# TSR-2 - "Perfect example for unmasterable technology and mismanagement?"



## HoHun (Jul 1, 2007)

Hi everyone,

I'm have just finished reading the latest issue of the German "Klassiker der Luftfahrt" (4/2007), and I have stumbled upon the claim that the TSR-2 "is today regarded as the perfect example for unmasterable technology and mismanagement".

I'm not an expert on that plane, but I noticed a distinct contrast between everything I had read on the type so far and the conclusion the Klassiker author presented as modern-day consensus.

Roland Beamont as the test pilot on the TSR-2 might be a bit biased towards the type, but it's my impression that his description of the TSR-2 - which he reinforces with selected quotes from official reports - is technically detailed and records both the initial problems of the type and the way they were fixed. (At least, a quick web search did not turn up anything that contradicts Beamont.)

So here my questions for the experts: What was the real cause for the TSR-2's demise? Is the Klassiker statement regarding the TSR-2 correct, or at least justifiable (never mind the "consensus" claim)? Did Beamont paint an overly optimistic picture of the TSR-2?

Thanks for your help! 

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2007)

Poloticis is what killed it, just like the Avro Arrow.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jul 1, 2007)

There is still a lot of secrecy about the demise of the TSR2.
I've just read a book about it and some of the contributors didnt want to be named !
There is still some reluctance in official circles to even admit the project existed.
There were cost over runs (there always are) but the project had enemies in high places right from the start.Lord Mountbatten,at the time chief of the defence staff (and a navy man) wanted the navy in the strategic role with Polaris , and wanted to keep the Buccaneer ( cost 5 for every 1 TSR2 ) He even persuaded the Australians to cancel (They wanted it but went on to buy the F111 )
The new Labour party in 1964 had always been against it and were determined to cancel it and buy from America (the F111 )...which didnt happen..
Misinformed about costs,schedules and milestones ,two thirds of the cabinet opposed the project and it (and many other projects at that time ) were cancelled (they even wanted to cancel Concorde but couldnt get out of it)
The Government ordered everything to be destroyed (jigs,tools, manuals,airframes)...but luckily two airframes survive and many bits.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 2, 2007)

Hi Crashgate,

>Lord Mountbatten,at the time chief of the defence staff (and a navy man) wanted the navy in the strategic role with Polaris

Interesting - wasn't it in this era when the unmanned missile was expected to replace the manned aircraft completely, too? Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact timeframe, but your observation seems to fit right in.

>and wanted to keep the Buccaneer ( cost 5 for every 1 TSR2 ) 

Hm, I'm not a native speaker - does that mean the Buccaneer was more expensive or the TSR-2?

(I just read that Eric Brown considered the Buccaneer the aircraft the Luftwaffe should have purchased instead of the F-104, by the way, so it's fascinating to see it considered for yet another role.)

>Misinformed about costs,schedules and milestones ,two thirds of the cabinet opposed the project and it (and many other projects at that time ) were cancelled (they even wanted to cancel Concorde but couldnt get out of it)

I think CVA-1 - of which Eric Brown gives a detailed description in his "Wings on my Sleeve" - was canceled at the same time, too? To me, it always looked more like a major landslide in defense politics after a change of the gouvernment, and it seems that's not far from your point of view, too ...

That "Klassiker der Luftfahrt" assessment really has me wondering what they were reading when they wrote that article :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## The Basket (Jul 2, 2007)

You could buy 5 buccaneers for 1 TSR2. The Bucc was a brilliant aircraft and was certainly better than the F-104 for the German Navy as a ship killer...safer too. 

The TSR demise was purely political. The bugs would have been sorted and Brittania would have had the best ass kicker in the world. 

The project was big and involved most of the industry in the UK. Too many vested interests and to many chiefs and few indians. So mismanagement for sure but the technology would have come good. 

Annoying the Germans can slag off good old UK..what was their last bombers? The He-177 and the bomber b project? No mismanagement or unmasterable technology there then.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Bucc was a brilliant aircraft and was certainly better than the F-104 for the German Navy as a ship killer...safer too.
> 
> .


What the 104 was not an unsafe aircraft by any means she just worked in a tougher neighbourhood . With its high wingloading it made a superb weapons platform and at low level was unstoppable . You couldn't see it nor catch it but she could sure catch you. Can you name a better platform for strikes in the Baltic 
I'm not knocking the Bucc but its not even in the same class . I've worked with both the 104 and Bucc and you'd never get a 104 jock to swap for anything more then a day.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 2, 2007)

Yes, the buccaneer.

