The TSR2: The Greatest Plane Never Built.

[FLYBOYJ]

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???

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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

 

[nuuumannn]

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

 

[jetcal1]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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
FLAMING TORCH, SAFER TO CRASH LAND THAN EJECT FROM......TURKEY! (That one was by the Turkish airforce btw lol)
I could go on all day. Yes unfortunately for the Germans they lost the most. But after its first test flight, every country that bought one was asking for a refund. And my personal favourite, ok Lockheed, very funny the jokes over, now where's the real aircraft you promised us?.......

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."

 

[vikingBerserker]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

THEY MUST HAVE PUT IT TOGETHER WITH GLUE AND MONKEYS

Sounds like the day you were conceived

 

[Capt. Vick]

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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...

 

[jetcal1]

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?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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."

 

[nuuumannn]

I could go on all day.

Please don't.

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.

 

[Graeme]

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"...

 

[GrauGeist]

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

 

[Snowman]

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]

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

 

[PStickney]

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.