# The TSR2: The Greatest Plane Never Built.



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

The TSR2 (The initials stood for Tactical Strike and Reconaissance 2) can deservedly be called the greatest plane never built. Originally concieved as a replacement for the RAF's Canberra bomber, the design process started in 1956 with a protracted series of proposals and counter-proposals between aircraft manufacturers and the now-defunct Ministry of Supply. With the cost of developing modern aircraft soaring, it became necessary for companies to pool their resources in order to compete, and it was the merging of English Electric with Vickers to form the British Aircraft Corporation, or BAC, that secured the tender to develop the TSR2. The process of tendering had not actually been so protracted that this contract was not actually awarded until January 1960, with the first flight scheduled to be January 1963 and the plane to be in service by 1966.
The government of the day was keen that the management of the project proceed efficiently from now on and to this end looked at American methods of product management, implementing their results with the TSR2 - with disastrous consequences. A nightmare of bureaucracy was born. At one meeting the chairman was concerned that there were too many people present and requested that they reconvene with only essential personnel present; more people turned up for the second meeting than had been at the first! At another the Ministry of Supply had a three hour meeting to decide the positioning of a single switch in the cockpit, only to have it pointed out to them by the cheif test pilot Roly Faulk that the position fixed on made it impossible to reach!
Not suprisingly under the circumstances, the project slipped into delay and overspend and it was not until May 1964 that the first prototype was ready to commence trials. To complicate matters, there was an election looming, and, with the cancellation of the whole project a very real possibility, all the stops were pulled out to get the prototype airborne. Despite dire warnings from the engine manufacturers the flight was duly made on the 27th of September of that year. The flight itself was successful, even though it was impossible to retract the undercarriage!
As time progressed the numourous problems with the TSR2 were slowly ironed out, and from the mass of problems began to emerge an aircraft of quite glittering performance. The undercarriage problem was finally rectified after the 10th test flight, and on flight 14 the aircraft went supersonic for the first and only time, this being achieved with only one engine in afterburn. Things, however, were not well with the project as a whole and on Budget Day, 6th of April 1965, the project was scrapped without warning, to be replaced with F111's bought from the Americans. All toolings and drawings were destroyed, and parts scrapped with only two incomplete prototypes surviving.
In 1981 the government briefly looked at reinstating the TSR2 project, but with the Tornado about to enter service this was soo quietly shelved, perhaps because a brief comparison revealed the TSR2 to be still the superior machine 16 years down the line!






_After 14 test flights the TSR2 finally exceeded the speed of sound, but figuratively speaking, the project never got off the ground._





_Although it was commissioned in 1959, the TSR2 underwent a long and protracted phase of design and the fir5st prototype was not revealed until 1964._




_(All information from the book *Speed and Power*, all pictures scabbed from people off Google.)_


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 30, 2004)

Quite a rig! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

Indeed 8) Bloody Government...

BTW i wanna make it clear I just copied all that from a book, maybe Ill do some other in the near future...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2004)

i have a book called "british secret bombers" in a time period but i can't remeber exactily lol, i'll look for it in there.............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

Please don't tell me you only just found out about the TSR-2? The amount my dad has complained about it not being brought in is silly. It would have been the greatest and most advanced aircraft for years to come.

It's always the same with the British government though. They sit there with their fingers in their arses and they are tight fisted. Things only get paid for when they really need them, like if the threat of war comes about and even then they're still tight fisted - just a little less so. 
Take the Lightning for example it took from 1947 to 1960 to get from design to service. Then you've got the recent Chinook incident with them being so tight they wouldn't pay for a full digital control system and opted for half analogue/half digital which screwed the thing up. Now they have to pay even more to get it fixed, a problem that would have never occured if they'd paid that bit more for full digital.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 1, 2005)

Hell no, I had the book since 1999 and ive known bout it since then. I only recently found it again, I had some spare time so I put that up.

Ive always loved the TSR2...Id love to go see one of the unfinished prototypes, theres one at Duxford aint there?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2005)

plan_D, you're preaching to the choir here. I work for the military of "the land of the cheap-ass government"!  
Believe me, I know all about the type of frustration you're talking about!

It was the same story here with the old Avro (Canada) Arrow, back in the 50's.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 1, 2005)

Yeah but your Canada, no one expects you to have good stuff.  The TSR2 was a brilliant design but, as usual, politicians with NO military service had their fingers in their arses. And their other hand gripping every last penny

I think it is in Duxford, yes.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 1, 2005)

I dunno man, it sounds an awful lot like Canada to me.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2005)

No, Canada just buys old stuff - cheap. Like rotting F-18s...and diesel Submarines from Britain that set alight.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

Well, what have I been saying? 
Btw, I'm all too well aware of the crap our government buys, including those rotting, cobbled together Brit subs.  I lost a friend in one.

Thanks for your two pence, though.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

You lost your friend in that one off the coast of Scotland? 

I'm quite amazed anyone would buy a diesel sub these days, and aren't you going to be a submariner?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 3, 2005)

'Fraid so. And believe it or not, the concept of the diesel submarine is anything but obsolete. They still have their uses. They're generally small and very, very quiet. 

_Personally_ (just my opinion, I'm no Admiral  ) I'd like to have seen us go with German Type 209's or the Aussie Collins Class. No offence intended, but those damn Upholders are absolute junk! And the public is only now finding out what we've known in the service for a while: that we've been had by the government _again_!