A ship does what? 30 knots? Not difficult to catch and you can't do mach 2 at sea level. The bucc had excellent range and speed at sea level and even outperformed the Tornado, which replaced it, in some aspects. Decent firepower too.

The F-104 obviously is a fighter and has better performance at altitude and so has more chance of surviving air combat. Weren't F-104 sales more to do with bribes than the aircraft itself?

And I would add that the TSR2 would have been far superior to the F-104.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 2, 2007)

Not the ship's speed in knots it's reaction time in seconds . The Baltic is a small body of water compared to the ocean so range is not as important but a high ingress speed, small radar signature , and very lo and then be able to get out fast you can't beat it . Very stable aircraft but most losses in the 104 were from pilot error . The 104 zipped along a 540knots at sea level without straining and that is pretty fast


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2007)

The F-104 was a wonderful interceptor in its day that got jerked around by half of its customers who wanted the airframe to do more and more. Pb is correct about the pilot error situation as during its introduction there were no transitional aircraft or trainers to properly train pilots to fly the F-104. Many pilots in the Luftwaffe went from the F-86 into the F-104 with little or no transitional training. 

Although there was the bribery situation with Germany and the Netherlands, Lockheed did nothing different than any other company was during during that period.


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Although there was the bribery situation with Germany and the Netherlands, Lockheed did nothing different than any other company was during during that period.



Would you care to tell that to the USA investigators looking into the BAe Saudi links?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> Would you care to tell that to the USA investigators looking into the BAe Saudi links?


Which BAe Division and what program? There's been several investigations - I used to work for BAe.

My point - US investigators will prosecute the companies involved. Other countries just look the other way...


----------



## The Basket (Jul 3, 2007)

Bribery, kickbacks and backhanders in the defence industry?

Shock Horror! 

I thought that was game.

From what I have read, The F-104 sales around the world were bought and paid for. 

Eric Brown who speaks German and was Naval Attache in Bonn was amazed that German Navy bought it. The F-104 is not my cup of tea...now the English Electric Lightning Shame it had the range of a lawnmower. 

Anyway, had the TSR2 gone ahead then UK would have had a stronger aviation industry than we do now. The UK government for some truly bizarre reason liked kicking it in the nuts every possible reason. Thousands of skilled jobs gone for no good reason.

Concorde couldnt be cancelled because of the French and the Harrier couldnt be cancelled due to the USMC. And they were sad about that too.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2007)

The RCAF selected the 104 no kickbacks involved and it was not as an interceptor it was purchased as tacticle nuclear strike weapon . The Lightning was a good aircraft but had as one pilot put it "room for your ass and a gallon of gas" or if you bailed out you were always a $5 cab ride awy from your base


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2007)

The Basket said:


> From what I have read, The F-104 sales around the world were bought and paid for.


Lockheed just offered more money than their European counterparts...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Although there was the bribery situation with Germany and the Netherlands, Lockheed did nothing different than any other company was during during that period.



Couldn't agree more . . .

Did Lockheed bribe officials in the '50's '60's? Undoubtedly. Did other companies do the same thing? Again, undoubtedly.

I think what really "sold" the F-104 was the cache it had as being the first (and, for a long time, the only) Mach 2 aircraft in the world. It was extremely effective at low levels as a strike fighter, nuclear or not. It's a testament to it's low level speed capability that when Darryl Greenamyer attempted (and succeeded) in breaking the world low-level speed record, he decided to use an F-104 airframe to do it in. 

And broke it he did . . . almost 1,000 mph at 200 feet above sea level. Nothing else can do that and, probably, nothing else ever will.


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2007)

Any French participants in this topic, nope, didn't think so.


----------



## The Basket (Jul 3, 2007)

So what was the Starfighter crisis all about all about and how did they fix it? 

Obviously the Starfighter was a better interceptor than a Buccaneer but the Bucc was still a better low level ship killer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2007)

The Basket said:


> So what was the Starfighter crisis all about all about and how did they fix it?


Some Airforces (Germany) lost about a third of their F-104s. Training was the key. The T-38 helped as well.


The Basket said:


> Obviously the Starfighter was a better interceptor than a Buccaneer but the Bucc was still a better low level ship killer.


