TSR2 Conspiracy Theories

kernals12

Banned
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.
 
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.

The cost of the North American Vigilante seems to have been $22M each

Might have been the interim choice might have been the best choice
 
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 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 tricky
 
He said that the F-4 Phantom II would've been a vastly superior aircraft

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.

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.

What other reason could there be for him single-handedly taking Britain from a first to second rate power?
 

kernals12

Banned
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 were also political aspects to the cancellation, something of a smear campaign against it, and utterly archaic british industrial practices holding it back as well.
 
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but how did he do that?

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.
 
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.

In what way? The TSR2 was cancelled for the F111K/AFVG/UKVG/MRCA Tornado, alll of which pretty much do what the TRS2 was going to do.

Sure the 'East of Suez' rationale had gone, but by 1968 the same capabilities were required on the NATO Central Front.
 

kernals12

Banned
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.
 
There are a lot of things besides warplanes that decide whether a country is a first or second rate power.

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.
 

kernals12

Banned
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.
 
You ever hear of the Suez Crisis or the 1957 White Paper? Britain's superpower status was gone long before Wilson took office.

Who said 'superpower'?

I said from first rate power, able to project significant power over most of the globe in the face of most possible opponents, to a second rate power only able to face whoever could be reached by Tornado/Hercules and/or could be handled by ~20 Sea Harriers unless operating as an adjunct of the US. Right up to 1970 the British provided the command framework that Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia, IIRC they deployed some 5 brigades to Borneo by 1966 with no US help. But by 1982 they were struggling to scrape up 2 squadrons of everyone's favourite underdog fighter, had to pull an LPD out of mothballs and lacked a Commando carrier in commission.
 
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.

This is important because, despite the impression given in the media, as late as the 1991 PGW only 10% of all air to ground ordnance was guided, the rest was dumb bombs. The blind, first pass attack of heavly defended targets is the hardest job their is, and to do it takes big money which is why only a handful of airforces try it.

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.

Look-down shoot-down was tough even for the west in the 70s and 80s, to have a chance to get something racing along at low level most fighters of the era would have to get down there with the TSR2/F111. it's for this reason that in late 1963 the RAAF specified that their Canberra replacement must be capable of a supersonic dash at 200', to deny defending fighters the opportunity to get into a good firing position. Its also worth recalling that the world of 1970 was full of 2nd line fighters like Hunters, Mig 17s and late model Sabres which would be hopelessly wallowing in the TSR2's wake even at cruising speed.

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.

That's right, but the F111 which was by all accounts a success had problems with its engines, mismatched intakes, wing carry-through box and avionics which took years and a very chop and change production run to sort out which made the overall programme less than it could have been.
 
Done in by Louis Mountbatten and the Blackburn Buccaneer. For the same cost as these abandoned tech toy development and cancellations Britain could have kept a viable carrier force and equipped the RAF with Buccaneers too.
 

Nick P

Donor
What other reason could there be for Harold Wilson single-handedly taking Britain from a first to second rate power?

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. Imagine they were all KGB agents and Wilson was the lone British patriot.... :closedtongue:

I think the deal breaker for the TSR.2 was the new alloy they used for it. It was later shown to be more fragile than expected and could have shattered when hit by an AA shell or missile. Even drilling a rivet in a panel could cause it to crack. This was known in 1963.
 
equipped the RAF with Buccaneers too.

Australia didn't even put the Buccaneer on its shopping list in 1963, it just wasn't good enough compared to the competition, so I don't see the RAF getting it as a step up.

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.

Other Cabinets did other things, but it was Wilson's who scrapped the CVA01 and TSR2 and didn't pursue a maritime strategy when Britain re-oriented back to a NATO role in 1968.
 
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.
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.
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 ?)

I also wonder if the bombs they planned on using were specifically designed for this application (perhaps they were designed to be particularly resistant to the prompt radiation from near by nuclear explosions ?)

Edit to add:

I'm thinking that having a credible "stick bombing" capability would imply a fairly advanced UK nuclear weapons program.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yes, it's all very well to have an Ah-Ha! moment about the WE 177 C, but that bomb was predicated on the availability of the 'Reggie' secondaries made redundant by the Polaris Chevaline programme which didn't get the decision to procure until 1971. In the 60s several ideas were kicking around for the Polaris fleet, there was some momentum behind getting the new, longer ranged Poseidon to maintain commonality with the US, and if this had happened I think a secondary effect would have been that the Posiedons would have to have re-used the Polaris warheads upgraded to Chevaline specs rather than have the UK develop an entirely new design and build them by the hundreds. If that had occurred then the WE 177 C may not have been built, so not used on the TSR2 fleet; so the stick bombing problem is a real one.
 
Top