TSR-2 Built & in service

Taking a cue from the Avro Arrow TL (NOT CANADA-WANK) thread, what if the BAC TSR-2 was actually ordered by the British government instead of the scandalous cancellation. Consequentially the TSR-2 became the RAF's main tactical strike bomber.

TSR2.png


So how successful would it be in RAF service?

Could export orders, eg like to Australia for instance (if not elsewhere), be achieved?

AND, to top it off, in the spirit of Commonwealth unity, what if the Avro Arrow was ordered by the RAF to fly side by side with the TSR-2? What could we thus expect then?

Avro_Arrow_rollout.jpg


Discuss.
 
I doubt the Avro Arrow would ever be ordered by the RAF - Britain's too small a country to need that kind of long-range performance.

Note the English Electric Lightning - stupendous rate of climb but pitiful range...
 
Taking a cue from the Avro Arrow TL (NOT CANADA-WANK) thread, what if the BAC TSR-2 was actually ordered by the British government instead of the scandalous cancellation. Consequentially the TSR-2 became the RAF's main tactical strike bomber.

So how successful would it be in RAF service?

Could export orders, eg like to Australia for instance (if not elsewhere), be achieved?

AND, to top it off, in the spirit of Commonwealth unity, what if the Avro Arrow was ordered by the RAF to fly side by side with the TSR-2? What could we thus expect then?

First off, why would RAF order Arrows? Manned interceptors were thing of a past. For general usage F-4 Phantom was a much better OTL choice.


As for TSR-2, I'd guess that the main result is that there will be no Panavia Tornado. Here's a short ATL, British aircraft fans should show errrors in my thinking:

-TSR2 for TSR roles -> no Panavia Tornado
-> More French-German co-operation without British participation. French are not interested in providing of a interdiction aircraft, though. Luftwaffe ends up buying F-111 or more F-4's for interdiction duties.
-> As RAF need interceptors, F-15 Eagle instead of Tornado ADV in mid 1980's. (Alternatively earlier Eurofighter.) Let's call the version F-15GB. To satisfy British industries it has British radar, SkyFlash missiles etc.
-> With RAF using American aircraft the UK-US industrial co-operation is stronger than OTL.
-> As TSR-2's are wearing out, a new FOAS project by UK is seriously considered, but in the end it is decided to buy F-15UK's (Strike Eagle, UK version) for maximum compatibility with the interceptor force and US-UK industrial co-operation.
-> F-35 has more UK input
-France heads the Eurofighter project in co-operation with Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
-No Horizon destroyer project. Instead, RN co-operates with USN for something which looks like a cross between LCS-DDX-DDG51 using Aegis system and Standard missiles.

TSR-2 won't have range to be usable in Falklands, though it will show it's qualities for better or worse in the Gulf. In post Cold-War environment it would continue in RAF service, albeit modernized and would show above skies of Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. There would be no significant historical differences, although TSR-2 is way cooler than Tornado.
 
Last edited:
In 1958 it equaled any of it's contemporarys, in fact it beat most of them.

Even if you accept it - slightly better than the average is interesting, but not revolutionary.

I don't accept it, the Arrow looks better than the aircraft that were already in service in 1958, but not the new aircraft that were coming in service in 1959

1. Here is the Arrow's numbers from Wikipedia. The Arrow first flew in 1958

Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)

2. Here is a plane that first flew in 1956, and went into service in 1959. This had the same intended role as the Arrow - heavy interceptor

Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (1,525 mph, 2,455 km/h)
Range: 1,800 mi (1,600 nm, 2,900 km) combat
Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nm, 4,300 km)


3. Here is another plane that first flew in 1958, and went into service in 1960

Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h)
Combat radius: 367 NM (422 mi, 680 km)
Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)



The 2nd plane - the F-106 Delta Dart. The 3rd plane - F4 Phantom II.
 
Even if you accept it - slightly better than the average is interesting, but not revolutionary.

I don't accept it, the Arrow looks better than the aircraft that were already in service in 1958, but not the new aircraft that were coming in service in 1959

1. Here is the Arrow's numbers from Wikipedia.

First off you are quoting from Wiki, their figures are wrong, not by much but nevertheless wrong.

Then you are comparing a prototype with production models in service. A real comparison would be with the prototypes of the machines you mentioned then you would see why the Arrow was a revolutionary machine.
 
Then you are comparing a prototype with production models in service. A real comparison would be with the prototypes of the machines you mentioned then you would see why the Arrow was a revolutionary machine.

I'm still waiting to hear why.