True, the Bucc was designed as an attack aircraft to begin with. The F-104 mutated into that role.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Hi Henning
I'm sorry my post wasn't very clear on the Bucanneer...I think the other posts have put that right


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2007)

Be a bit hard for the Bucc to be used as a fighter as it didn't carry any air to air weapons until very late in its life.

On a more objective point, in its element i.e. at very low level, almost nothing could catch the Bucc. On a regular basis the only plane that could catch it on the deck was the F111.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 3, 2007)

You could start a new thread on these machines- the list is almost endless. The BAC TSR-2 is certainly one of the most 'vocal' example of history not wanting to 'let it go'. You could change a ceiling light bulb with a pile of books/magazines lamenting the demise of the TSR-2. But there are others, and they can all argue that they deserved a 'chance'.

As mentioned, another loud member is the Avro CF-105.
Then there's the North American F-108 Rapier. 
North American XB-70
Hawker P.1121 Hurricane
Saunders-Roe SR.177
Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III
Saunders-Roe SR-45 Princess
Republic XF-103
Avro Canada C-102
and the Vickers Valiant B Mk 2, just to complete a random ten.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> Be a bit hard for the Bucc to be used as a fighter as it didn't carry any air to air weapons until very late in its life.
> 
> On a more objective point, in its element i.e. at very low level, almost nothing could catch the Bucc. On a regular basis the only plane that could catch it on the deck was the F111.


I do believe all the Bucc would see of a 104 would be the black smoke outta that J79.


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2007)

Not on the deck. The first Red Flag sorties were a revalation to the US forces facing the Bucc for the first time. F4's and F5's couldn't normally catch them and the A4 didn't have a chance. In Europe the Mirage and F104G normally failed as well. 

The Bucc was flown 'clean' having an internal bomb bay and the opposing aircraft hampered by Drop tanks, external missiles ect had a hard time catching them.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> Not on the deck. The first Red Flag sorties were a revalation to the US forces facing the Bucc for the first time. F4's and F5's couldn't normally catch them and the A4 didn't have a chance. In Europe the Mirage and F104G normally failed as well.
> 
> The Bucc was flown 'clean' having an internal bomb bay and the opposing aircraft hampered by Drop tanks, external missiles ect had a hard time catching them.


During RED Flag they never got any of our 104's in fact during the last sortie of the 104 at Red Flag they actually told the the defending force direction and time over target and still managed to get in and out


----------



## The Basket (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> Not on the deck. The first Red Flag sorties were a revalation to the US forces facing the Bucc for the first time. F4's and F5's couldn't normally catch them and the A4 didn't have a chance. In Europe the Mirage and F104G normally failed as well.
> 
> The Bucc was flown 'clean' having an internal bomb bay and the opposing aircraft hampered by Drop tanks, external missiles ect had a hard time catching them.



Absolutely. Fly 20ft at 645mph and the only Starfighter is going to be behind you, in afterburner running out of fuel! Range was just excellent too.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> Not on the deck. The first Red Flag sorties were a revalation to the US forces facing the Bucc for the first time. F4's and F5's couldn't normally catch them and the A4 didn't have a chance. In Europe the Mirage and F104G normally failed as well.
> 
> The Bucc was flown 'clean' having an internal bomb bay and the opposing aircraft hampered by Drop tanks, external missiles ect had a hard time catching them.



Actually, I read that the then brand-new F-15's couldn't even score a kill on a Bucc! I'll do some more reserach on that, but I don't think the vaunted F-15A even picked them up on radar during the whole excercise.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2007)

That I find extremely hard to believe..


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2007)

I'll include this little blurb and then you can comment on the range etc

Unhke most fighters, the 104's range didn't suffer greatly at low altitude. Carrying one bomb, a strike pilot could fly 400 miles, littering the countryside with fuel tanks as they emptied. The photo pod slung under the belly of the recce aircraft looked rather lumpy but was nicely streamlined and caused little drag. The attack conversion was not as successful because external fuel tanks couldn't be carried, the pylons had bombs or rockets. We lost a little more fuel when the Vulcan cannon -was installed, replacing a small fuel cell.
Since its inception and particularly in Europe, the 104 had been unfairly tagged -with a bad reputation. A German joke of the 1960s went: "How does one acquire a Starfighter? One buys
a small piece of land and waits."
Touring journalists always got around to asking about crashes and how dangerous the aircraft was. I confess they were often misled at the mess bar. We would fake grim cheerfulness and drop such names as "wid-
owmaker" or, even more ridiculous, "aluminum death tube and, sure enough we d be quoted. The clippings were all gleefully passed around the squadrons. Most of us enjoyed the notoriety, at least a little, and felt squarer of jaw and steelier of eye. Only supermen could fly such a killer airplane; it said so right in the Elk Pasture Times Weekly.
In fact, our safety record was comparable to that of any other aircraft in the same role. Most 104 accidents were a product of that role. Low-level, high-speed flying allowed little margin for error, and errors were often catastrophic.
But the CF-104 wasn't a shady lady. She just worked in a tough neighborhood.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> But the CF-104 wasn't a shady lady. She just worked in a tough neighborhood.