I know, I know: "Well, we're talking Canada after all." 

Forgive me plan_D if I grow tired of discussing this stuff, it's my own damn fault for continuing to bring it up.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

Those British Subs we sold you, were junk. I think the British government have good salesmen, we even managed to pass on old crappy F.3 Lightnings off as brand new F.53 Lightnings to the Saudis.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2005)

A few of the subs I have done ops on were diesels as well...... Quiet like u have no idea quiet.... Rubber coating on the hull..... Even the decking is rubber coated....

Diesels are great, as well as they are maintained properly.... They have many stealth and intelligence gathering purposes....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Many setting themselves alight and needing to resurface to charge the batteries purposes as well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Many setting themselves alight



Where's this coming from? I mean besides the recent Chicoutimi (ex-Upholder) fire, which wasn't related to the diesel aspects of the boat.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

I didn't actually mean to put many...where that came from, I have no idea.  
I know, they have their uses...


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 19, 2005)

They do, there is a movie, 'Down Periscope' which is about a naval exercise, where using cunning the odd-ball commander of the old WW2 diesel sub manages to outwit the Commander of a USS Los Angeles Class Attack Sub. They have the advantage of being able to hide on the surface in fog and darkness if an enemy sub is detected and the noise would sound exactly like a fishing boat. Thus allowing the sub to escape close detection and sinking.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2005)

They certainly have their limitations as well. They need to constantly come to periscope depth, in order to "snort" to replenish their batteries and change their air, and they're not as fast as a nuke nor can they operate at the same depths.

For all of that, however, they're _extremely_ quiet and make excellent "lying in wait" boats, if deployed correctly, and can wreak havoc on an enemy force. They make excellent harassers and patrol submarines.
Their relative small size and stealth make them ideal for intelligence gathering, supporting covert ops, drug interdiction duties, etc. They're quite well suited for inshore work as well, and they can get into areas where the nukes would have difficulty operating.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

They also can't be deployed as long as a Nuke submarine. A Nuke only has to come back to shore to restock its food.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 19, 2005)

Absolutely true. Diesels are also cramped and lack some creature comforts, but that's the life.


----------



## Viper (Feb 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Yeah but your Canada, no one expects you to have good stuff. but, as usual, politicians with NO military service had their fingers in their arses. And their other hand gripping every last penny
> 
> sadly, he's right, ussually them are fightin' words.....
> 
> we have a simalar case with the Avro arrow interseptor (you should look it up) possibly a better plane than the Ts R2. Of corse our government shut it down like lots of things..


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 4, 2005)

I don't think the ol' Arrow was actually better than the TSR2, it was just built a little sooner. There's no denying it was ahead of it's time.
When you look back to the level of expertise, capability, and pride that existed in this country back then, it all seems like such an inconceivable thing nowadays. 

_That's_ the sad part.


----------



## Viper (Feb 4, 2005)

yea....it sure has gone down hill since then.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 28, 2006)

Actually at least these subs have systems that work. They are apparently to my knowledge still getting rid of all the bugs in the Collins Class Submarines... They have more bugs in them than a cheap hotel for $1 a night. (Imagine how many bed bugs there would be there...) No, these subs do have a purpose... Seen 'Down Periscope' which is a funny movie about how a misfit crew manage to use an old US WWII Balo Class Diesel Submarine called the USS Stingray to outwit a modern atomic powered USS Orlando. It proves that if there was a bit of unconventional thinking those diesel subs could do quite a bit of damage...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 29, 2006)

Hollywood... "proves". We keep seeing that more and more in our lexicon nowadays.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 3, 2006)

Okay, Okay so it is Hollywood but they probably do have a point that a nuclear submarine crew isn't infailable when encountering a diesel submarine. Ie. there is a scene when the diesel submarine surfaces and acts like a fishing boat. Also all submarines do the trick where they utilize other vessel's wash to hide them depending on where they are...


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 1, 2009)

A very insightful domentry I ve found :


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqQ9iLvWV1s_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VFSH12Uroc_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kap5GQAO5h4_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_EdoUuRo0U_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnxtCCiq1nA_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98RRmb1Trk_

Could be correct to say that the mismanagement of the British goverment destroyed not only the TSR2 but also a good part of the UKs aircraft industry ?


----------



## syscom3 (May 1, 2009)

A little bit of humor .... saw this in an e-mail back on April 1st


Today it has been announced by the Humbrol Marfleet company in Yorkshire, England that all TSR2 models recently sold to model enthusiasts around the world have to be recalled.

The UK Government has intervened in the production of the model stating that it's manufacture contravenes a 1966 order which states all TSR2 aircraft, parts and TOOLS be destroyed. Because the TSR2 is moulded on a tool it has to be destroyed.

The managing director of Airfix kit, Roy Annoid, has stated that anyone with a kit has to return to its place of purchase. It does not matter if the kit is made, partially made or unmade, the kit has to be returned.

Humbrol Marfleet may face fines of up to one million pounds per model not returned so there is keen interest in the Airfix camp to get them back.

