B-1B in the RAF

Did you just say TSR2?

a resurrected TSR-2 (which was studied by the Thatcher government after the Falklands).
Russell[/QUOTE]

That sound quite interesting for a diehard TSR-2 fan like me. Can you point me to extra info on those studies? I would have thought the TSR would have been beyound ressurecting by then...
 
it was all the tooling was destroyed on the order of Dennis Heally to prevent that very thing. They would have had to start from scratch. Any way by the TSR2 was obsolete. No if you're going to replace the V bombers in the 80s it's either going to be surplus B52s or Nimrods, everything else is either too expensive or wouldn't be taken seriously by the rest of the world.
 
IIRC they were looking at giving it Tornado style intakes and other upgrades. But the project was unrealistic for the reasons that Peg Leg Pom sets out, I'm actually not a TSR2 fan as I think it was too complex an aircraft, I would have gone for the proposed supersonic Buccaneer variant would have been better.
 
Ideally, the RAF would've had a medium-long range bomber, but it didn't because there were other priorities. The UK was hardly abundant with cash during much of the Cold War era, and there was strong political will in places to limit defence spending so as to spend scarce resource on schools, hospitals etc.

- Nuclear deterrent needs to be kept out of harms way. Keeping it on land invites its destruction by conventional means. This is of especial importance to nations like the UK and France who could give a superpower aggressor a very bloody nose, but not overwhelm them, so would definitely not want to be in the position of having to use their nuclear arsenal in the face of conventional attacks upon said arsenal. The safest place is aboard submarines. So, unless the UK government decided to get rid of its (strategic) nuclear weapons, it's not going to put them back aboard vulnerable aircraft at vulnerable airfields.

- The UK is within easy flying range of the European WW3 battlefield, so why spend precious funds on aircraft that are for 90% of likely missions redundant?
Better 400-odd Tornadoes, Buccs and Jaguars than a far smaller fleet of equally vulnerable bombers.

- Soviet air defences. Quite difficult to get past, or could be by the time your bomber force is developed. So why bother?

- The Sea Harrier and Harriers aboard 'aircraft carriers', friendly/allied airbases around the globe, would allow for extended operations.

As said, a nice bonus to the RAF, but hardly first-place on the shopping list.
 
Britain did have a long-range bomber after the Vulcan. It's called the Tornado.
Personally I think they would of been better off going with replacement Buccaneers. Sure the Tornado had it beat with regards to speed and service ceiling thanks to a better thrust-weight ratio but the Buccaneer had seriously a much better range. If Blackburn could successfully produce their proposed P.150 Buccaneer with a speed of mach 1.8 and put the updated avionics in it, which since they originally tested the Tornado's stuff on a Buccaneer would be feasible, then you'd of had a much better option.


They practised a raid from the UK to Akrotiri and back with multiple refuelings along the way. It worked, but the ex-Vulcan crews probably laughed at the rather small bomb load.
Case in point, the Tornado they used was accompanied by a Buccaneer that was used to refuel from to take it on the final leg to Cyprus after the Victor tanker had refuelled both and gone on to Italy to take on more fuel for the return leg. That and some other incidents when operating over the North Sea later on when Tornados needed refuelling and the Buccaneers operating with them didn't does make you wonder about replacing them with an aircraft that has shorter legs. Sure it had the speed advantage but IIRC the Tornados did most of their bombing and ground attacks at subsonic speeds.


One way that the Conservatives could have been persuaded to invest in a long range bomber is if the Vulcans proved unable to make the raids on Port Stanley due to mechanical or structual fatigue. The RAF brass would be hammering down the doors of every Newspaper editor, PR specialist prominant veteran an TV journalist saying they could have prevented all of the losses in men and ships had they had the capability that a V Bomber replacement would have given them. Strong hints would be made suggesting that had such an aircraft been in service the war wouldn't have happened.
Which would of opened them up to some rather interesting question with regards to the fact that the retirement of the Vulcans had already been okayed a couple of years before the Falklands conflict kicked off. Questions such as 'If it was so vital then why did you agree to get rid of it with nary a peep?' or simply being confronted with the refuelling plan which was hideously complicated, see the simplified version here, and tied up so many assets for such a small result.
 