What specifically is it that you think that the Arrow could do, which places it in a different league ("revolutionary" in your words) than other aircraft that were being introduced in the same time frame, such as the F4 or the F106?
 
First off, why would RAF order Arrows? Manned interceptors were thing of a past. For general usage F-4 Phantom was a much better OTL choice.

The F-4 was more expensive, and was years later. The 1958 Arrows smoked most of its rivals. Expensive, but top-drawer for its time and would still be a potent weapon right up to the end of the Cold War. When the proposals were put forth by the RCAF in 1953, most of the aircraft makers in Europe thought the specifications desired were impossible. But the Arrow was ready to fly by 1957, and would have been ready to rock by 1960. Yes, the Phantom-II was around by then - but the Arrow out of the gate was faster, and with internal bomb bays probably woulda had a better radar cross-section, too.

As for TSR-2, I'd guess that the main result is that there will be no Panavia Tornado. Here's a short ATL, British aircraft fans should show errrors in my thinking:

-TSR2 for TSR roles -> no Panavia Tornado
-> More French-German co-operation without British participation. French are not interested in providing of a interdiction aircraft, though. Luftwaffe ends up buying F-111 or more F-4's for interdiction duties.

Or they could get the TSR2 as well. The Phantoms were electronized beasts like the Arrow, and all three were very, very fast. The Arrow would have the edge on radar cross-section, and the PS-13 engines were killers power-wise. The Arrow would IMO be a very good fighter aircraft for anybody able to afford it, because they were not cheap.

-> As RAF need interceptors, F-15 Eagle instead of Tornado ADV in mid 1980's. (Alternatively earlier Eurofighter.) Let's call the version F-15GB. To satisfy British industries it has British radar, SkyFlash missiles etc.
-> With RAF using American aircraft the UK-US industrial co-operation is stronger than OTL.
-> As TSR-2's are wearing out, a new FOAS project by UK is seriously considered, but in the end it is decided to buy F-15UK's (Strike Eagle, UK version) for maximum compatibility with the interceptor force and US-UK industrial co-operation.

Why are you assuming that Britain would decide to just buy US airplanes with British components if they can build their own? More expensive, but it would be a matter of pride to make their own. Most of the overseas buyers of the F-15E and its variants were countries which didn't have the capacity to build their own aircraft - South Korea, Japan, Israel. Britain doesn't have that problem. The sales from the TSR-2 and Arrow would give both the ability to build later models. I can imagine TSR-3 and CF-106 projects, building on what was learned with the TSR-2 and the Arrow.

-> F-35 has more UK input

More experience with ultra-high-speed interceptors would probably give the Brits the lead on developing the engines and speed capabilites of the F-35.
 
First to make this wounderful TL work, we need no Labor goverment in 1965-1967!
and no Fred Mulley as minister of aerospace

because Labor regarded the Bristish Aerospace Industry as backwards!
and gloryfied the US Aerospace Industry and wandet the F-111 and Not TSR-2
so in 1965 They cancelled BAC-TSR 2 and order 50 F-111K only to cancelled that in 1966-67 :eek:

the joke was F-111 is a Frankenstein bastard by robert McNamara
and TSR-2 the most advance Bomber of his time...

-> More French-German co-operation without British participation. French are not interested in providing of a interdiction aircraft, though. Luftwaffe ends up buying F-111 or more F-4's for interdiction duties.

France problem is they wandet French Hardware for French Military
like Dassault Etendard and not Fiat G-91
or Eurofighter program were France step out and build Raffale fighter

only in Program were France need Help or money they made cooperation.
Concorde is best exampel, by the way it was France how save the Concord Program vor Evil Labor goverment who wandet US SST!
or AFVG Program were England and France study Variable geometry wing until France step out and build Mirage G-1

but in Europe Airforces were a need for new Aircraft, wat end in OTL in Panavia Tornado program.
In 1968, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Canada formed a working group to examine replacements
for the F-104 Starfighter, initially called the Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA).
wat if they take TSR-2 as Base for Bomber and resurrecting the Avro Arrow as fighter?


dit you know that:
A government study into the feasibility of resurrecting the TSR-2 project was carried out during the early 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had come to power.
 
The F-4 was more expensive, and was years later. The 1958 Arrows smoked most of its rivals. Expensive, but top-drawer for its time and would still be a potent weapon right up to the end of the Cold War. When the proposals were put forth by the RCAF in 1953, most of the aircraft makers in Europe thought the specifications desired were impossible. But the Arrow was ready to fly by 1957, and would have been ready to rock by 1960. Yes, the Phantom-II was around by then - but the Arrow out of the gate was faster, and with internal bomb bays probably woulda had a better radar cross-section, too.

