TSR-2 Built & in service

[merlin]

Re: Sonicboy - Yes well argued case, for the downside consequences of TSR-2.
I wonder if the arguement for the RAF ordering FAA aircraft i.e. the Buccaneer, shouldn't go even earlier!?
There is surely a case for the RAF not ordering the Gloster Javelin but the De Haviland (Sea) Vixen instead as its all weather interceptor?

Couldn't that then be then developed as a multi-role aircraft then the Javelin could?

Any comments or should I have started another thread?

 

[PMN1]

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).

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.

I can see there being a problem for Tornado but the requirement that led to the Jaguar and the Hawk are still going to exist.

Improvements to the TSR2 are going to be a possibility as is a FBW modification of TSR2 (if Jaguar or an equivalent doesn't appear).

I wonder if a BAC P45 of HS1173 derived aircraft might get a look in?

 

[SONICBOY]

TSR-2

I agree that operationally, there was still the requirement for Jaguar, or at the time, an advanced trainer that got too big for the role, so the original mainly trainer, with a secondary light attack role, became reversed by the largely UK push for the single seater to be more capable.
What became Jaguar made more practical sense than a small V-G type like the BAC proposal.
But, more money burned on TSR-2 would maybe mean something else has to give, difficult to predict, but the Treasury might say, 'you are getting a strike aircraft in TSR-2, a lighter attack aircraft in the Harrier, why a third type?'

Certainly out of DH.110/Sea Vixen and Javelin, the former was the better type and building both was a waste, though developed versions into the 60's would also have been wasteful, really the DH.110 developed operationally, could and should have been in service sooner, building subsonic Sea Vixens still as late as the early/mid 60's was not a great advert for UK industry.

 

[PMN1]

Has anyone seen what the planned yearly production rate of TSR2's was to be and when it was hoped to start?
​

 

[PMN1]

I've posted this before but since TSR2 and air defence Tornado have been mentioned together, this is from Derek Wood's 'Project cancelled' - this is his 1964 scenario.



Possibly a bit overoptimistic but since there were proposals for a fighter version of the Buccaneer, i dont see why there shouldn't be proposals for a stand off interceptor version of TSR2 to fill the Tornado ADV role.



Once again we enter the realms of what might have been. Ignoring all the prophets of doom and the left-wingers who want to turn aircraft works into jam factories, the cabinet thrashes out a workable policy. A team goes to Washington determined on maximum ‘buy back’ for any orders placed. McDonnell Phantoms for the RAF and the RN are ordered as standard, off the line, with General Electric and not Roll-Royce engines. This cuts the ultimate bill by two thirds and allows re-ordering to take place at a later date. In return, the US Government agrees to collaborate on financing supersonic V/STOL development in the UK and to the purchase of an agreed list of electronic and other equipment.


To meet the transport requirement a licence agreement is concluded with Lockheed for the manufacture in Britain of the Hercules with improved STOL performance and powered by Rolls-Royce Tyne engines. The licence includes the right to sell military and civil Hercules to specified territories. With the money saved on the Phantom deal and the dollar research cash from the US, the V/STOL programme is initiated. The Harrier Mk1 goes into production while, at the same time, three prototypes P1154’s are built using Pegasus engines with plenum chamber burning. These are followed by a further three modified aircraft equipped with the BS.100 engine. Following extensive trails, the P1154 is ordered as the successor to the Harrier. It is used by the FAF, FAA, the USN and the USMC. A British-designed nav/attack system including volumetric radar is fitted to the P1154.

Finally, the thorny problem of the TSR.2 is resolved. So much money has been spent and so much effort put in, it is obvious that the project must go on. Sixty TSR2s are ordered, but initially with less sophisticated equipment than originally envisaged. The weapons system package is built up gradually, allowing for an easier flight test programme. TSR2 becomes the most potent strike/recce aircraft in the NATO armoury. A further 25 are ordered and Australia, thoroughly disenchanted with delays and price rises on the F-111 cancels its order for that type and turns to TSR2, with major sub-contracts being placed with Australian companies.


In 1968, after NATO has abandoned the ‘Trip Wire’ policy of nuclear retaliation, it becomes clear that the Soviet conventional build up will require the operation of a very long range air-to-air missile/gun-equipped fighter capable of CAP as far North as the Arctic Circle. The TSR2 with its massive internal and external fuel/weapon capability is the obvious choice. An initial batch of 50 ‘Air Defence Version’ TSR2’s is ordered and at the same time a further batch of strike aircraft is put in hand specifically for maritime operations.