Mr Annoid advised that, on return of the kit, the modeller will be presented with a voucher for a replacement kit. The kit will be an F-111A which is more expensive but not quite as good as the TSR2 kit.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Today it has been announced by the Humbrol Marfleet company in Yorkshire, England that all TSR2 models recently sold to model enthusiasts around the world have to be recalled.
> 
> The UK Government has intervened in the production of the model stating that it's manufacture contravenes a 1966 order which states all TSR2 aircraft, parts and TOOLS be destroyed. Because the TSR2 is moulded on a tool it has to be destroyed.
> 
> ...


Wow! This reminds me of the late 1970s when for some unknown reason, DC-10 models were just falling off the shelves at all hobby shops stocking them!


----------



## syscom3 (May 2, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wow! This reminds me of the late 1970s when for some unknown reason, DC-10 models were just falling off the shelves at all hobby shops stocking them!



Engine pod issues?


----------



## Waynos (May 2, 2009)

But in the absence of F-111 kits they may either send you a Buccaneer they picked up 2nd hand, ask you to repaint that tatty old Frog Canberra model you'd almost forgotten about or maybe let you have a Tornado in 15 years time.

Make the most of it though 'cos they're going to make sure that a few short years from now you wont be able to build any more models at all, but you might be able to paint your friend's models if he lets you.

edit to add, the full 'translation' of TSR 2 is 'Tactical Strike and Recconaissance, Mach 2' the RAF name was to be BAC Eagle GR.1 (beating the F-15 to the puch) and the RAF name for its replacement was to have been GD Merlin GR.1


----------



## Graeme (May 2, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But in the absence of F-111 kits



...because *we* got to the shop before you!


----------



## syscom3 (May 2, 2009)

Mounting missles on top of the wings has got to have made this AC one of the ugliest I have ever seen.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

Just like EE's Lightning with the "drop" tanks on top their wings....


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 3, 2009)

Too bad was never manufactured, a real shame. The only problem I see is that thing this could bomb mainland Argentina from ascencion island in 1982. But beside that as an aviation lover I would love to see it fly and in service.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

Agree buddy! She's one beautiful bird....


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2009)




----------



## rochie (May 3, 2009)

wasnt the tornado first named MRCA which people thought stood for *must refurbish canberra again* after the TSR 2 debacle


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 3, 2009)

> Agree buddy! She's one beautiful bird....



Definately, all the competitors for the G.O.R aircraft were good looking.



Matt308 said:


>



8) I wasnt kidding actually, RAF Avro Vulcan did bomb the argentine garrison, but the probabilities of succesfully penetrated enemy aerospace in the TRS2 wer a lot better, was supersonic at low altitude and had very good avionics after all.


----------



## Graeme (May 4, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Definately, all the competitors for the G.O.R aircraft were good looking.



The Bristol 204 with the "Gothic" foreplane reminds me of a detail sander.


----------



## syscom3 (May 4, 2009)

That looks like it has some stealth design in it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 4, 2009)

> The Bristol 204 with the "Gothic" foreplane reminds me of a detail sander



Crazy, looks like a mix between a Learjet and a Mirage III.


----------



## Matt308 (May 4, 2009)

Nope. F-106 and a F4D Skyray


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 4, 2009)

Uh...is subjetive after all.

Other interesting G.O.R design by Fairey.



> General Operations Requirement 339 of 1957 called for a new tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft as a supersonic replacement for the English Electric Canberra. The Fairey Aircraft Company, using data from the Delta projects submitted this canard design in early 1958. With two Rolls Royce RB142R or Olympus 15R engines as power-plants the design had proposed armament of 6 x 1000lb bombs, Red Beard rockets or rocket packs. The aircraft was never developed: the BAC TSR 2 being the eventual 'winner' of the requirement*.
> Span: 10.6m (34' 8") Length: 30.7m (100' 9") Max. Speed: Mach 2.15 at 36,000ft



GOR339_thumbs


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2009)

You are wrooong I say.....Batman, anyone can see that! 

The last one....


----------



## Graeme (May 5, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Other interesting G.O.R design by Fairey.
> GOR339_thumbs



Good find Charles! I think around 18 companies put in proposals for the GOR.339 specification. From an article by Tony Butler (AE 62) here's the "P.1129 Development", a combined design from Avro and Hawker (November 1958) which by then were known as Hawker Siddeley Aviation(?), which he describes as the "Cup Finalist"...


----------



## Graeme (May 5, 2009)

English Electric's P.17A design looked the most promising but in the end (1 January 1959), the contract was awarded to EE and Vickers-Armstrong based on a 50/50 partnership which they argued long and hard against, even as to where it was to be built and what airfield the prototype would fly from.

The "Design Timeline"... 




















(Take-Off. pp304-305)


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 5, 2009)

> You are wrooong I say.....Batman, anyone can see that



The Bristol proposal look even more like a comic book machine .



> English Electric's P.17A design looked the most promising but in the end (1 January 1959), the contract was awarded to EE and Vickers-Armstrong based on a 50/50 partnership which they argued long and hard against, even as to where it was to be built and what airfield the prototype would fly from



Thanks for the 3 view drawings, Quite sad that the only sucessful British company of the time, English Electric, were forced to be a mere parter of other not so succesful firms. Bad, bad planning by the british goverment.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

Imagine RAF today if they had built some of those crates....8)


----------



## Graeme (May 6, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Quite sad that the only sucessful British company of the time, English Electric, were forced to be a mere parter of other not so succesful firms.