When the Tornado was abuilding, it became apparent very early on in testing that the IDS variant range was going to be disappointing. The ADV Tornado had no such range issues and was faster. Apparently, I was the only one to see a solution to the IDS' range limitations.
Tornado's sub-sonic attack method was due to it's carriage of external stores. Nothing could carry the now illegal JP233 past mach1.

The efficacy of Buccaneer was dependent on it's carriage of internal stores to allow good flight performance. The use of Super-Buccaneer would be dependent on the development of special weapons as was the case with the F-22.

Argentina now owns some Darandal runway denial weapons. I wonder why.

p0130679.jpg
 
Which would of opened them up to some rather interesting question with regards to the fact that the retirement of the Vulcans had already been okayed a couple of years before the Falklands conflict kicked off. Questions such as 'If it was so vital then why did you agree to get rid of it with nary a peep?' or simply being confronted with the refuelling plan which was hideously complicated, see the simplified version here, and tied up so many assets for such a small result.


Thats easy all they have to do is say "Well Labour told us that we'd never again have to opperate outside of the NATO area, and the Conservatives confirmed it."
 
[/FONT said:
AdA;5860697]That sound quite interesting for a diehard TSR-2 fan like me. Can you point me to extra info on those studies? I would have thought the TSR would have been beyound ressurecting by then...


I'm afraid I don't have it to hand, sorry. But various ideas were spun around - turbofan engines for extra range, Concord-style ramp intakes, ect. But as others have pointed out it was killed as being impractical - the jigs and tooling had been destroyed and much of the expertise dispersed.

As The Mann has pointed out, the Americans had a considerable number of F-111's about and with the F15E Strike Eagle coming about its not impossible that they might have been willing to loan or sell a few to the UK.

When the Tornado was abuilding, it became apparent very early on in testing that the IDS variant range was going to be disappointing. The ADV Tornado had no such range issues and was faster. Apparently, I was the only one to see a solution to the IDS' range limitations.
Tornado's sub-sonic attack method was due to it's carriage of external stores. Nothing could carry the now illegal JP233 past mach1.



The problem with the tornado was really its multinational origins. Britain originally wanted a small (around 60ft) strike fighter with a considerable range - able to deploy a single WE.177 tactical nuclear bomb (or a Read Beard tactical nuke) at a range of around 1200 miles. It was to replace the Buccaneer. However, the Germans and Italians wanted a light attack fighter to replace their Lockheed F-101 Starfighters. The British were desperate to spread costs and the Europeans were desperate to gain British technical expertise. The result was a compromise which never really satisfied anybody.

Russell
 
Tornado should never have entered RAF service. If they'd listened to the pilots they would have gone with a Buccaneer with the Tornados avionics. For low level strike there was no better aircraft in the world. Still isn't. The RAF just didn't want to admit that they'd been wrong in the 60s when they insisted on first TSR2 and then the F111. I think it likely that had the Bucc been further developed into an S3 and possibly S4 version then the countries that bought the Tornado would have bought it instead.
 
Tornado should never have entered RAF service. If they'd listened to the pilots they would have gone with a Buccaneer with the Tornados avionics. For low level strike there was no better aircraft in the world. Still isn't. The RAF just didn't want to admit that they'd been wrong in the 60s when they insisted on first TSR2 and then the F111. I think it likely that had the Bucc been further developed into an S3 and possibly S4 version then the countries that bought the Tornado would have bought it instead.

Well sadly no one made that remark until after the Tonka entered service. It was not the aircraft the RAF had called for but an emasculated version built also to German and Italian needs. No one got what they wanted. However, it did have considerable potential.

My own personal preference would have been for the cancellation of the TSR-2 in the late 50's early 60's in return for co-operation with the Fleet Air Arm on the Buccaneer. The S.1 version with the Gyron engines and analogue electronic enters service as per OTL, but the S.2 Version with the Speys enters service with a digital electronic system, thanks to the RAF funding. An S.3 version enters around 1968-1970 with up rated Speys (think the Allison TF41-A-2 Turbofan Spey development), enlarged undercarriage and the equivalent of the TSR-2 avionics. It doesn't even need to be capable of supersonic speeds. Come to the late 70's/early 80's a more substantial VG aircraft replaces the Bucc in both the interceptor and strike role (think F-15 variants) in both the Navy and RAF.

Russell
 
Top