In order not to waste all the variable geometry know-how accumulated in Britain, an experimental TSR2 is flown with VG incorporated and research is kept up. At the same time negotiations are begun with a group of European nations, including West Germany, for a variable-geometry fighter/ground attack aircraft to be the ultimate successor to the F-104.
​

 

[SONICBOY]

Projects

The book 'Project Cancelled' is a fine reference source, an important work when it came out, but when it goes into 'what should have happened' at the end, it often veers off into a world of unlimited budgets, Air Staffs who did not change their minds often (same for BOAC and BEA too), a much better postwar economic history.

An interceptor TSR-2, really a UK TU-28P, would need V-G wings, a new forward fuselage to accomodate a larger air interceptor radar-raised cockpits as a consequnce, a new lower fuselage for semi recessed AAM's.
Possible, but expensive, really given the level of avionic technology then, it would not offer much in radar/missile performance beyond the F-4K/M's AWG-11/12 and Sparrow missile, that was already in service.

It would have been a way to extend the production, but exports? No chance, the Saudis brought Tornado ADV because they were also buying a lot of IDS versions, but also at the time, the US would not sell any more F-15's to them. And this was a full decade after any TSR-2/ADV would have been.
But, Tornado ADV was developed on the back of the IDS, which unlike TSR-2, came with a great economy of scale from very big production runs across the three partner nations, TSR-2/ADV would come from a small run for the RAF.
Plus the ADV procurement for the RAF was much larger than a RAF TSR-2/ADV would have been, even Project Cancelled recognised that.

And after TSR-2/ADV? Again, not much for industry.
We've seen the drawings of the BAe P-96 of the late 70's, a bit later, P.110 (in my view, the latter was the last real chance for an all UK fighter, but the Thatcher government insisted any new project be multi national), but these designs were on the back of the Tornado.
It provided the technology base, versions of it's engines, some avionics, without the Tornado, unglamorous, workmanlike as it is, the whole history of military combat aircraft design and production in the UK is different, not in a good way either.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

In order not to waste all the variable geometry know-how accumulated in Britain, an experimental TSR2 is flown with VG incorporated and research is kept up. At the same time negotiations are begun with a group of European nations, including West Germany, for a variable-geometry fighter/ground attack aircraft to be the ultimate successor to the F-104.
​

Variable Geometry. That means swing-wing, right? They want to ADD this to an EXISTING airframe? I thought the whole plane had to be designed around it from the ground up, from the extra weight to changing centers of lift and gravity, etc., etc.

 

[Starviking]

But, more money burned on TSR-2 would maybe mean something else has to give, difficult to predict, but the Treasury might say, 'you are getting a strike aircraft in TSR-2, a lighter attack aircraft in the Harrier, why a third type?'

There was a hell of a lot of money burned in cancellation costs for the TSR-2, and the money spent on the project up to cancellation was substantial. The figures given in 'Project Cancelled' by Derek Wood is in the 100s of millions of pounds range - that's probably a fair-few billions of pounds in 2007 terms.

Also, Wilson ordered the F-111K as a TSR-2 replacement from General Dynamics - and then cancelled it - burning more project and cancellation money.

The Anglo-French VG Fighter was also launched to cover some TSR-2 roles and cancelled - costing more dosh.

I think that going ahead with the TSR-2 might result in cost savings, thoug of course - the Treasury might not see it that way

Starviking

 

[SONICBOY]

Bean Counters

Indeed, you have to forget using technical and operational logic when considering Treasury policy!

A recent example, the Nimrod MRA.4, BAe won that in 1996 by saying it was an upgrade, not a new aircraft, therefore much cheaper and the whole requirement came more acceptable to the Treasury.
But, only 5% cost wise, of the Nimrod MR.2 was original, the fuselage pressure shell-once totally stripped out.

Everything else was new, the rest of the airframe, wings, engines, all systems, small wonder MR.2 to MRA.4 conversions get new serial numbers, just as an all new airframe would.

The well known problems with MRA.4-not the concept, but it's execution, largely stem from it being a conversion. BAe, for any exports, would have produced the extra new 5% for additional aircraft.
Doing this for the RAF, would have been quicker, cheaper, they'd be in service now, and the crew of Nimrod MR.2 XV230 might still be alive.
But, try telling the Treasury 11 years ago that 'new' aircraft were needed for maritime patrol.