BAC TSR2

Zoo Tycoon said:
The A3J Vigilante linear weapons bay didn’t work which being central to both the aircraft (literally) and its operational systems concept was a bit of a showstopper. I understand that was the reason the USN gave up on it in originally intended bomber role. True, that space could have stuffed with fuel, with buckets of instant sunshine under the wings but then have to put up with loads of external weapons carriage drag into the defended area, whereas external tanked could have been punched off prior to entry.
Click to expand...
Not wanting to derail the thread, but were there any plans or studies to give the Vigilante a more conventional weapons bay?
 
Hood said:
I do agree, standardisation is nice but nobody can ever enforce every author to use a consistent approach. I try to stick to my own personal format (myself I prefer Mk.3).
Click to expand...
Indeed. The point is about standardizing format within our own personal database. That is under our control and the benefits are immediate. Trying to organize the rest of the world is not.
 
dan_inbox said:
Indeed. The point is about standardizing format within our own personal database. That is under our control and the benefits are immediate. Trying to organize the rest of the world is not.
Click to expand...
There's also the small matter of each publisher's style guide. Eg Key books and Key mags different approach to NATO reporting names.

Probably more down to individual editors in the former case.

Chris
 
Flame2512 said:
I do wonder how 4 x 1,000 lb bombs would have been carried on a single pylon. I guess it would have to be a custom bomb rack, similar to the American MER rack.

As no work was authorised on it I guess we will never know.
Click to expand...
Maybe there is a clue in subsequent developments. There was a twin rack developed for Tornado, which were then carried one behind the other on each pylon.

1692853923281.jpeg
 
EwenS said:
Maybe there is a clue in subsequent developments. There was a twin rack developed for Tornado, which were then carried one behind the other on each pylon.

View attachment 706516
Click to expand...

I imagine the layout of the bombs would be the same (two bombs side by side with another two side by side behind). But the actual mechanism of attaching them to the pylon in that arrangement will presumably remain unknown (if indeed no work was authorised on the matter).

Come to think of it I'm struggling to come up with any existing rack (short of the massive ones used on the B-52) which would allow 4 x 1,000 lb bombs to be carried on a wing pylon. The American MER rack held 6 x 500 lb bombs (apparently 1,000 lb ones are to long to fit in tandem on it - but I haven't properly looked into it) and the Tornado carried 4 x 1,000 lb bombs on the shoulder pylons which were fixed to the fuselage.
 
I suspect a twin tandem beam would have been feasible given the space under the wing - but any asymmetric hang-ups would have been a nightmare!
As I've said in another thread, there is no doubt about it - the TSR.2 would have been in A&AEE and CTTO hands well into the 1970s clearing all these weapons releases with the various pylons and adapters in all configurations (asymmetric loads etc.).
 
Ah, they did look at the A3J Vigilante and didn't like the lack of conventional payload. Makes sense.

Flame2512 said:
I do wonder how 4 x 1,000 lb bombs would have been carried on a single pylon. I guess it would have to be a custom bomb rack, similar to the American MER rack.
Click to expand...
Flame2512 said:
I imagine the layout of the bombs would be the same (two bombs side by side with another two side by side behind). But the actual mechanism of attaching them to the pylon in that arrangement will presumably remain unknown (if indeed no work was authorised on the matter).

Come to think of it I'm struggling to come up with any existing rack (short of the massive ones used on the B-52) which would allow 4 x 1,000 lb bombs to be carried on a wing pylon. The American MER rack held 6 x 500 lb bombs (apparently 1,000 lb ones are to long to fit in tandem on it - but I haven't properly looked into it) and the Tornado carried 4 x 1,000 lb bombs on the shoulder pylons which were fixed to the fuselage.
Click to expand...
I'm picturing a larger version of the SDB pallet.
 
Joe #191: " An early A3J-1 Vigilante was examined by Vickers design staff at Boscombe Down, the engineers notably being impressed by the types panel accessibility". Neither V-A nor RAF's orphan Central Servicing Devt. Est/Swanton Morley digested much: the recent RAeS Cosford Conference has a guess of 80 maintenance man-hours per flight hour: F-111K thought to be 35.