G'day Charles. EE and Shorts were actually planning to mount the P.17 on a sort of airborne carrier in the early stages.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 6, 2009)

Yea, i saw it in the documentry ( wich I ve posted earlier in this topic), quite amazing and unpractical design.


----------



## Waynos (May 6, 2009)

One of the most impressive features of the TSR 2, I feel, is that despite its tiny delta wing it was a STOL aircraft, featuring blown flaps such as were puioneered by the Buccaneer and are used by many modern types to achieve STOL without the weight and complexity of the VG wing of its rival the F-111, a form which has now all but died out.

But then we designed the Tornado with a VG wing, the LAST new combat aircraft to use the format. WTF was that all about?


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2009)

The 1129 spec reminds me of the F-107. Looks great for straight line runs, but surely would suffer in even moderate AOA.


----------



## Sweb (May 10, 2009)

I never knew much (still don't) about the specification, subsequent design bids and the TSR2 until I read the coverage here. Thanks. One thing I have noticed in the specification is that the requirement (and resulting design drawings/bids) is not too far off the capability of the North American Vigilante. Can't help but notice the similarities, though the weapons bay of the Vigilante was a (proven) failure, but it could have answered the specifications from what I see so far. And, it went into production and use.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 31, 2009)

Supermarine canard proposal for the G.O.R. 339, really , really ugly aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2009)

Thunderbirds GO!!


----------



## Waynos (May 31, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Supermarine canard proposal for the G.O.R. 339, really , really ugly aircraft.



This was not designed for OR339, which called for a bomber. This was designed to F.155T, an interceptor required to reach mach 2.5 and fly at 70,000ft. The favoured design for this was the Fairey Delta III.shown here.







Sweb, although there is a superficial physical similarity between the A-5 and TSR 2 the two aircraft were in reality very different and the A-5 coulde not have met the spec (or it would have been ordered in 1959).


----------



## Cromwell (May 31, 2009)

Waynos said:


> This was not designed for OR339, which called for a bomber. This was designed to F.155T, an interceptor required to reach mach 2.5 and fly at 70,000ft. The favoured design for this was the Fairey Delta III.shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to say talking about the TSR-2 and related topics is depressing me (even though you guys know your stuff for sure) 

It reminds me how the UK Aircraft Industry and pretty much all the UKs Industries were sabotaged on all fronts along with a large dose of bad luck too.

Unfortunately, this is the age of the US and other New Entrant countries - the UK will increasingly have to take a back-seat and accept our diminished position in the world


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Unfortunately, this is the age of the US and other New Entrant countries - the UK will increasingly have to take a back-seat and accept our diminished position in the world




Well surely that attitude won't help. While ability to realistically assess current situations is helpful, resolving yourself to second class is not in the British spirit of the past. Stiff upper lip and all that. The UK holds a pretty powerful political and military position in the world. Don't deny your country its dues. And the US views the UK as its most staunchest allie.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 1, 2009)

The greatest enemy the UK aircraft industry ever faced was not the USA, nor even the Luftwaffe. It was the British Government.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 1, 2009)

> Thunderbirds GO!!



Agreed, seems extracted from a comic book.




> This was not designed for OR339, which called for a bomber. This was designed to F.155T, an interceptor required to reach mach 2.5 and fly at 70,000ft. The favoured design for this was the Fairey Delta III.shown here.



After reading again I have to say...you are correct, that is a fighter with firestreak missiles. This is the proper squematics:


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 1, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Well surely that attitude won't help. While ability to realistically assess current situations is helpful, resolving yourself to second class is not in the British spirit of the past. Stiff upper lip and all that. The UK holds a pretty powerful political and military position in the world. Don't deny your country its dues. And the US views the UK as its most staunchest allie.



You know what, you might just have a point - in any case thanks for the boost.

Why We Fight :-

I went to see where my mother was born in Hastings Old Town today (on the south coast) in 1924 - very beautiful weather I must say, lots of sun and sea etc.

She was born in a building that was part of an old inn - built back in 1523 - which is very old IMHO.

Guess what ? it was obliterated by a German Hit Run Raid in 1943 

Fortunately my mother's family had been evacuated before, but now there is a garden memorial to commemorate the great loss of life.

It was just one bomb but it exploded when the Inn / Hotel was full of Civilians and Service Personnel on leave etc etc.

Very Sad


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

*Specification*
Powerplant
Two 30,610 lbst Bristol Siddeley Olympus 320
Span
37 ft 0 in
Maximum Weight
80,000 lb (96,000 lb overload)
Range
1,150 miles (hi-hi) with 2,000 lb bomb load; 800 miles (lo-lo)
Maximum Speed
1,485 mph (Mach 2.35) at 36,000 ft; 850 mph (Mach 1.1) at low level.
*Number built*
2 complete prototypes 1 flown (XR219), several other airframes in build at time of cancellation
*Survivors*
XR220
RAF Museum, Cosford, UK
www.rafmuseum.org.uk
XR222 Imperial War Museum, Duxford, Cambs, UK
www.iwm.org.uk 
The end of the line as a fuselage XR226 is scrapped at Weybridge

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 24, 2018)

Now which German Luftwaffe 1946 paper project does this plane remind me of? I'm sure I have seen something similar before there....


