One nitpick, the RAAF didn't pay 3 1/2 times as much, it was 2 1/3 times as much US$150m to $US350m.
I think it's because people can't accept he was so boring because he was a boring man. He had to do it for a reason. Sadly real life is trickyI've gone down the rabbit hole of Harold Wilson conspiracy theories. I'm surprised that someone so boring could be accused of being a KGB agent or of having the far right plot a coup d'etat against him.
He said that the F-4 Phantom II would've been a vastly superior aircraft
I've gone down the rabbit hole of Harold Wilson conspiracy theories. I'm surprised that someone so boring could be accused of being a KGB agent or of having the far right plot a coup d'etat against him.
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but how did he do that?In what way? Have a look at the attachment I posted earlier, for the long range strike role the Phantom wasnt as good as the Vigilante or Mirage IV and the TFX and TSR2 were better again but only available from 1969.
What other reason could there be for him single-handedly taking Britain from a first to second rate power?
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but how did he do that?
The TSR.2 was a great machine but by the time it got to flight it wasn't quite the right one - the requirements had changed.
There are a lot of things besides warplanes that decide whether a country is a first or second rate power.Destroying Britain's hard-power-projection capabilities without saving any money.
Cancelling the P1154 was fair enough, but TSR2 for F111 (eventually Tornado), CVA01 (for Invincible) and HS681 (for Hercules rather than Belfast) didn't save any money but did ruin Britain's power projection capacity forever.
There are a lot of things besides warplanes that decide whether a country is a first or second rate power.
You ever hear of the Suez Crisis or the 1957 White Paper? Britain's superpower status was gone long before Wilson took office.A 'complete' power has both hard and soft power, Japan and Germany were/are richer than Britain but can not be placed alongside Britain as a world power because of a lack of hard power.
To get into the weeds it's not just warplanes per se, Germany, Japan and even Israel had/have a lot of warplanes but rather the types of warplanes; Britain had a large tanker fleet, medium strategic bombers, strategic transports (Belfast/VC10) long range tactical strike which give it much greater reach than a purely tactical air force. In naval terms Britain had fleet carriers with first line aircraft util 1978 and long range amphibious capability right up to today.
You ever hear of the Suez Crisis or the 1957 White Paper? Britain's superpower status was gone long before Wilson took office.
The main points of the TSR2 was that it was extremely stable at low level, iirc the TSR2 experienced some 2.5 0.5g vertical accelerations per minute at low level compared to 8 for an F111 and 50 for a Mirage III all of which affect crew comfort and fatigue, the TSR 2 also had a better terrain following radar system than the F111A. Plus the SAR radar combined with the inertial navigation system gave TSR2 better accuracy than the F111A at low level. The intention was that TSR2 would be able to attack point targets like bridges and other point targets with free fall bombs in a way not really achievable until the advent of LGB's and low light imaging systems.
It was also faster on the deck than F111A which meant it could outrun a Mig21 and even the Mig 23 would have problems keeping up at low level. In one regard you are right that the later versions of F111 and Tornado could do everything the TSR2 could do except that it would take nearly 15 years to do so.
That isn't to say that the TSR2 had some real issues such as the resonance issue that affected the engines, the problems in changing engines which took stupidly long to do and the problems with the undercarriage that needed much more investigation all of which would have delayed entry into service and would have potentially reduced availability/serviceability in service. However it is a shame the government did not complete the testing programme so they would have a baseline to compare not just the F111 against but also the aircraft that came later such as AFVG and Tornado.
What other reason could there be for Harold Wilson single-handedly taking Britain from a first to second rate power?
equipped the RAF with Buccaneers too.
He didn't do that by himself. There was an entire Cabinet and Government who signed off on all those deals and over several decades too.
From what I've picked up at other sites the RAF originally wanted bombs with a variable yield ranging from 40 kt up to 300 kt but as you mentioned that got capped by the government for several reasons, both financial and industrial, so they ended up receiving the WE.177A with a maximum yield of only 10 kt, tying in with the Royal Navy's need for devices with either 0.5 kt and 10 kt yields for nuclear depth bomb or air dropped anti-shipping/coastal target duties respectively, resulting in their planning of potentially stick bombing with four of them to make sure that targets were destroyed. The WE.177B with a 450 kt yield was carried by the Vulcans as a stop-gap measure being replaced by Polaris and repurposed or passed on to the Tornados, with the RAF finally getting the device they originally wanted with the WE.177C having a 200 kt yield or thereabouts.Apparently the RAF wanted to use the plane to carry one or two 200kt nukes internally to be sure to guarantee the destruction of the targets they had in mind and achieve the performance standards specified. However in about 1962 the government directed that tactical nuclear bombs mustn't exceed some much smaller number, meaning that the TSR2 would have to carry 4 of these weapons, at least 2 externally, which reduced the performance of the aircraft.
Does anyone have any details re how "stick bombing" with several free fall nuclear bombs would have worked ? Did they plan on dropping them far enough appart so the detonation of the first one wouldn't damage the subsequent ones or did they plan to detonate them all at the same time using very accurate timers (sort of like a "time on target"). I can see possible issues with both approaches but presumably this was thought thru by experts. I wonder if this concept was ever actually tested (using either above ground or under ground nuclear tests ?)From what I've picked up at other sites the RAF originally wanted bombs with a variable yield ranging from 40 kt up to 300 kt but as you mentioned that got capped by the government for several reasons, both financial and industrial, so they ended up receiving the WE.177A with a maximum yield of only 10 kt, tying in with the Royal Navy's need for devices with either 0.5 kt and 10 kt yields for nuclear depth bomb or air dropped anti-shipping/coastal target duties respectively, resulting in their planning of potentially stick bombing with four of them to make sure that targets were destroyed. The WE.177B with a 450 kt yield was carried by the Vulcans as a stop-gap measure being replaced by Polaris and repurposed or passed on to the Tornados, with the RAF finally getting the device they originally wanted with the WE.177C having a 200 kt yield or thereabouts.
From what I've picked up at other sites the RAF originally wanted bombs with a variable yield ranging from 40 kt up to 300 kt but as you mentioned that got capped by the government for several reasons, both financial and industrial, so they ended up receiving the WE.177A with a maximum yield of only 10 kt, tying in with the Royal Navy's need for devices with either 0.5 kt and 10 kt yields for nuclear depth bomb or air dropped anti-shipping/coastal target duties respectively, resulting in their planning of potentially stick bombing with four of them to make sure that targets were destroyed. The WE.177B with a 450 kt yield was carried by the Vulcans as a stop-gap measure being replaced by Polaris and repurposed or passed on to the Tornados, with the RAF finally getting the device they originally wanted with the WE.177C having a 200 kt yield or thereabouts.