Baby TSR.2 instead of the real thing?

[tomo pauk]

Basically, the combat aircraft that is reminiscent in size, weight and abilities to the F-105. Engine of choice: Bristol Olympus, of the type earmarked to the TSR.2. Time of development: starts by the time TSR.2 is cancelled.

Any takers?

 

[TsrJoe]

I am not a fan of ATL. speculations threads, but the Vickers Supermarine Type 571/1, Tactical Strike & Reconnaissance Aircraft design study submission to GOR.339, 1958 fits the bill (although this was pre TSR.2 definition !)

 

[_Del_]

Basically, the combat aircraft that is reminiscent in size, weight and abilities to the F-105.

Isn't that basically the P.1121?

 

[TsrJoe]

EE. P.17 parameter studies (again pre TSR.2)

 

[H_K]

Vickers Supermarine Type 571/1, Tactical Strike & Reconnaissance Aircraft

I love the side view…. reminds me of the A-5 Vigilante. That wing is ludicrously small though!

So fix the wing and now we’re talking… a single Olympus on a Vigilante-like bomber would be quite something.

 

[red admiral]

EE. P.17 parameter studies

Maybe someone slipped LSD into the cheese pie. Thanks for sharing those uglies.

Vickers 571/1 sounds a good match - even was the winning bid due to their focus on avionics integration and miniaturisation.

 

[zen]

Vickers Supermarine Type 571/1, Tactical Strike & Reconnaissance Aircraft design study submission to GOR.339, 1958

Literally what I've been saying for over 20 years.

 

[red admiral]

Literally what I've been saying for over 20 years.

Might be a bit ahead of time to actually manage to do the miniaturised electronics properly.. but say slightly later on, and then Vickers puts a VG wing on it and oh wait you're into 581/583 etc.

 

[TsrJoe]

By the time TSR.2 was cancelled the RAF. were already looking forward to F.111K with AFVG. filling in the tactical roles.

However one plays it, IRL. we still converge into replacing the cancelled TSR.2/F.111K/AFVG. with Buccaneer, Jaguar and Tornado

 

[Scott Kenny]

Basically, the combat aircraft that is reminiscent in size, weight and abilities to the F-105. Engine of choice: Bristol Olympus, of the type earmarked to the TSR.2. Time of development: starts by the time TSR.2 is cancelled.

Any takers?

So, Hawker P.1121 then.

The first challenge is the range requirement. The original TSR2 range requirement was 1000nmi, the prototypes were built for a 750nmi range. F-105 actually has a 675nmi range, so an engine with ~10-15% less TSFC would get you to 750nmi. But the Olympus isn't that engine, it's even thirstier than the J75! Olympus TSFC is 0.817, J75 is 0.74.

You'd need an engine with a TSFC of about 0.64 to get the range you'd need out of an F-105, and we didn't see afterburning engines with that kind of TSFC until the F101. But you could also mess around with the airframe and add 10-15% more internal fuel and have much the same effect on range. Does make the plane bigger, but if your engine makers can't get you the TSFC you need, you build a bigger airframe.

The second challenge is the avionics. Terrain Following Radar, computerized bombing system, Inertial Navigation System, maybe even a star tracker. All of those were really at the ragged edge of what you could make fit into a plane in the 1950s.

Range and avionics combined is what made the TSR2 so huge in practice.

Also, a side note about bombload: The F-105 only carried one nuke in the weapons bay, the TSR2 was supposed to carry two nukes.

 

[uk 75]

If you want a small TSR2 then you can have RAF Buccaneers in service by 1966.
Then you get something like AFVG in the 70s.
Trouble is the RAF wants a supersonic Valiant replacement able to deliver 2 WE177s with a thousand mile range.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Might be a bit ahead of time to actually manage to do the miniaturised electronics properly..

That's the real killer for an aircraft intended to meet OR.339. You can devise all sorts of shenanigans with airframes and engines to get the requisite, or even compromise on performance, but without the avionics you're going to disappoint the Air Staff.

TBH, my feeling is that you really need a two-stage development: a Mark I with the platform characteristics you want and minimum viable avionics in 1968-1970, upgraded to (or replaced by) a Mark II with fully compliant avionics in the mid-late 1970s once technology has caught up.

You'd need an engine with a TSFC of about 0.64 to get the range you'd need out of an F-105, and we didn't see afterburning engines with that kind of TSFC until the F101

The reheated Spey was about 0.63 in military thrust; its big brother, the Medway, featured in several OR.339 proposals, so itsn't out of the question.