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 24, 2018)

Now where have I seen a German paper project similar in design? Accidential double post sorry.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 25, 2018)

Dunno about any Luft '46 designs being similar - but I have wondered if the early Vigilante had any influence on the TSR-2 design?

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Oct 3, 2018)



Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2018)

You sure do have a way with words Smokey...

I suspect this one will get interesting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Oct 3, 2018)

no !

not worth it

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2018)

I just wish we could hurry up and get the smokey/tagas formalities out of the way.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Oct 3, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just wish we could hurry up and get the smokey/tagas formalities out of the way.


i'm smokey stover.

and so is my wife ....!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Yep, instead the yanks sabotaged us as usual and europe had to put up with the F111 widowmaker.....lol


Kind of hard to sabotage something that was doomed to begin with!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 3, 2018)

A real stunner to look at, I think that and the B-70 were the most beautiful aircraft ever made.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 3, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Kind of hard to sabotage something that was doomed to begin with!



Intrigued to know how it was doomed to begin with. Happy to learn but, from all I've read, it had pretty much overcome the primary issues at the time of cancellation, and said cancellation was an entirely political move.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 3, 2018)

There's no evidence the US had anything to do with the TSR.2's cancellation. It was entirely internal politics. Yes, the US wanted to push their own designs, but why not? They were in competition with the British industry, but also, on the other side of the coin, the US was keen on European nations being able to provide their own defence capabilities to counter the Soviet threat on mainland Europe.

A few facts. TSR.2 was built to GOR.343, not GOR.339. The latter was for the Canberra replacement spec, which produced two final designs, from English Electric (EE) and Supermarine (the last drawing board machine by the Supermarine team). The best aspects of these two designs were merged into what was eventually to become the TSR.2, but a fly in the ointment in the form of an agreement with Short Brothers by EE meant that that firm had to be written out of the equation, so GOR.343 was written to facilitate this and the winners of OR.339 were built as the TSR.2 under OR.343.

The actual reason behind the TSR.2's cancellation was its was just too expensive, but again, this wasn't necessarily the fault of the jet or the companies tasked with its design and construction. It was an entirely new concept in which the first prototype became the first pre-production aircraft; it's design was frozen before construction began. This was a new concept and it hampered the final design as the RAF Air Staff and the committee formed by the Ministry of Supply kept changing the goal posts as to what roles the TSR.2 was to actually carry out. The RAF saw it as a possible replacement for the V-bombers, too. OR.343 was re-written no less than four times to accommodate changes to the basic requirement that had moved beyond a simple Canberra replacement. No wonder it became too expensive. The negative press and lack of government (specifically MoD - the naval heads wanted the money after they had found out their big carrier projects were going to be scrapped) support also weighed on the project as a whole.

This lack of clarity with regards to the jet's ultimate role was directly as a result of Duncan Sandys' 1957 Defence White Paper, which cancelled a host of future weapon systems and concetrated on the development of rockets and missiles (during WW2 Sandys had been chair of a committee to investigate German V-1 and V-2 technology, where his love of rockets grew from). From this the Blue Streak Medium Range Ballistic Missile came about, but was cancelled in 1960 for the same reason as the TSR.2, cost, although rockets were supplied to the European Launcher Development Organisation as a first stage booster to the Europa rocket and launched continuously until 1971.

Cost affected the aviation industry as a whole and TSR.2 was not the only major aircraft design cancelled in early 1965. Simultaneously, the P-1154 supersonic Harrier, yes, it was going to be called the Harrier was cancelled, because the Navy and RAF couldn't decide on a standard that suited both requirements and the HS.681 four engined jet transport, built to support the TSR.2 in the field. Simultaneously, the British and French had entered a binding agreement to develop a supersonic airliner and this was seen as the future path for Britain's aerospace industry. How wrong they were, of course, but Concorde was not cheap. Something had to give and TSR.2 was it.

Regarding the USA, after the 1964 election, in which Labour under Harold Wilson defeated the Tories, the government sent aviation and defence representatives to the US to examine new projects over there, including a trip to Fort Worth, where Robert MacNamara's TF-X was being designed and built. He accompanied the British delegation. This gave the British an idea of what the US was up to and most likely planted the seed that brought about the cancellation of the three aircraft projects for US made products. Nevertheless, toward the end of 1964 the government assured the British Aircraft Corporation that TSR.2 and Concorde would not be cancelled and George Edwards, former Vickers design engineer and BAC chairman wrote a letter to BAC personnel (I have a copy of that letter in my stash) assuring them of the future of both these projects.

In the end, the government bought US products to replace its own, owing to the emphasis by the US designers that they would be cheaper and on paper the offer looked too good to refuse. The F.111 would replace the TSR.2, the F-4 Phantom II would replace the P-1154 and the C-130 Hercules would replace the HS.681.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Im not married thanks. Im not that stupid..... And you can try to provoke me by getting personal all you like. Im teflon from now on so get used to having me and my opinion around.....
> And besides, you need you some youngish blood around here, otherwise shit gets old. Like politics and the British monarchy......lol



Actually, no we won’t get used to having you around.

You were banned smokey. That hasn’t change. We also don’t allow dual accounts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Oh so what, they swapped it for another kind of deathtrap? The F-104? Please Oh thats logic...... It was all just about $$$ What was it? 916 built, 292 lost and 115 pilots killed..... And it didnt even see combat! Yeah such a great aircraft......