Perfect!


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 3, 2007)

Further to watching the 6 oclock of the 104 it was capanle of 940 knots at sea level the bucc could get up 562 at sea level or 600 at altitude and I can't help but add this little blurb from the 1978 RAF Yearbook

" The Aggressors were tasked against us more, and they pulled in the F-15 Eagle with its ultra-modern look-down radar to try to redress the balance; from day five onwards, the odd claims were verified against the Buccaneers."
.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 4, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> That I find extremely hard to believe..



Okay, I did my research . . .

Quoted from An Illustrated Survey of the West's Modern Fighters, by Doug Richardson, copyright 1984, published by Salamander Books, Ltd., under the heading for the British Aerospace (nee Blackburn) Buccaneer:

"When the USAF F-15 crews first set eyes on the portly lines of the RAF Buccaneer on the flight line at Nellis AFB, Nevada, during a mid 1970's "Red Flag" air-combat excercise, they could not believe their luck. Were the "Limies" really going to take on the _brand-new_ (italics added) F-15 Eagle in a plump, underpowered, subsonic bomber fitted with antediluvian avionics? Those Eagle crews just couldn't wait for the "turkey shoot" to begin. But the first few days of action soon showed that the Buccaneer was a tricky adversary indeed: the RAF aircraft were getting to their targets, _but unobserved by the F-15's_ (italics added). Eventually, a disoriented Buccaneer crew were forced to risk a brief "pop-up" manoeuvre to relocate themselves, and a waiting Eagle obtained a radar lock-on and pounced. As the excercise continued, the Eagles did mange to "kill" more Buccaneers, but this veteran design had shown its capabilities in no uncertain terms."

The F-15 is one of my favorite aircraft ever, and you can't argue with a better than 100-to-0 kill ratio, but there is obviously a little hubris involved here when the cocky Americans thought the Bucc would be an "easy kill".


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2007)

Any aircraft down low is a hard kill especially if he's really lo


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, I did my research . . .
> 
> Quoted from An Illustrated Survey of the West's Modern Fighters, by Doug Richardson, copyright 1984, published by Salamander Books, Ltd., under the heading for the British Aerospace (nee Blackburn) Buccaneer:
> 
> ...



Thanks for this I appreciate the effort.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I'll include this little blurb and then you can comment on the range etc
> 
> Unhke most fighters, the 104's range didn't suffer greatly at low altitude. Carrying one bomb, a strike pilot could fly 400 miles, littering the countryside with fuel tanks as they emptied. The photo pod slung under the belly of the recce aircraft looked rather lumpy but was nicely streamlined and caused little drag. The attack conversion was not as successful because external fuel tanks couldn't be carried, the pylons had bombs or rockets. We lost a little more fuel when the Vulcan cannon -was installed, replacing a small fuel cell.



In May 1966 during exercises a Buc was launched from the Victorious in the Irish Sea, carried out a low level simulated toss bomb attack on Gibraltar and flew back to the ship unrefuelled. A round distance of 2,300 miles.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2007)

