting loads plus a lot of the interior was taken up with avionics it was always going to be a white elephant and a dream ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know where you got that from Dave. Service ceiling for the TSR2 was in the order of 54000 feet, I have seen quotes of up to 60000. It was undoubtedly optimised for the supersonic dash at 100 feet :yikes: but it could do high as well. IIRC it was designed for a Hi-Lo-Hi mission profile. Google "GOR 339" for more info.

I think it was one of Paul Lucas' articles in MAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets be honest i was talking to a lighning pilot once and to quote him at the time of lighnings retirement " the airframe is too old and can't keep up with modern technology much the same as the tsr 2 would have been if you look at it realisticaly instead of with rose coloured spectacles it would have if gone into service retired about the same time as the lightning and it was a big if if it would have ever been taken on in the first place

it had a very small wing area limiting loads plus a lot of the interior was taken up with avionics it was always going to be a white elephant and a dream ........

Hmmmmm, I have not really posted on this thread for a couple of reasons, I am currently reading Stephen Hastings book 'The Murder of TSR-2' so until that is done I do not have the full background as to the reasons behind the cancellation.

At the time of going to press (1966) the records show that the TSR-2 programme cost the government 165 million, which in them days was a lot of money but the cost per unit would be greatly reduced as production was underway by the time of cancellation.

I digress.........tornado64, your comments seem a little uneducated?, the claims that the TSR-2 would have been a 'white elephant and a dream' have no substance what so-ever, in all aspects of the development programme the TSR-2 superseeded anything on the market at the time, had it gone into service for the purpose it was developed it would have given Britain a leading aircraft that was adaptable and capable, as for future developments, the possibilities were incredible, like has been mentioned before in this thread once the technology improved avionics then there would have been vast amounts of space in the airframe for more equipment.

In almost every aspect of aircraft development in the UK today the TSR-2 legacy lives on, Tornado, Typhoon, Jaguar, Concorde all benefitted from the TSR-2 programme......again I digress.

Back to the book!!, keep this thread going people it is most interesting.

Regards,

JB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets be honest i was talking to a lighning pilot once and to quote him at the time of lighnings retirement " the airframe is too old and can't keep up with modern technology much the same as the tsr 2 would have been if you look at it realisticaly instead of with rose coloured spectacles it would have if gone into service retired about the same time as the lightning and it was a big if if it would have ever been taken on in the first place

it had a very small wing area limiting loads plus a lot of the interior was taken up with avionics it was always going to be a white elephant and a dream ........

Tornado64

The Lightning was an older airframe than the TSR2

The Lightning never had any real money spent on updating its technology - yes the instrumentation set was upgraded as part of the change from Mk.2 to Mk.3 and subsequent, but the radar was essentially the same as it ever was, piecemeal tweaks here and there do not amount to a major change in technology. The radar and fire control system on the Lightning was at best, 1950's technology - and that was in the case when it retired.

Yes the TSR.2 was stuffed with avionics - it needed to be to carry out its role however, those avionics were a quantum leap from thos on the Lightning - micro valves etc in lieu of normal sized valves yet delivering more capability than previously. The change to solid state and thence to digitisation would have freed up so much space that could have been used for enhanced capability/more fuel/both and don't forget, this is the technological advantage that led to the Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon.

Regarding the political perspective, it's all too easy to blame the Labour government because after all, they are the ones who ended up cancelling it however, given the economic situation at the time (nation living on extended credit - not that that could happen again :innocent: ), had the Tories had won the election they too would have probably ended up cancelling the project anyway! Counter briefing by a certain VERY senior officer and biased civil servants wrecked the project.

Wez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly had TSR-2 not been cancelled and the technical issues been overcome in a timely manner, best estimates of in squadron service would have been 1969/1970 and more than likely 1971. Prior to cancellation there were mutterings in RAF circles of its survivability in it's low level strike role [its physical profile made for a nice radar signiture, for a tactical/interdiction strike aircraft this thing was large] at cancellation the machine had not proved it could sustain mach 1 + over extended distances/periods. The electrical generation systems was up to limit, this was prior to adding the "in service avionics". The avionics were analogue to boot, which almost certainly would have required early replacement. The engine development alone had risen from £7 million to £32 million and that is 1960's pounds!

Had TSR-2 entered service, it may well have found a niche like Canberra PR9 and enjoyed a long service life, however one of the concerns and issues to be resolved at development stage was the structutral interface between fuselage and wing which given the few test flights was subject to fatigue concerns. Given the low level 'hammer' TSR-2 would have been given in-service would suggest to me a limited service life.

I understand the national pride stirred up in people when it comes to home grown products, but, there has to be a reality check in assessing an aircraft that never proceeded passed the prototype stage. Yes, it was utimatley that a poltician weilded the axe there wasn't any shortage of problems and the cost had grown to quite astronomical proportions.

Marty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally the RAF did upgrade the Buccs after the Red Flag crash - they served a good few years after that and they could have flown on for a good few years after their retirement; they weren't retired for fatigue reasons. Like the Canberra, the RAF still has nothing that can match the capability provided by the Bucc.