 

[uk 75]

Does the F111 still exist iin this alt timeline?
if it does it beats your alts and the RAF will want it.

 

[zen]

Might be a bit ahead of time to actually manage to do the miniaturised electronics properly.. but say slightly later on, and then Vickers puts a VG wing on it and oh wait you're into 581/583 etc.

That's the irony.
Within a few years the conceptual avionics for such would undergo a revolution and this is part of why OR.346 exists.

Single Engined Type 571 is basically a product yoi tun off the line in variants and can afford in the numbers desired.

You can get your barebones capability on early batches and work towards full spec over the years.

But it's not a replacement for a V-Bomber.....

 

[H_K]

But it's not a replacement for a V-Bomber.....

Scaled up to ~35 tons MTOW it would be a viable small nuke bomber though, wouldn’t it?

Vigilante (36t) and Mirage IV (33t) were in that size range, with the same thrust as a single Olympus and less fuel efficient engines. Or you could go for an 80% scale FB-111, which would be around 40-42t.

 

[Pirate Pete]

To get a ‘Baby TSR.2 you would need a different 1957 DWP. That cancelled
en-masse various British aircraft programmes, including the Avro-730 reconnaissance/bomber which would have been the ‘real’ V-bomber replacement. We therefore got TSR.2 as we know it from history as the British Royal Airforce in effect ended up hanging just about every task they could think of on it…
It’s like the quip “An elephant is a mouse designed by committee”…
to get Baby TSR.2, you will need to keep a big bomber being built, and then, and only then, will you get the proper Canberra replacement.
My option (even allowing for the 1957 DWP) would be to go down the route of the English Electric P.17 - E.E. had after all brought to fruition the Canberra and also (I know via a research aircraft project) the Lightning Interceptor.

 

[Archibald]

The Olympus development potential was nothing short of amazing. Vulcan to TSR-2 to Concorde. And the Olympus fitted to operational Concordes were not the end of the development line - by far. The "610" had still plenty of margin of improvements. Somewhere on this forum I posted a few Google books tidbits mentionning a "625" Olympus 593 which was close enough from the second generation SST "variable cycle engines" of the 1980's.

Edit: couldn't find anything, so browsed my HD instead and found these four gems. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ment-variants-projects.728/page-5#post-652041

 

[_Del_]

If you want a small TSR2 then you can have RAF Buccaneers in service by 1966.
Then you get something like AFVG in the 70s.
Trouble is the RAF wants a supersonic Valiant replacement able to deliver 2 WE177s with a thousand mile range.

And if you want it to go Mach 2 at altitude and supersonic on deck, it is going to need a stronger airframe, which means more weight, which means more fuel which means more weight, which means more fuel and structure, which means ...

 

[Archibald]

The B-1A / AMSA was supposed to hit Mach 1.2 at low level, this was dropped to Mach 0.92 then Mach 0.85 (from memory). Going supersonic at low level for an extended period of time cost gargantuan amounts of kerosene. Also an extremely strong VG wing pivot system, with some heavy titanium forgings.

 

[_Del_]

One of the TSR.2 post-mortems had a nice section on how the requirement was near-fatal and useless. One would rarely use the Mach 2 maximum because it would kill the range and be hard on the engines, and it drove the weight and size up in a spiral. The low-altitude requirement was more useful, but again the small increase from transonic speed to 1.1 kept adding weight to an airframe that was already heavier than originally hoped for relatively small benefit.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF cheated the politicians by calling its V bomber replacement a Canberra replacement. Even Mountbatten let them get away with it by offering the Buccaneer as a replacement but not calling the Air Staff out for wanting a V bomber replacement

 

[zen]

So a Canberra, Tactical system is clearly the original GOR.339 of 600nm RoA (Radius of Action) with a Red Beard 2,000lb nuclear store.

The 1,000nm requirement is supplemental and allowed drop tanks or IFR to get to that RoA.

Worse a supersonic burst over the target to Mach 1.2 and High altitude recce flight acceleration from cruise to over Mach 2.

A severe STOL required. EE's solution relied of a Shorts VTOL aircraft with batteries of lift jets!

Now drop the 1,000nm RoA and relax the STOL....and frankly drop the supersonic at low level, and drop the Mach 2+ at high level.....
And then you've got a reasonable requirement.

There was a Weight Limit too and HP took a look by a study at what actually could do the task and promptly walked away from this!