I thought I would give the rest of that statement from RAF 1978 I 'm looking through a 1 meter high pile of mags for cf104's red flag to counter some of the claims that the USAF was unused to hi speed lo level unless they didn't know the 104's were there 
How did we fare in this environment, operating against many combat veterans of the Vietnam war? The Red Flag staff do not evaluate performance; their mission is merely to provide the threats and thearena in which the Blue Forces can learn for themselves. Nevertheless they did concede that our dedicated low-level tactics, backed by realistic training at our home stations, achieved results better than they had seen before. We watched the claims being listed at the first mass debriefing with apprehension; "Buccaneer" did not appear. Our confidence then rose on each successive day that we all returned without any "kills" being registered against us. We knew that their ground threats had never faced an aircraft flown so consistently low and fast. We knew their strike/attack aircraft were more exposed to the defences because they bombed from greater heights in both laydown and dive attacks. Nevertheless we had not expected to pass through unscathed. The pressures of success quickly mounted. The Aggressors were tasked against us more, and they pulled in the F-15 Eagle with its ultra-modern look-down radar to try to redress the balance; from day five onwards, the odd claims were verified against the Buccaneers.
The Aggressors found the Buccaneer hard to acquire visually and, at our high speeds, found it even harder to catch. They received no assistance from their Soviet-styled GCI network. With Buccaneers flying at 100 ft (30 m), it never even knew of our presence. The Aggressors also found it virtually impossible to "shoot down" an aircraft flown aggressively at this height. As the exercise progressed, we felt the full weight of the F-5 and F-1 5 patrols being thrown against us and we felt sorry for the RAF Germany Buccaneer crews from Nos 15 and 16 Squadrons who had to fly in the second half of the exercise. They faced a "MiG Alley" hornet's nest from their very first missions, but by all reports, they more than met this challenge.

When we returned to Nellis in Septemoer to collect our Buccaneers, the confidence exuded by these Laarorucn crews expressed, without words, what Red Flag is all about.
Red flag was a memorable detachrnent in the minds of all the 90 aircrew and 150 groundcrew who represented the Royal Air Force. Whilst there, we were able to fight with an operational realism unsurpassed eisewnere in peacetime. For this, we offer our heartfelt thanks to General Dixon and his Tactical Air Command.
Throughout this article, stress has been laid on the realism of the training facilities given to us at Red Flag. In giving this praise, there is no intention of decrying the excellent facilities we use in our day-today training in Europe. Daily, our Buccaneers operate against fighter patrols, against electronic threats and against a wide variety of weapons ranges. That training which we cannot achieve from Honmgton, we make good through the medium of detachments abroad. These deployments, which have become an integral part of RAF squadron life in the 1970s, usually mean that No 208 Squadron has aircraft abroad for 100 days per year. In 1978 we plan to visit Bodo in Arctic Norway on a NATO Squadron exchange, to deploy to Aalborg (Denmark), Laarbruch (West Germany) and Goose Bay (Canada) for varied low flying training, and to Sardinia for an Armament Practice Camp. From the sum total of all this training, we believe that we are ready and capable of fulfilling our war roles.
Red Flag gave us the chance to test the effectiveness of both our doctrine and our training. In 1977 we survived with flying colours. We are working now to improve and disseminate these tactics, so that no RAF front-line units need be found wanting in future. D


----------



## The Basket (Jul 4, 2007)

940 knots at sea level?

With bombs?

The Starfighter?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2007)

The Basket said:


> 940 knots at sea level?
> 
> With bombs?
> 
> The Starfighter?


The thing was fast at 940k you'd probably have about 5 minutes fuel I believe it held the lo level speed record at around 1200knots. Now for my article on the 104 at Red Flag

"It was the morning of Nov 18th 1977 when we realized something had to be done about never having been shot down during Exercise Red Flag 78-1.
Born of lessons learned from the Vietnam War, each two-week Red Flag serial was designed to improve the survivabili-ty and combat effectiveness of U.S. fighter pilots in realistic simulated combat situations. The idea was to expose each pilot to 10 flying missions which included complex planning for, and leading of large force packages, typically of some 100 aircraft. The most valuable lessons were learned by flying the full range of combat fighter and bomber missions; delivering live weapons on scored tactical ranges; and, being tracked and "fired upon" by highly realistic electronic surface-to-air missile (SAM) simulators.
Each 10 mission series was held several times a year at Nellis Air Force Base, just north of Las Vegas, Nevada. Owning to the very close relationship the Canadian Forces enjoyed with all branches of the U.S. forces, and does to this day, we were invited to participate.
Typically, Canadian fighter pilots from both Cold Lake, Alta, and Bagotville, Que, were very successful during these exercises because of the tried and very true Canadian flying training system. In Red Flag, we learned, but also contributed.
So. we had this little problem. There were even cheeky suggestions we weren't actually flying in the exercise because hardly anyone saw us and we never appeared under anyone's cross hairs or on video. No small wonder! We had practiced high speed, ultra low-level flying at.
home on CYR 205, the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range just north of CFB Cold Lake, for a full month before flying on the sophisticated, instrumented desert ranges of the U.S. southwest.
From their higher altitudes, the odd F-15 Eagle pilot had picked us up with their look-down radars as fast movers down in the weeds. We flew at 540 knots ground speed (900 feet per second) at 100 feet above ground level (AGL) - often