There were almost 3,000 built and it was in service from 1958 through 2004.

It broke, as well as set, world records (a few of which still stand) and it most certainly did see combat.
In Vietnam, it flew over 5,200 sorties. And contrary to popular belief, it was not a death trap, as only 14 F-104s were lost to all causes out of those 5,200+ sorties.

The F-104 losses in the Indian-Pakistan conflict can be chalked up to improper training, as the Tiawanese F-104s took down Chinese MiGs in their conflict.
The problem with the Indian pilots, is they fell for the turning dogfight bait and paid the price - the F-104 is literally a missile with a jockey and speed was it's primary weapon.
Just like the Me262 versus the P-51...when the Me262 used it's speed, it dictated the terms...if it took the bait for a turning fight, the P-51 dictated the terms.

The 916 figure is how many F-104s were purchased by West Germany, *262* German F-104s crashed (for various reasons, mainly inadequate training) for the cost of *116* Pilots' lives.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Oh so what, they swapped it for another kind of deathtrap? The F-104? Please Oh thats logic...... It was all just about $$$ What was it? 916 built, 292 lost and 115 pilots killed..... And it didnt even see combat! Yeah such a great aircraft......



Logic? You need to do just a wee little research before your upper lip vibrates too much...

2,578 F-104s were built

F-104 WAS flown in combat - Vietnam and Pakistan

Most of the F-104 accidents - PILOT ERROR

Spain operated the F-104 from 1965 to 1972, no losses.

The Japanese operated them 1962-1986, 210 and lost 3, 2 were lost in a mid air collision

Italy operated it until 1989

The highest NATO attrition rate during the 1960s was held by the F-100, not the F-104

The F-104 was designed for one mission and was morphed to do many. Considering the bad press and the accidents, it turned out to be a GREAT aircraft.

So Logic???

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> There were almost 3,000 built and it was in service from 1958 through 2004.
> 
> It broke, as well as set, world records (a few of which still stand) and it most certainly did see combat.
> In Vietnam, it flew over 5,200 sorties. And contrary to popular belief, it was not a death trap, as only 14 F-104s were lost to all causes out of those 5,200+ sorties.
> ...



Don’t let those pesky facts get in the way...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 4, 2018)

Like I said on another thread, arguing with him is a waste of time. I'm setting my stopwatch to time how long it takes before he's banned again.  

Here are some images to accompany my wall of text (!) The two surviving TSR.2 airframes, the second prototype that was due to fly on the day the programme was cancelled, XR220 at the RAF Museum, Cosford and the fourth prototype XR222, which is a composite of leftover bits at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford.





XR220




XR222

TSR.2 procedures trainer was essentially a surviving forward fuselage and can be seen at the Brooklands Museum at Weybridge, Surrey, where TSR.2s were built.




Procedures Trainer

A model of the Hawker Siddeley HS.681 originally designed by the Armstrong Whitworth design team. This is on display at the Midland Air Museum. Note the vectored thrust exhausts on the engine nacelles; it was to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Medway low bypass turbofan. This engine was the preferred powerplant for the TSR.2 by George Edwards.




HS.681

A wind tunnel model of the RAF's single seat variant of the supersonic Hawker Siddeley P.1154 Harrier. This is also on display at Brooklands Museum.




P.1154

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2018)

Joe, don't forget the four Taiwanese F-104s that mixed it up with the 8 Chinese MiG-19s during the skirmish in '67, which saw two Chinese MiGs splashed.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Oh so what, they swapped it for another kind of deathtrap? The F-104? Please Oh thats logic...... It was all just about $$$ What was it? 916 built, 292 lost and 115 pilots killed..... And it didnt even see combat! Yeah such a great aircraft......


Your numbers must be for the Germans. There's something about high speed low level flight over rolling, hilly terrain in at times marginal IFR conditions that tends to be a tad dangerous.
Don't forget, Canada lost over a 100 and I don't think they had even 300 aircraft. Single engine over remote wilderness....maybe that's why they like twin engines?

Did you mention most of the German losses were CFiT? You must of missed that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Hahahaha. Yeah i got that bit, if all else fails, blame the nazis or the commies right?........ lol


You are aware that the F-104's design and primary mission was a supersonic high-altitude interceptor, right?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Hahahaha. Yeah i got that bit, if all else fails, blame the nazis or the commies right?........ lol



I don’t get what the Nazi’s or the Russians have to do with the 104, or your failure of a TSR.2...

Your departure is growing much more closer...


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> Hahahaha. Yeah i got that bit, if all else fails, blame the nazis or the commies right?........ lol
> Ok, so it had nothing to do with the tiny wings not fit for a house fly. And it certainly couldnt be anything to do with the aircraft snapping in half like a rotten twig, for any pilot foolish enough to try a tight turn at speed....Maybe it was multiple engine fires? Or bleed air failure on one wing....
> Here some words (not mine) that pilots have quoted to describe the 104.....
> DEADLY, A TOTAL FAILURE, INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, UNSTABLE AT ALL SPEEDS AND ALL ALTITUDES, FLAWED AS MUCH AS ANY FIGHTER COULD BE THEY (Lockheed) MUST HAVE PUT IT TOGETHER WITH GLUE AND MONKEYS, A DOG! THE ROCKET WITH A MAN IN IT, WIDOWMAKER
> ...