Can we can the canard (Ha!) that Mountbatten killed TSR.2's export prospects. There never were any. Oz had no option but to cross-operate with whatever McNamara was to deploy in SE Asia. RAAF Staff Jollies to fun cities were to try to squeeze a good DoD deal. No other Ally needed long-range penetration.

Ditto to can his yen to kill TSR.2. No. He cared only to convert Min.Def. Sandys from his post-Suez perception that Strike carriers were (to quote PRC re CVF): nice target practice. That he did and Sandys bought 50 NA.39, 10/9/58. Later as CDS he had no power to tell CAS what his NATO-Area Strike type should be: he could of course promote mobile sovereign bases for East of Suez, WE177A on Buccaneer S.2.

Canberra was multi-role, one for all, so when US Mutual Security funds dried for any follow-on production, and when Sandys failed to extract US Mutual Weapons Devt. Prog. $ for TSR.2 (as he did for NA.39), £ must buy the whole Defence budget, so down it must go.
New Ministers 17/10/64 inherited 50 materials sets on order (1 flown) towards ever-decreasing schemes down to 100-ish, with no RAF enthusiasm: CAS had told Minister Thorneycroft he did not want it - in NATO, F-4D+US Bombs, please; NEAF/FEAF...don't really know.
So the new Ministers took F-4D; Min of Aviation caused that to be fewer Spey/F-4M/US Bombs + a wing of P.1127(RAF) for Central Front.
PM Wilson then offered BAC unprecedented Prime Contractor scope to deliver the 50 for NEAF/FEAF, Red Beard until AWRE could load out some SSBNs, then WE177A. GR Edwards told Vickers Board (after chop) that he had offered a no-profit deal, but declined the ceiling sum PM offered, which was more than McNamara offered for 50 F-111K - on credit.. So GRE killed TSR.2. He dared not take the route Lockheed in 1971 would take on C-5A and threaten bankruptcy when the money ran out: he knew that would not work.
 
Last edited:
Alertken Thank you for laying bare various TSR2 myths.
So the Valiant/Canberra role with B43 was transfered to the F4 and the 50 TFX with WE177 for the Far East became the F111K order.
The 48 Vulcan B2 left after Blue Steel is out of service by 1970 are initially split between UK and Cyprus. The Heath government temporarily gave them a Far East reinforcement role.
Replacing the F4 in RAFG and 38 Group Air Support Command falls to Jaguar after the Heath Government 1970 White Paper. Was this planned sooner or was AFVG the envisaged F4 replacement.
Looks clear that TSR2, (and 1154/681) would have died even if the Tories had squeaked home in 64. F4 and C130 should probably have been chosen earlier.
Does Jaguar ever csrry B43?
 
Your Q about US Bombs has been missed by others. It is core to a/c types and numbers.

When Healey committed 17/5/65 to 200 Jags and 175 AFVG he was also dealing with silly-sized RAF bids for F-4s, to settle later as 118. What has not been explored by others is...What AW would Labour buy? The Election Manifesto had defused their CND wing with the formula "(We) are not prepared (to waste) resources on endless duplication of (US) strategic (AW: misheard as: no new UK AW)”. Their first decision was to proceed with 4xSSBNs to patrol from 1969: he was told that meant (4x16x3) 192 warheads plus the maintenance pool. From 2/53, when PM WSC put fission Blue Danube into production, to (30/4/65) MoS had supplied 320 AW to RAF/RN, who on that day had on hand 146, plus 64 US Bombs in RAFG (BAOR had access to 104 US warheads). No way, Jose, could AWRE/ROF do SSBNs, replace US Bombs in RAFG, while meeting a shopping list in 00s for light WE177A on RN Buccs, FEAF F-111K, as NDB, and much more. No new AW?

So: obvious next decision, rollover RAFG's US Bombs onto F-4M. (So, 60xB57 opnl. 1/7/70, days after he left Office). Gain UK sovereignty in RAFG with AFVG/WE177B. On 29/6/67 nice Marcel D deleted AFVG; on 16/1/68 Cabinet deleted EoS, so F-111K.
UK AW production workload could now equip RAFG c. '72: so: new+ex-EoS RN Buccs; redefine (most) UK Jags as S: all with WE177B (became C, opnl Bucc 31/12/72, Jag 1/12/75) which could (honestly) be presented as not new. F-4Ms to replace Lightnings and iron Attack.