lower, and without a radar altimeter. We even camouflaged our silver CF-104s with buckets of carefully blended water paints purchased locally in Las Vegas. Rain dances were not encouraged. The highly successful but decidedly ugly poor-man's Stealth was the brainchild of Capt John Bagshaw, a widely respected Canadian fighter pilot on 417 Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Sqn based at Cold Lake.
Some Eagle drivers had fired a radar or heat-seeking missile at us, but we could easily outrun them. Rarely had SAM sites even seen, let alone fired at us! The bottom line: CF-104s had never been shot down nor captured on video during Red Flag exercises.
So, in his inimitable style, Capt Laurie Hawn, on whose wing I would fly for the last launch of the day, indeed, the exercise, suggested we "give 'em a fighting chance." The plan was to slow down to gear and flap speed as we approached a north-south mountain range up in the north-west corner of the Tonopah weapons range complex, smoke around the southern corner (there was lots of it coming out of a J-79 turbojet if it wasn't in afterburner), hang everything out (gear, flaps, speed brakes), turn on our landing lights and head straight into site 57's lethal envelope, a SAM 3 simulator just to the west of the mountains. We even had the temerity to call them up and tell them precisely to the second when we'd be there and from what direction. Simple. Sitting, benevolent ducks! We'd finally get on somebody's video for the last mass debrief.We took off, headed north to the range, hit our targets with characteristic accuracy and designated time on target (TOT) then slowed for "the plan." Turning north from Cedar Pass, we climbed up to two or three hundred feet AGL and flew straight and level at Site 57 all slow and dirty. Just about overhead the missile site, we picked up two high-speed U.S. Marine F-4 "smokers," they each had two J-79s, at 10 o'clock, opposite direction all the way up at a nosebleed 1,000 foot or so altitude. Having made our point to the SAM site, Laurie called "gear, flaps, burners, hard left." After a two or three minute chase, we ran them down, closed to missile and gun range and shot down the two U.S. F-4s. Subsequent gun film analysis confirmed our kills.
Turns out they saw us but, because of our slow speed, they thought we were Harriers and, therefore, no threat. Also turns out the SAM site folks saw us, came to the same conclusion and claimed two Harrier kills. The strenuous objections of the Harrier folks and truthful claim that their closest aircraft was some 50 miles away from the site at the time were met with decidedly rude comments! Still no claims against Canadian CF-104s."


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2007)

Excellent postings, many thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2007)

Great stuff Pb. I did some F-104 work and I always thought of her as being an underrated scorned upon aircraft.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 4, 2007)

From Bill Gunston's 'Fighters of the Fifties' re F-104;

"There was, however, one large drawback on the whole programme. Largely because pilots and ground crews were generally inexperienced, the Luftwaffe suffered unacceptable loss-rates, the figure in 1962 being 139 per 100,000 hours. Even in the mid-1960s a Starfighter crashed roughly every ten days, and in many cases the pilot was killed. There followed a political battle to fit the British Martin-Baker ejection seat. American (Lockheed/USAF) pressure prevented it until 1967 (by which time the Danes had quietly had British seats already fitted) when, with no publicity by the British company, they fitted the reliable GQ-7 seat to the Italian and then the German Starfighters".

Originally the seats fired *downwards*. Which way did the Canadian version 'fire'?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2007)

Graeme said:


> From Bill Gunston's 'Fighters of the Fifties' re F-104;
> 
> "There was, however, one large drawback on the whole programme. Largely because pilots and ground crews were generally inexperienced, the Luftwaffe suffered unacceptable loss-rates, the figure in 1962 being 139 per 100,000 hours. Even in the mid-1960s a Starfighter crashed roughly every ten days, and in many cases the pilot was killed. There followed a political battle to fit the British Martin-Baker ejection seat. American (Lockheed/USAF) pressure prevented it until 1967 (by which time the Danes had quietly had British seats already fitted) when, with no publicity by the British company, they fitted the reliable GQ-7 seat to the Italian and then the German Starfighters".
> 
> Originally the seats fired *downwards*. Which way did the Canadian version 'fire'?