Yes, I'm aware that most "experten" did not like the airplane and Galland grounded it. (I'd be curious to see the loss rate for the Harrier.) And no, the Canadian loss rate was higher *and* if you look at the record, I believe you'll find that after the Germans adjusted the mission profile, the loss rate dropped precipitately.

Let's also never mind the Germans (And the Italians) also started kludging all kinds of external stores and adding weight. (Nothing like the end user adding all kinds of unanticipated cycles.)

I know that approximately 25% of BAC Lightnings were lost in accidents, From what I can find on the Harrier, the loss rates were indeed similar to those of the Lightning. 
So, I guess what it boils down to, is having worked on or around multiple tactical jets and having seen failures caused by bad piloting, bad maintenance, or just age related, my attitude towards this is a little different than yours. "Shit happens with military jets."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 4, 2018)

I had no idea the F-104 saw combat in Vietnam and were shot down by AA and a Chinese J-6 

Italy operated a licensed version called the F-104S until 2005
The F-104 Starfighter was supposed to be the Air Force’s fastest, highest-flying combat jet

Germany lost 298 including: 123 mechanical, 16 FOD, 51 CFIT, 19 Bird strikes and 24 due to collisions. The remaining 65 were due to pilot error or lightning strikes. IIRB they had around 900.
916 Starfighter

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> THEY MUST HAVE PUT IT TOGETHER WITH GLUE AND MONKEYS


Sounds like the day you were conceived

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 4, 2018)

2nd rate forum? I thought we were 5th rate at best. LOL

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2018)

Capt. Vick said:


> 2nd rate forum? I thought we were 5th rate at best. LOL


We're not a fun forum because we crush dreams and spoil fantasies with historical accuracy and peer-reviewed information...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 4, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Germany lost 298 including: 123 mechanical, 16 FOD, 51 CFIT, 19 Bird strikes and 24 due to collisions. The remaining 65 were due to pilot error or lightning strikes. IIRB they had around 900.
> 916 Starfighter



It's a funny thing. You can tie about 7-8% of the total losses as a direct factor of the mission itself. (CFIT and Bird.) Mechanical? I suspect it's easier to find and deadstick into an airport from 7-8K meters than 150 meters. Pilot error? Less time to recover from a mistake at 150 meters?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2018)

Getting back on track - Nuuuuumann's excellent post why the TSR.2 was doomed from the start. 

_"The actual reason behind the TSR.2's cancellation was its was just too expensive, but again, this wasn't necessarily the fault of the jet or the companies tasked with its design and construction. It was an entirely new concept in which the first prototype became the first pre-production aircraft; it's design was frozen before construction began. This was a new concept and it hampered the final design as the RAF Air Staff and the committee formed by the Ministry of Supply kept changing the goal posts as to what roles the TSR.2 was to actually carry out. The RAF saw it as a possible replacement for the V-bombers, too. OR.343 was re-written no less than four times to accommodate changes to the basic requirement that had moved beyond a simple Canberra replacement. No wonder it became too expensive. The negative press and lack of government (specifically MoD - the naval heads wanted the money after they had found out their big carrier projects were going to be scrapped) support also weighed on the project as a whole.

This lack of clarity with regards to the jet's ultimate role was directly as a result of Duncan Sandys' 1957 Defence White Paper, which cancelled a host of future weapon systems and concetrated on the development of rockets and missiles (during WW2 Sandys had been chair of a committee to investigate German V-1 and V-2 technology, where his love of rockets grew from). From this the Blue Streak Medium Range Ballistic Missile came about, but was cancelled in 1960 for the same reason as the TSR.2, cost, although rockets were supplied to the European Launcher Development Organisation as a first stage booster to the Europa rocket and launched continuously until 1971.

Cost affected the aviation industry as a whole and TSR.2 was not the only major aircraft design cancelled in early 1965. Simultaneously, the P-1154 supersonic Harrier, yes, it was going to be called the Harrier was cancelled, because the Navy and RAF couldn't decide on a standard that suited both requirements and the HS.681 four engined jet transport, built to support the TSR.2 in the field. Simultaneously, the British and French had entered a binding agreement to develop a supersonic airliner and this was seen as the future path for Britain's aerospace industry. How wrong they were, of course, but Concorde was not cheap. Something had to give and TSR.2 was it."_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 4, 2018)

Tagas said:


> I could go on all day.



Please don't.



FLYBOYJ said:


> why the TSR.2 was doomed from the start.



Thanks Joe. The odds were stacked against it from the start. The 1957 Defence White Paper did more harm to the British military machine than is often realised and directly led to the cancellation of TSR.2. GOR.339 as a Canberra replacement could have been a successful 'low rent' version of the TSR.2 and might not have met with the same political interference, but with the future RAF looking quite uncertain after the 1957 paper, a scramble for some kind in the establishing of parameters was required and the TSR.2 was too good an opportunity to ignore on which to impose the capabilities that had been wiped out in the Defence White Paper. The EE Lightning just missed out on being cancelled and had that happened, Britain would not have had a supersonic interceptor in the mid to late 60s.