You are ignoring the strategic setting. AFAIK, Lighting force was mainly intended to defend V-bomber bases in case of a very short war. There's no additional benefit in purchasing more expensive, although much more capable, fighter. Especially as Lightning was just about to enter service. Phantom II would enter service as in OTL, first to FAA, then to RAF. By late 1960's Arrow starts to look like old-fashioned concept, IMHO.

Now I'm not sure, but wasn't Arrow's specs defined especially for defense of Canada, while defense of Britain to allow V-bombers to take off would demand just very high climb rate.

TOr they could get the TSR2 as well. The Phantoms were electronized beasts like the Arrow, and all three were very, very fast. The Arrow would have the edge on radar cross-section, and the PS-13 engines were killers power-wise. The Arrow would IMO be a very good fighter aircraft for anybody able to afford it, because they were not cheap.

The Luftwaffe might get TSR-2 is a good point which I overlooked.

Why are you assuming that Britain would decide to just buy US airplanes with British components if they can build their own? More expensive, but it would be a matter of pride to make their own. Most of the overseas buyers of the F-15E and its variants were countries which didn't have the capacity to build their own aircraft - South Korea, Japan, Israel. Britain doesn't have that problem. The sales from the TSR-2 and Arrow would give both the ability to build later models. I can imagine TSR-3 and CF-106 projects, building on what was learned with the TSR-2 and the Arrow.

Well, RAF in OTL did it in F-4 buy already. Without need for Tornado GR, the demand is there only for ADV quantities, and for that specification I have hard time seeing that a domestic aircraft would be developed. As for Canada, in OTL they bought 150 Hornets. I have hard time seeing even a joint UK-Canada project.

By the time TSR-2 would need replacement, the Cold War would be over, so I would imagine TSR-3 going way of FOAS. F-15UK was the "optimal" option for this ATL RAF.

More experience with ultra-high-speed interceptors would probably give the Brits the lead on developing the engines and speed capabilites of the F-35.

Maybe, on the other hand one has to remember that the F-35 was supposed to be the cheap fighter to cater US export needs too.
 
I'm still waiting to hear why.

What specifically is it that you think that the Arrow could do, which places it in a different league ("revolutionary" in your words) than other aircraft that were being introduced in the same time frame, such as the F4 or the F106?

First off it's performance. Then, as there were some that equaled its performance, the most radical feature was the internal weapon storage that has only returned with the stealth machines. This gave it a clean profile and small radar signature.

The system for reloading the weapon system was modularised and extremely efficient. They could have been turned around in minutes with any of the mixes of ordinance that were available in preloaded modules.
 
If the TSR-2 had not been cancelled, as has been already posted - no RAF Tornado. The RAF wanted both versions, the requirement for the ADV was for range & loiter time - it was in effect a modern Mosquito. Obviously with TSR-2 it wouldn't need the IDS version, so its unlikely it would be in the project. Yes, it's possible that Germany would also have the TSR-2 but IMO unlikely - too expensive.
But replace the Lightning with the F-15? Surely the timescale is wrong.
It's just as possible that the Government might have chosen the other Euro option and gone for the Saab Viggen - which would supplement the ground-attack capability of the TSR-2, and give the wanted air-to-air to counter Soviet aircraft with their stand-off missiles.
 
But replace the Lightning with the F-15? Surely the timescale is wrong. It's just as possible that the Government might have chosen the other Euro option and gone for the Saab Viggen - which would supplement the ground-attack capability of the TSR-2, and give the wanted air-to-air to counter Soviet aircraft with their stand-off missiles.

In OTL ADV was introduced (with concrete instead of radar, IIRC) in 1985, by the time F-15C was in service. Of course Tomcat is also an option with it's long range Phoenix missiles suitable for long range killing of Soviet bombers.

While Viggen in RAF colours would be very cool, I'm not sure whether British pride would give in to purchasing Viggen. Also, for the timeframe it's rather old aircraft expected to replaced by JAS Gripen by early 1990's. Viggen itself wasn't multirole aircraft, it had different versions for attack, reconnaissance and interceptor duties, although naturally a multi-role variant could have been developed. Viggen also lacked the endurance of ADV, Tomcat or Eagle.

But if the Viggen was chosen, it would be known as the "Blonde" as there seems to be stereotype of Scandinavian blondes, and the ADV paint scheme was rather light coloured...
 

So if, as DMA suggests, the RAF ordered them as well that would be a respectable production run.

Now with the Arrow in service the other revolutionary aspects of it's design such as fly by wire, heat resistant alloys for the turbine blades and the ability to execute a 2G turn above Mach 1 would have to be adopted by it's competitors or they would fall by the wayside.
 