I believe only the early USAF 104's fired downwards but i could be wrong . Nato forces flew the G's and I would think they all fired up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2007)

I think by the time the F-104 was hitting National Guard units someone got smart and retrofitted the seats (mid late 60s?)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 5, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The thing was fast at 940k you'd probably have about 5 minutes fuel I believe it held the lo level speed record at around 1200knots.



Not quite 1200 . . . Way back in 1965, an ex-Lockheed test pilot and occasional Unlimited air racer named Darryl Greenamyer decided to go after the low-level speed record, which at that time stood at a whopping 482.462 mph when he flew a souped-up Bearcat. Darryl decided to use a -104 airframe to go after the record, and spent the next 12 years scrounging parts up to put it together (including an uprated [17,900 lbs.] J79-17/1 engine "borrowed" from a Phantom). He christened his creation the F-104RB ("RB" stood for "Red Baron", which was the name of the plane), and even included a velvet-covered cockpit coaming. 

On October 24, 1977, he shattered the world low-level speed record by posting a speed of 988.26 mph (1590.41 kmh) at an altitude of no more then 100 meters. He was in stage 5 'burner for almost all of the flight, and was also supersonic for most of the 20 minute flight, during which the J79 consumed 850 gallons of JP4 fuel.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 5, 2007)

Jane's mentions that Greenamyer's F-104 was "subsequently destroyed"

Do you know what happened?


----------



## The Basket (Jul 5, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The RCAF selected the 104 no kickbacks involved and it was not as an interceptor it was purchased as tacticle nuclear strike weapon . The Lightning was a good aircraft but had as one pilot put it "room for your ass and a gallon of gas" or if you bailed out you were always a $5 cab ride awy from your base



Canada officially doesn't have nukes so buying the F-104 as a nuclear bomber seems a bit rum.

Where did the nukes come from and did Canada have control once they had them?


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 5, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Canada officially doesn't have nukes so buying the F-104 as a nuclear bomber seems a bit rum.
> 
> Where did the nukes come from and did Canada have control once they had them?


Canada was supplied nukes by the US up until the late 70's the cf101 also used nukes in the Genie missle


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Jane's mentions that Greenamyer's F-104 was "subsequently destroyed"
> 
> Do you know what happened?



I worked for the savage company that picked up the wreckage. There were rumours the aircraft was worth more destroyed than it was being operated.  Greenamyer was said to have a landing gear problem and rather than belly in (He had a downward ejection seat) he went up to altitude and punched out.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 5, 2007)

> he went up to altitude and punched out.



If he was low and in 'trouble' could he have quickly inverted the plane and ejected? Or am I not comprehending how difficult that manoeuvre would be?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

Graeme said:


> If he was low and in 'trouble' could he have quickly inverted the plane and ejected? Or am I not comprehending how difficult that manoeuvre would be?



He didn't invert - he had a hydraulic problem (landing gear). He pointed the nose up, got to a safe altitude (my guess would be anywhere above 5000' AGL) and blew out from the bottom.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2007)

That has to suck, punching out through the bottom. I know they do it on B-52s, but the crew members on the lower deck dont have any other option but otherwise that has to blow monkey balls.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

From what understand the downward charge in this system was not as abrupt on a conventional system.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 5, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I worked for the savage company that picked up the wreckage. There were rumours the aircraft was worth more destroyed than it was being operated.  Greenamyer was said to have a landing gear problem and rather than belly in (He had a downward ejection seat) he went up to altitude and punched out.



The reason he didn't attempt to belly-land was not because of the ejection seat, but because the main fuel lines ran along the bottom of the aircraft in between the main wheel wells, and they didn't want to risk a belly landing and a potential catastrophe; it was safer for Greenamyer to punch out at altitude rather than to try land.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The reason he didn't attempt to belly-land was not because of the ejection seat, but because the main fuel lines ran along the bottom of the aircraft in between the main wheel wells, and they didn't want to risk a belly landing and a potential catastrophe; it was safer for Greenamyer to punch out at altitude rather than to try land.


The "offical" story....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 5, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The "offical" story....



Oh . . . I suppose we'll never know the "truth".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Oh . . . I suppose we'll never know the "truth".