The concepts that Sandys was promoting were extraordinarily far sighted, but the technology of the day just wasn't capable of producing what was required, not least at the costs the treasury was prepared to allow. Not to mention the fact that there is still a need for manned aircraft, even today, when UAVs are becoming more sophisticated and are taking on ever-more traditional roles.

The failure of the Blue Streak programme, as ambitious as that was for a cash strapped Britain should have been a lesson to the government, but the flaw in a democratically elected parliament is that continuity in all things is not guaranteed after each election. The financial failures wrought from the 1957 paper in its wake cost the country millions, not to mention a loss of military and industrial capability, from which it arguably has not recovered.

I should add that the wake of the TSR.2 saga was a begrudging acceptance of the fact that close military and economic alignment with the United States (and latterly and ever more increasingly in these times - continental Europe) was the only option for post-Empire Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Oct 4, 2018)

This is how Peter Lewis (The British Bomber since 1914 - Putnam 1967) viewed the demise of the TSR.2.
And a new word to me "gimcrack"...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2018)

Well, Mr. Lewis certainly didn't pull any punches, did he?


----------



## Snowman (Oct 4, 2018)

Gentlemen, this is very interesting and informative discussion. Some years ago I read one more article on this matter:

Britain’s High-Mach Heartbreak | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine


----------



## Tieleader (Oct 4, 2018)

Did you mention most of the German losses were CFiT? You must of missed that.[/QUOTE]
For the ignorant what is CFiT ?


----------



## PStickney (Oct 4, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> Did you mention most of the German losses were CFiT? You must of missed that.


For the ignorant what is CFiT ?[/QUOTE]

Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
Germany had issues with aircrew qualification unlike more diverse air forces, where the top 10-20% of graduating trainee pilots get selected for fighters, the rest going to bombers, transports, tankers, etc.,
98% of early 1960s Luftwaffe trainees went directly to F-104s.
There were also issues with the ground crews. Most of the Luftwaffe enlisted were 2 -year term conscripts, whose main interest was getting out and employing their new skills in the rapidly growing West German civil economy. Add in the fact that there weren't a whole lot of experienced NCOs to supervise, and problems are inevitable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Oct 5, 2018)

Deleted byJC1


----------



## wuzak (Oct 5, 2018)




----------



## Tieleader (Oct 5, 2018)

PStickney said:


> For the ignorant what is CFiT ?



Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
Germany had issues with aircrew qualification unlike more diverse air forces, where the top 10-20% of graduating trainee pilots get selected for fighters, the rest going to bombers, transports, tankers, etc.,
98% of early 1960s Luftwaffe trainees went directly to F-104s.
There were also issues with the ground crews. Most of the Luftwaffe enlisted were 2 -year term conscripts, whose main interest was getting out and employing their new skills in the rapidly growing West German civil economy. Add in the fact that there weren't a whole lot of experienced NCOs to supervise, and problems are inevitable.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the intell! I new the post war LW had issues but I'd think it was that bad.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 5, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, Mr. Lewis certainly didn't pull any punches, did he?



Yep, he needed to take a breath during that lot. There was a period when little was released about the aircraft into the public domain after its cancellation factual wise about the aircraft and its capabilities, and several authors had books published all loaded with the same vitriol. The Murder of TSR.2 by Stephen Hastings was one, TSR.2 Phoenix or Folly by Frank Barnett-Jones was another. Both worth reading to get a sense of the 'national outrage' that people felt after its cancellation, but there are better books out there now since the 30 year rule has passed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jan 2, 2019)

*Shorts P.17A launch platform for BAC TSR.2*


----------



## johnbr (Jan 4, 2019)




----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2019)

johnbr said:


> *Shorts P.17A launch platform for BAC TSR.2*



This is misleading. That Short lift platform, the PD.17 wasn't for carrying the TSR.2. It was designed to carry the English Electric P.17A - the designations are wrong in that title - the jet shown in the illustration. This mating of the two platforms as the joint Short Brothers and English Electric proposal to General Operational Requirement No.339 (GOR.339) for a Canberra replacement.

Those evaluating the paper planes preferred elements of the Vickers Supermarine entry, the Type 571 (the last design by the Supermarine drawing office) and the EE P.17A, without the Short PD.17 component as the preferred winner of OR.339, but because EE and Shorts had submitted jointly, a new specification was written to construct a combination of the VS and EE proposals, which was GOR.343, to which the TSR.2 was built.


----------



## johnbr (Aug 2, 2019)

Bristol Aeroplace Company | BAE Systems | International

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 7, 2019)

What would the TSR-2 have been called had it entered service? Most British planes have a name like "Spitfire" and then a designation like Mk.I, Mk.II, and a PR version would be PR.IX (which for some reason I tend to read as Pricks instead of Pee Are Nine)


----------



## johnbr (Oct 2, 2019)

Fotos de aeronaves antigas — vintage aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

*Canberra, Lightning and TSR-2 Aircraft. Warton, near Preston 1963 
Preston Digital Archive






*


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

same site.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

canberra kid's Content - Page 40 - Britmodeller.com


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

same site


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

same site


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

canberra kid's Content - Page 51 - Britmodeller.com


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 14, 2020)

Makes me weep every time I see photos of the TSR2.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

same site
Some more weapons and stuff.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

Fuel info


----------



## johnbr (Jul 14, 2020)

same site

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