If I remember the numbers correctly the buccaneer force after the Red Flag crash was cut from 90 to around 60 aircrafts. The ones that were considered to be too expensive to repair were simply scrapped. Had the money been there to repair them all maybe it would have been done?

Funding wise yes, it's true that had the TSR.2 gone into service we'd have seen no Buccaneers, no Tornado and probably no Jaguar (but I believe the Canberra would have been kept for the number of duties it actually performed), so the RAF would have had more money available. However the economic situation of Britain in the '70s would have never allowed the RAF to spend on the TSR.2 the same kind of money the USAF used to upgrade the B-52s. We just have to look at how many cuts had to be made in those years on a number of projects. We have also to remember one thing: had the TSR.2 allowed money to be saved, other Defence projects might have used that money. In a sense the real enemy of the TSR.2 was not the government, was not the F-111: it was the SLBM program ! This provided the UK with the best possible nuclear deterrent but also drained a lot of resources.

Comparing the TSR.2 and the Nimrod is wrong in my opinion. Different missions, different operating costs, different requirements. In the USA the Orion is still going strong too, but where are the tomcats and the F-111s ? The KC-135s are still around but where are the B-58s ?

The TSR.2 should be compared to similar planes, first of all the F-111. The USAF ones were retired a while ago even if they were younger airframes. The Australian ones are still operational as they fulfil a role that is considered important. Would the TSR.2 fulfilled a similarly important role ? Not sure.

Another similar plane could be considered to be the A-5 Vigilante. Older than the TSR.2 by a good few years, yet it managed to stay operational for around 20 years as a reconaissance aircraft. Assuming a 20 something year career, the TSR.2 would have been retired in the early '90s.

Very different from an engineering perspective but similar in some areas is the Mirage IV. These as I said previously were always well kept ready for nuclear doomsday and lasted 30 years as bombers and another 10 as recce. Again, it was kept in service because it was considered a vital asset for the national defence.

Last but not least, the Buccaneer that in RAF service lasted 25 years, retiring in 1994.

Considering all of these planes and their career, I'm more and more inclined to think that 1990 would have been pretty much the end of the TSR.2 career. That is what most people seem to think here too.

Yes, it is only whiffery, but it is fun !

Giorgio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also lets not forget about the times and the purpose it it was designed for most of what was said about it would have been cold war propaganda

as much as the russians used to do with their may day parade through red square showing their millitary power

a lot of the tsr2 was fantasy blagging to warn russia off with alleged technical abilities

that weren't necessarily there or even available fully develloped for a few years down the line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it had a very small wing area limiting loads plus a lot of the interior was taken up with avionics it was always going to be a white elephant and a dream ........

The TSR2 did not have a very small wing area. Go and stand underneath one!

tsr2comparison.gif

Your other comments also betray a distinct lack of knowledge of the aircraft.

F-111 was a fine aircraft - eventually. So would the TSR2 have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a lot of the tsr2 was fantasy blagging to warn russia off with alleged technical abilities

that weren't necessarily there or even available fully develloped for a few years down the line

tornado64

The systems and avionics for the TSR-2 were all under full development at the time of the test flights, the prototype XR219 didn't fly with all of them becouse there was no need to, the aircraft needed proving first and then the systems came later.

A good book to read is 'TSR-2 Precision Attack to Tornado' by John Forbat, the author was directly involved with the devolopment of the nav attack system, flight systems, radar systems and so on, the book is a brilliant insight into the groundbreaking technology that was developed for the TSR-2 and that ultimatly led to a great deal of sytems that ended up in the Tornado and Jaguar.

Also a good lunch time read is 'TSR-2 an Aeroguide Special, this is a brief softback that is good for modelling refs. and gives a good description of the main ingredients in the project.

After the project was cancelled the Plowden Committee estimated that it would effect the eighty percent of the aviation industry for the next 25 years and they were not far wrong, we had a lead industry that was world beating, the project from design to first flight was a mere five years and the in service date would have been five years or less after that, compare that to the saga of the Eurofighter Typhoon!.

If the TSR-2 was 'fantasy blagging' then they did a good job of it, like I have stated before, the Tornado, Jaguar, Concorde and a few others in between all benefitted directly as a result of the systems that were developed for the TSR-2.

Regards,

JB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon if the TSR.2 had entered service it may well have changed what happened to the UK aviation industry....................so the replacement might have been a home grown product that simply doesn't exist in this world.

How gutted would you be if you'd gone from TSR.2 to the F/A-18.

No offence to fans of the bug, but it's no TSR.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon if the TSR.2 had entered service it may well have changed what happened to the UK aviation industry

Could you imagine a world without that Mickey Mouse outfit BAe :rofl: I wonder what sexy aircraft Saunders Roe would have dreamed up by now.