None of this was a Grand Plan. Much fissile material for WE177s came from salvage and from an SSBN loadout, when someone noticed we could not crew 4 SSBNs. so: no new AW.

So: my A to your Qs: AFVG was to replace AW F-4Ms and NEAF/FEAF reroled Vulcans; no effort to hang US Bombs on Jag. (Italy would do Atlantic NDB, Italy and FRG B61/Tornado, so painful that FRG has just selected F-35A for its AW Task, and not to attempt B61/Typhoon).
 
Last edited:
Can confirm, no B43 for Jaguar. They only ever carried WE.177A and WE.177C.

Interestingly, at the recent RAF Historical Society Jaguar symposium, one speaker claimed that although he knew the WE.177A was variable yield, the actual yields of the A and C were never divulged to the pilots.

I've recently read some of the released files on the Jag's nuclear role at Kew.
They didn't bother issuing the pilots with eyepatches, some scientist reckoned the reaction time of a typical blink would be sufficient to save the pilot's retinas from flashes en-route and he should recover full vision within 80 seconds!
The boffins weren't worried about the blast or overpressure from a lobbed WE.177, but they were worried the heat might char the inside of the cockpit if the pilot cocked up his escape manoeuvre!

Presumably the TSR.2's golden canopies might have mitigated some of these issues?
 
Mushroom Style of Management: keep them in the dark and feed them on (manure).

(we plan for UK stores in all MBF by 6/61 {to be 1/4/62} as US’ Bombs had) "only ½ the nominal yield (expected (Mk.5’s) advantages (cf. R.Beard) now seem to be much smaller. (12/60 policy of) use of US bombs (we believed they) were (in) MT class. But it had been established (they are in kT) range” Wynn,RAF Nuc Deterrent Forces, Pp.266/270:
So, wef 2/7/59 all TBF, wef 10/58 much MBF, 10/59 all RAFG carried unknown yield! Rhodes,DarkSun,P567: USAF Gen LeMay ,’55 denied UK's “real need to know” his targets, so we had no idea whether we were sole asset on a target, or were there to make the rubble bounce!

Not just in UK. USAF/USN were denied custody, so housekeeping maintenance of AW, which remained under civilian AEC custody until Ike's accession to the White House: "too complex for conscript armourers". USAF Bombs in UK had no "nuclear capsules" until mid-54.
(A&SPower Jnl,winter.2004; C.Finn/PD.Berg,Strategic Air PowerCo-Opn.in (Cold War), Pp.19/30/B-6
.
 
Last edited:
I am a volunteer guide in the Museum of Communication* in Burntisland** in Scotland. The museum, bizarrely perhaps, has the radar out of the TSR 2. Yesterday I managed to get some photos of it.

IMG_3897.JPG IMG_3898.JPG IMG_3899.JPG IMG_3902.JPG

*It is only open to the public on Wednesdays and Saturdays, May to September.

**It's not an island, and it isn't burnt.

SRJ.
 
Alertken
SACEUR appeared to set great store by the Valiant wing at Marham as a theatre delivery system for B43 weapons.
What happens next to these weapons when the Valiants are withdrawn?
Are the 48 Vulcan B2 with WE177 after 1970 a substitute or additional to this capability.for NATO SACEUR?
Did SACEUR ask for TSR2 and/or F111K to take on this theatre role with B43 or WW177?

I have always thought that NATO's requirement for UK TFX (TSR2/F111K) has never been discussed. This is odd as SACEUR always comments on narional defence contributions.
 