Probably not...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 5, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Canada was supplied nukes by the US up until the late 70's the cf101 also used nukes in the Genie missle



Canada had to have authorization from NATO (read: "United States") to use them. I believe they could only be armed by a member of the US military forces; Canada (or any other country for that matter) may have had possesion of the nukes, but we owned them.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 5, 2007)

Don;t know what would be preferrable landing the 104 at 180-200knots without gear doesn't sound to appealling . And the downward ejection seat was not used by many of the 1000's of 104's built . Most were the G model and I believe only the A through C model ejected downward and these were the early USAF models. And your correct when the 101 was nuke armed the nukes were guarded by USAF guys and you had your own bunkers


----------



## HoHun (Jul 5, 2007)

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the great discussion!  Though inevitably, some posts didn't even mention the TSR-2, I think they're on topic just the same as the capabilities of contemporary designs are important for an evaluation, too! 

So it seems that no one here really thinks that there were any insurmountable problems with the TSR-2, regardless of whether it was the right design for the role. I'd say that from your comments, the level of mismanagement and the margin of the cost overrun of the TSR-2 seems to have been nothing special compared to that of other contemporary projects, especially the F-111 which was designed in the USA for the same role.

Does that sound like a reasonable summary? 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Graeme (Jul 5, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks for the great discussion!  Though inevitably, some posts didn't even mention the TSR-2, I think they're on topic just the same as the capabilities of contemporary designs are important for an evaluation, too!
> 
> ...



Yes. The second post, from Adler, supplied the answer-Politics.
All the rest is good old beer talk.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 5, 2007)

Not that good old beer talk is bad


----------



## Graeme (Jul 5, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> Not that good old beer talk is bad



Nothing involving beer can be bad!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 5, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks for the great discussion!  Though inevitably, some posts didn't even mention the TSR-2, I think they're on topic just the same as the capabilities of contemporary designs are important for an evaluation, too!
> 
> ...



IMHO, what it came down to is the US of A could afford to "waste" millions of taxpayer's dollars keeping a foundering aircraft program alive, and the UK couldn't. If the UK could've afforded to spend more time and money on the TSR project, I'm sure it would've been a qualified success, just like the F-111 progarm was.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Jul 6, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Nothing involving beer can be bad!



You should see some of the girls I've walked home !!


----------



## The Basket (Jul 6, 2007)

You forget that both the RAF and RAAF were down for buying F-111....as well as TSR2...Remember the Canberra bomber...so good that the Yanks bought it....Now what would happen if the TSR2 was better than the F-111????????

The TSR2 program may have been cancelled by American pressure to stop any competitor getting orders....so the F-111 would have a clear run so to speak.

Also the nuclear deterent switched to Polaris subs and no longer the RAF.

The TSR2 would have been a belter...no question.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

The Basket said:


> You forget that both the RAF and RAAF were down for buying F-111....as well as TSR2...Remember the Canberra bomber...so good that the Yanks bought it....Now what would happen if the TSR2 was better than the F-111????????


Nothing 


The Basket said:


> The TSR2 program may have been cancelled by American pressure to stop any competitor getting orders....so the F-111 would have a clear run so to speak.


That's the same crap some Canadians try to say about the AVRO Arrow.


The Basket said:


> Also the nuclear deterent switched to Polaris subs and no longer the RAF.
> 
> The TSR2 would have been a belter...no question.




Despite having the potential of being one of the most advanced combat aircraft of its day the TSR2 demise rested solely with the British Government.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 6, 2007)

I'm shocked to think I spout crap If the Brits had made the engine they promised they could for the Arrow but later admitted it was to much for them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I'm shocked to think I spout crap If the Brits had made the engine they promised they could for the Arrow but later admitted it was to much for them


----------



## merlin (Sep 4, 2007)

Just suppose for one unlikely moment, that the incoming labour government did decide to continue with the TSR2; what would replace the Lightning? That is - there would be no need to develop the Torando. 
There were the ex-RN Phantoms, but the would not have been any further Phantoms (bought to replace the F-111), so what else in the time from would have been an alternative? A British built fighter? The French Mirage? An early F-16 (or indeed F-17)? A land based version of the F-14? Or perhaps the Swedish Viggen?

Referring to the earlier comments about the German decision to buy the Starfighter, I thought the very fancied British alternative was Fairey jet/rocket fighter/interceptor!?


----------



## The Basket (Sep 10, 2007)

If no Tornado around then probably gone Eagle.

The Tomcat was perfect but it was pricey with the Phoenix too. The jet needed plenty range.

The rocket fighter was saunders roe and it was a point interceptor.


----------