I rarely agree with any suggestion that a Canberra was replaceable, but as stated before the TSR2 was aimed at reducing both V- Bombers and Canberra Bombers / Interdictors, but alas SLBM was chosen instead, which meant that in the Instant Sunshine role, TSR2, Canberra & V - Bombers lost a very important job (Mind you I bet it cheered up a few Canberra Navs who'd had a low level birdstrike through the nose dome on LABS) As for Recce, yup, PR9 all the way spank you velly muchlys :worthy: Just a shame they ran out of pressurisation cycles before the spars fatigued :doh:

I still think given a chance, and having listened to and read various comments from Roland Beamont about the aircraft, it would have done both itself and the UK Aviation Industry justice. I dont recall Bea actually saying anything bad about the design other than stupid little niggles.

Now, for those of you there that like Whiffing TSR2's, anyone slung JP233 underneath yet?

As for a replacement, well, lets get Whiffing Guys & Gals.......... :hmmm: Wheres Chadwick & Petter when you want them :analintruder:

Bex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TSR2 did not have a very small wing area. Go and stand underneath one!

tsr2comparison.gif

Your other comments also betray a distinct lack of knowledge of the aircraft.

F-111 was a fine aircraft - eventually. So would the TSR2 have been.

i have and it does duxford ( for it's behemouth size compared to the aircraft shown alongside ) the jaguar was a far more sensible choice with nukes left to navy they could if airfield was damaged land on rough strips or motorways leading to faster turnarounds working closer to the front line the tsr2 would be very much be left on large home territory runways if it was up to scratch in the foreseeable and it's abillities were so fantastic a government would not i repeat not have turned it down in the cold war stand off

the fact that they did speaks volumes as they probably knew what was on the drawing boards way before us

don't forget if you wise up the industry it was from and the customer will never tell the full truth even when it is no longer a secret ( they only tell you what propaganda they want you to know )

no denying it it was a fantastic propaganda machine so it served it's purpose by all those singing it's praises here

Edited by tornado64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody keeps on about the relinquishement of the "bucket of instant sunshine" role.

Whilst the STRATEGIC deterrent role was handed over to the Navy with Polaris etc, I'm sure the RAF retained the TACTICAL nuclear role with free-fall WE177 bombs - this is after all what the Bucc's and Tonka's were retained in Germany for. Therefore, had TSR.2 entered service surely it too would have fulfilled this role? Or am I missing something here?

Wez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody keeps on about the relinquishement of the "bucket of instant sunshine" role.

Whilst the STRATEGIC deterrent role was handed over to the Navy with Polaris etc, I'm sure the RAF retained the TACTICAL nuclear role with free-fall WE177 bombs - this is after all what the Bucc's and Tonka's were retained in Germany for. Therefore, had TSR.2 entered service surely it too would have fulfilled this role? Or am I missing something here?

Wez

Wez,

The B (i) Mk8 Canberra wrote the book on RAF Nuclear LABS (Low Altitude Bombing System) tactics (and scared the cr@p out of a fair few Navs in the process), the Buccaneer & Tonka took over this role from them, both the TSR2 & Tornado were designed as MRCA ( Must Replace Canberra Again) so, had the TSR2 been in service, the B (i) Mk8 would have had its tac nuke role taken away and the Tornado would never have been built. What must also be remembered is that TSR2 was designed to replace V - Bombers, which were Strategic Nuclear Bombers, so therefore one would assume discussing the loss of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Weapon systems is valid :shrug:

Bex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly right Wez.

The T in TSR2 is TACTICAL!

tornado64 - I honestly cannot make out what you are trying to say, can you try adding some punctuation to your sentences? If you are still convinced the wing of the TSR2 is small can you explain why the even smaller wings of the Tornado and Jaguar did a respectable job of carrying underwing munitions?

Bex - TSR2 was not a v-bomber replacement, it was very specifically a Canberra replacement.

Edited by DamienB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is it was originally designed with strategic strike in mind, to replace and Canberra and as previously mentioned reduction of the V Force. I'm sure it would have provided some tatical nuclear capbility. Although the RAF were muttering about it survivability in its intended role given its profile it would have been more radar visiable than Vulcan.

Marty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is it was originally designed with strategic strike in mind, to replace and Canberra and as previously mentioned reduction of the V Force. I'm sure it would have provided some tatical nuclear capbility. Although the RAF were muttering about it survivability in its intended role given its profile it would have been more radar visiable than Vulcan.

Marty...

My understanding was that the TSR.2 was intended to replace the Canberra NOT the V-Bombers - although it was recognised it could have taken on some of the V-Bombers tasking. The jibe of MRCA = Must Replace Canberras Again is a reference to the cancellation of the original aircraft intended to do just that the first time namely the TSR.2!

I was unaware that the TSR.2's radar signiature was greater than a Vulcan's although that could have been mitigated by operating down in the weeds amongst the clutter where Soviet radar's were not so good. I know the Vulcan used to loom rather large on Western ground radars as revealed during Red Flag exercises but the Vulcan had to have flown at a higher altitude than a TSR.2 would have (I know the Vulcan is an incredibly manouverable aircraft for its size but it still has a much larger wingspan than a TSR.2 and would thus have to fly higher to provide clearance for the wingspan during turning/banking manouvers).

Wez

Edited by Wez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...