France problem is they wandet French Hardware for French Military
like Dassault Etendard and not Fiat G-91
or Eurofighter program were France step out and build Raffale fighter

Not really.

What France wanted was a plane that
a) could be used from a carrier and
b) was trully multi-role early in its life ( and not as an aside ), esp. wrt ground attack capability.

This was because the new plane was supposed to replace quite a few ( 7, IIRC ) different planes in the french inventory.

OTOH, the other participents were only interested in a pure interceptor and superiority fighter ( I know ground attack capabilities were added to the Eurofighter, but that was later ).

That's the main reason the Eurofighter is 25% heavier than the Rafale and Rafale got a true multi-role version from F2 standard, while Eurofighter will have to wait for tranche 3 to get significant ground attack capabilities ( to say nothing of the capabilities of F3 rafale, eg nuclear strike ), if it is used ( eg again, Italy wants to keep Eurofighters in pure interceptor mode and use F-35 as ground attack crafts ).

So, in this case, France made the decision to go alone for one plane which could do all it wanted, instead of having to buy several planes.
 
In OTL ADV was introduced (with concrete instead of radar, IIRC) in 1985, by the time F-15C was in service. Of course Tomcat is also an option with it's long range Phoenix missiles suitable for long range killing of Soviet bombers.

That's because the RAF had to wait, for the ADV. Because it had ordered the TSR-2, it would not have any need for the Tornado IDS, and having no need a Air-Defence Variant wouldn't be built - no one else wanted it.
The RAF would've probably had Phantoms - no P1154, and the ex-FAA ones as well; but still had a requirement for a more effective 'fighter' than the Lightning.
Agree the Tomcat would be an option - it might be better without the need for the naval extras. Don't see where 'pride' comes into it with the Viggen - think the RAF would prefer a Swedish aircraft rather than a French aircraft!!
 
TSR-2

Though a fantastic aircraft, TSR-2, had it been built (but forget 150, how many F-111's were ordered in it's place, then after that went, new build Buccaneers?), it would, once production ended, at best, by 1973, left a large hole in the workload for UK aerospace.
Because with TSR-2, no Tornado, quite likely others gone too, like Jaguar, (which means whatever is built as an advanced trainer, lacks the Adour engine for Jaguar, likely a lesser trainer then with the old Viper engine, so a lot of Hawk exports over the long term do not happen).

It was also not very exportable, Mountbatten, (not the government), had as early as 1962/3 put off the Australians, 'it's bound to be cancelled, don't bother'.
The management of the whole programme was appalling, as the really hard stuff began, like getting the very advanced avionics to work as TSR-2 neared service, this would have reared it's head again.
Forget TSR-2, at least to the original specs, in service before 1970/1.

TSR-2, by resulting in other programmes we are familar with today, never happening, would have meant advanced military combat aircraft in the UK, would purely be a licence build effort, from the mid 70's, no large design/flight test effort for Tornado, then Typhoon (Typhoon is essentially a BAe design). No Fly By Wire programmes by modifying that Jaguar, then no EAP advanced demonstrator, the precursor to Eurofighter.
In this light, it's hard to see the level of UK involvement in F-35 to the level we see now, it would have been on a par with the Netherlands on this project.

What killed TSR-2 really, the botched way it was mangaged, opposition not just from politicians, but from other service chiefs-the Navy in particular, the Chief Scientific Advisor to the MoD and others, who politicans relied on for advice.

The whole array of programmes and their cancellations, in the mid 60's, was the fall out still from the 1957 review, which deprived the UK industry of making exportable products, like developed Lightnings and/or P.1121.
What survived, the spec for TSR-2, was 'gold plated' by the RAF since no other type was then in the running.

In all this, the UK was making an type that could do most of what TSR-2 promised, at the much lower price, the Buccaneer.
Hawkers even proposed versions with avionics suited more for overland attack, they had already found that lack of RAF interest, had stymied ecport efforts for this fine aircraft, 'if it's so good, why doesn't the RAF buy it?'

Even so, the TSR-2 would have looked great in RAF colours, it would once developed, have been a formidable machine.
It's a shame, but really, the future was in multi national projects, this was the best way to preserve UK design/production skills, not yet another short production run, or more likely cancellation.
The RAF should have adopted Buccaneer S.2 much sooner, then developing it's systems further.

Sure the Wilson government axed projects, but it was not all about buying from the US, witness the Harrier, Jaguar, Nimrod, what became the Tornado and the Hawk were launched.
 
Top