Purely what's the best interim solution is the B.108 Buccaneer variant.

Supersonic Reconasense could have been done by Vigilante or Hustler.

Ironically Vigilante avionics form a sizable chunk of TSR.2 avionics.

 

[uk 75]

As usual with alt paper planes you cannot meet the RAF requirement so you change it to fit your fave project. Fantasy football league time.

The RAF sort of got what it wanted between 1968 and 1982 by using 48 Vulcans.

 

[zen]

As usual with alt paper planes you cannot meet the RAF requirement so you change it to fit your fave project. Fantasy football league time.

The RAF sort of got what it wanted between 1968 and 1982 by using 48 Vulcans.

?
Vulcan meets OR.339?
In RoA maybe.....In the other aspects?
Speed?
Weight?
Airfield requirements?
Acceleration?

 

[uk 75]

OK let's be realistic.
Vulcans proved during US Red Flag exercises they were slippery at low level so speed is irrelevant.
TSR2 needed more servicing than Vulcans (see the recent Cosford seminar)
They would have used UK airfields but lacked the Vulcan's range.
Vulcans had no problem carrying two WE177s but they were a tight fit in TSR2.
The TSR2 airframe was nowhere near as robust as the Vulcan.

 

[uk 75]

The Buccaneer carrying a single Red Beard/WE177 was far more robust than TSR2 with wing points for Anti Radar missiles or ECCM or a Sidewinder.
At low level it was smaller and area rule made it very slippery as US Red Flag showed
Of course as Tornados found in Iraq low level was not a defence against dense flak and short range SAMs

 

[zen]

OK let's be realistic.
Vulcans proved during US Red Flag exercises they were slippery at low level so speed is irrelevant.
TSR2 needed more servicing than Vulcans (see the recent Cosford seminar)
They would have used UK airfields but lacked the Vulcan's range.
Vulcans had no problem carrying two WE177s but they were a tight fit in TSR2.
The TSR2 airframe was nowhere near as robust as the Vulcan.

Shall we?
I thought the Buccaneers flying under the Vulcan....was rather more impressive.
But I will agree....with Zuckerman that the cost of going Mach 1.2 wasn't worth it compared to flying at Mach 0.9 at the same low altitude and gave little improvement in survivability.
TSR.2 as it was, was clearly yet to reach lower service hours per flight hours. Some of that is just a new aircraft. Some is the design.
This doesn't follow that all solutions to OR.339 would all be poor servicing ratios.
I'd expect Vulcan to be able to carry more than 2 WE.177. But whether that would be wise use of limited stocks is another question.

Not sure about such claims. As TSR.2 was built for this regime from the get go.

 

[zen]

The Buccaneer carrying a single Red Beard/WE177 was far more robust than TSR2 with wing points for Anti Radar missiles or ECCM or a Sidewinder.
At low level it was smaller and area rule made it very slippery as US Red Flag showed
Of course as Tornados found in Iraq low level was not a defence against dense flak and short range SAMs

Certainly Buccaneer as it was as interim and developed Buccaneer for the missions fits well. Give it better avionics, arm it with a wider range of weapons.

 

[Pioneer]

Certainly Buccaneer as it was as interim and developed Buccaneer for the missions fits well. Give it better avionics, arm it with a wider range of weapons.

I always envisaged the Blackburn Blackburn P.150 as the most cost/operational/risk-adverse solution, which would have also quenched the RAF's obsession with its 'supersonic' requirement.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[zen]

P.150 looks relatively expensive, and would take longer.

B.108 will run off existing production line.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

TBH, my feeling is that you really need a two-stage development: a Mark I with the platform characteristics you want and minimum viable avionics in 1968-1970, upgraded to (or replaced by) a Mark II with fully compliant avionics in the mid-late 1970s once technology has caught up.

In other words what the US tried to do with the F-111A and F-111D.

 

[uk 75]

PosPostPostt in thread 'TSR2 or F111K?' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/tsr2-or-f111k.36614/post-440504

Buc option

 

[H_K]

Buc option

Problem with Buccaneer is it can’t handle the high altitude supersonic missions (recon/strike etc). So I guess it comes down to whether there still was a real-world need for those high altitude Mach 1.5-2 sprints…

 

[uk 75]

Sadly the best answer to the TSR2 requirement was the F111. If you insist on single engine then it is Viggen.
But I realise that the aim of this thread is actually just another airing of fanboy paper planes