MBF: RAF Medium Bomber Force {V-Bombers}; TBF: RAF Tactical Bomber Force (here, AW wef '59); SMF: RAF Thor Missile Force; SIOP: USAF/SAC+USN/SSBN(+MBF) Single Integrated Operational Plan; SSP: NATO Saceur's Scheduled Strike Program (unkto me: how these 2 meshed for deconfliction).
Sources: academic Works by P.Hennessy, R.Moore, K.Stoddart, M.Jones, H.Wynn, J.Walker/RUSI, laid by me against A/c and Squadron published data: that required some extrapolation, even assumptions, so is open to your flak. The politics come from Memoirs and narrative Histories. Forum Member bri has nuclearweaponsinfo which must be digested before delving deeper into UK AW: all there is Evidenced.​

25/3/57: PM Mac+Pres Ike: Bermuda, Defense Collaboration Agt, so:
24/7and 8/8/57: UK/US CAS MoU, AW ops.
2/7/59: TBF opnl. on Mk.7, 48 Bombs at Coningsby, 48 SSP targets, 4 Sqdns Canberra B.6 (though K.Darling,RAF Strike Command, C’mate, 2012, P.32 has only 9/12 Sqds (so 32 a/c) LABS-capable).
8/60: RAF in SIOP Joint Planning Staff/Omaha, so MBF (and Thor SMF) in:
1/7/61: SIOP-62
13/7/61: SSP becomes 24 Valiant, ea. 2xMk.28; 1/ 4/63: 2xB-43
23/5/63: all UK-based AW is assigned to Saceur ("save where supreme national interests are at stake" A.Pierre,Nuc.Politics,OUP,72,P.291)

Cracked wing, so grounding of Valiant was 9/12/64 (QRA to 26/1/65). PM Wilson+SoS/Def Healey were in DC talking Defence and $ to LBJ and SecDef McNamara. Maybe PM asked Healey where the wing of TSR.2 was designed. Supremely ill-timed when F-111K was on offer, McNamara talking of buying 3,000.

Marham's B-43s went into USAF/SAC, USAFE inventory (inc the F-100D Wings). PM saw this as "an opportunity for a financial saving".

What we (I) don't know is the practical effect of moving MBF 23/5/63 from SIOP to SSP. Almost exactly when Valiant bade farewell so did USAF/SAC's B-47E rotations through UK (last left 31/3/65), Spain, Morocco, with activation of Minutemen 1A ICBMs. Academic Studies trace erosion of UK AW targets from >100 to, eventually, Moscow. Some have asserted not dual- but multiple-targeting, USN/USAF/RAF.
 
Last edited:
Hi!

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 

Attachments

  • 94758056_2992761037429726_4803697839974645760_n.jpg
    94758056_2992761037429726_4803697839974645760_n.jpg
    255 KB · Views: 169
  • 13483077_1114452851927230_8368187244893102389_o.jpg
    13483077_1114452851927230_8368187244893102389_o.jpg
    190.3 KB · Views: 155
  • 10499616_894633783909139_1513646902014018719_o.jpg
    10499616_894633783909139_1513646902014018719_o.jpg
    85.9 KB · Views: 128
  • 11313060_895579860481198_7518830646755152624_o.jpg
    11313060_895579860481198_7518830646755152624_o.jpg
    131.8 KB · Views: 115
  • 14500452_1183221091717072_6238553623571852118_o.jpg
    14500452_1183221091717072_6238553623571852118_o.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 167
The TSR.2 thread in the alternate history section got me looking more into the whole TSR.2 story, it's rather interesting to say the least. Wikipedia makes that claim that "later variants would have been fitted with variable geometry wings" but is there any proof to this? From my understanding variable geometry configurations were considered by some of the companies submitting proposals but I don't think any of the final offerings featured that. Given the pressure to cancel the program, and the problems on the prototypes still being resolved, I can't imagine BAC was putting much work into future variants at that time. And suggesting such a major change like that? I don't think that would have won the program any more supporters.
 
I always wonder what the RAF would have looked like had the TSR.2 had entered service and replaced the Vulcan in the nuclear role.
 
TSR.2 was intended as a Canberra and Valiant replacement (tactical nuclear strike & reconaissance role not strategic

One mooted replacement for the Vulcan was the VC.10 Victoria with Skybolt
 
Last edited:
In fact the S in TSR.2 was always meant to be for nuclear Strike and it was always shown in the Damien Burke book that I have got is that it could carry one Red Beard atomic bomb or two WE.177s thermonuclear (Hydrogen) bombs.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom