Could TSR2 have been made to work?

Could license-built F-111Ks or Mirage IVKs (with the fuel sipping Spey engine) have been bought in greater numbers than TSR-2? (Say 100+ airframes) Would they have met the range requirement?
 
H_K said:
Could license-built F-111Ks or Mirage IVKs (with the fuel sipping Spey engine) have been bought in greater numbers than TSR-2? (Say 100+ airframes) Would they have met the range requirement?
Click to expand...
Given that the -111K was cancelled in turn, the point is somewhat moot, don't you think?
 
H_K said:
Could license-built F-111Ks or Mirage IVKs (with the fuel sipping Spey engine) have been bought in greater numbers than TSR-2? (Say 100+ airframes) Would they have met the range requirement?
Click to expand...
That nice big delta wing makes for a poor ride at low level.

But a smaller delta wing makes for much longer take off and landing runs.
 
zen said:
That nice big delta wing makes for a poor ride at low level.
Click to expand...
A much overblown problem, it seems, given 50+ years of low level operations by 4 generations of delta wing Dassault aircraft (Mirage IIIE / 5F, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000N/D, Rafale)
 
H_K said:
A much overblown problem, it seems, given 50+ years of low level operations by 4 generations of delta wing Dassault aircraft (Mirage IIIE / 5F, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000N/D, Rafale)
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about that

The UK did a bunch of pilot workload experiments in different aircraft, conditions etc. to develop ride quality metrics and set their requirements.

I can only assume that France either wasn't flying in the same conditions (speed, alt) or the PVI was more manageable or some other variation.
 
Last edited:
If TSR2 or F111K had enter service they would have been based in the UK. Tornado GRs by contrast were nearly all based in West Germany.
This further underpins my view that both aircraft would have been V bomber rather than Canberra replacements.
617 Squadron did operate Tornado from the UK but could not get anywhere much without inflight refueling.
 
red admiral said:
H_K said:
A much overblown problem, it seems, given 50+ years of low level operations by 4 generations of delta wing Dassault aircraft (Mirage IIIE / 5F, Mirage IV, Mirage 2000N/D, Rafale)
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about that

The UK did a bunch of pilot workload experiments in different aircraft, conditions etc. to develop ride quality metrics and set their requirements.

I can only assume that France either wasn't flying in the same conditions (speed, alt) or the PVI was more manageable or some other variation.
Click to expand...
On the Jaguar the UK red line speed was higher than the French ones.

It was because RAF pilots stopped at the line, but for AdlA pilots it was considered advisory.
 
The idea of the "fourth V bomber" becomes understandable when one remembers that Valiants were used during the Suez Crisis in 1956, Victors in the confrontation with Indonesia in the early 60s and of course Vulcans in the Falklands in 1982.
The Tornado proved more than adequate as long as airfields and inflight refueling were available to overcome the range issue. The RAF likes nice comfy airbases so the rough field handling capability always struck me as a sop to politicians and generals alike.
The Royal Navy replaced the TSR2 and Vulcan B2 finally in the 90s when Tomahawk SLCM entered service on its submarines and the WE177 bombs have given way to a reduced warhead load on the Trident SLBM..
From time to time the RAF has tried to get its paws on long range aircraft like the A12 Avenger or even the B1 but the F35/Typhoon combo is closer to Tornado than TSR2. But I bet the Tempest will be pushed as far in various directions as the RAF can get away with.
 
#48/Tempest point: that must be so...but not only RAF. All this Received Wisdom - that RAF/Trenchard/Independent AF prefers deep. Heavy, Strategic to dull mud-moving - is just not so. No more than the solo fighter jock inherits the knight jouster mantle. You are quite right that the Canberra Replacement was the 4th V, in that the other 3 were also used as multi-role combat a/c wherever the attrition risk was deemed justifiable. The practical constraint was that few such Tasks arose. No Gee meant Valiant at Suez got lost.

All Tempest operators will use the attributes of their equipment to do their best professional job on the Task. In a team. Requirors will try to pile capabilities onto their meagre Unit Establishment, even more meagre second sortie strength. We have all learned from our better halves that multi-Tasking is the only way. Silos segregating Strike from Attack from Recce...Army Co-op as disdained also-ran: long gone.
 
uk 75 said:
The Tornado proved more than adequate as long as airfields and inflight refueling were available to overcome the range issue.
Click to expand...

By the time one had compensated for insufficient internal fuel ( two drop tanks ), insufficient internal volume for countermeasures ( two pods ) and lack of onboard IR/designator ( one pod ) one has a single pylon left for weapons.

Crew comfort was also poor on long flights.

The Tornado was a Hornet-sized aircraft shoehorned into flying Aardvark-sized missions and consumed large amounts of support resources to do so.
 
A point about drop tanks, the drag is greater than an increased fusilage to take the fuel and fuel tanks do not need to be filled to the brim for every mission.

Said drop tanks are at least drop-able, but thus need spares to replace them.

A theoretical ideal is the internal weapons bay large enough to take extra tanks of fuel and some weaponry.

A good point has been made that the fuel burn for supersonic flight at low level, is much higher and carries consequences for radius of action or total fuel required.

Another very crucial point potentially obscured by other things, which we can boil down to the following.

"You fight with what you have"

So you have no choice but to
"make it work for the task in hand"

No matter how appropriate or inappropriate it is.
 
zen said:
A point about drop tanks, the drag is greater than an increased fusilage to take the fuel and fuel tanks do not need to be filled to the brim for every mission.
Click to expand...
It depends a lot, but a few like with like comparisons have been done

As well as drag (zero lift drag) there's also the increased mass of the bigger fuselage to carry around all the time which has both the mass itself, and the drag (drag due to lift)

Generally you have to get to very long range missions for internal carriage to give a smaller/lighter/cheaper aircraft. The choice is usually down to other requirements e.g. protecting the weapons from the environment, RF signature etc
 
I always think it amusing that the US stepped in and deployed an additional wing of F111s and then the GLCMs to provide SACEUR with a replacement for the Valiants and Vulcans.
In return NATO got a load of Jaguars and then Tornados in West Germany.
Probably a good trade.
 
As TSR2 keeps cropping up people mlght find this thread useful especially #38 and #39
 
Given much of the discussion has been around requirements, politics etc etc etc I assume there were few technical problems that couldn't be overcome.

I had a bit of a look into the avionics and supporting computers a while ago. The developers were up against it for storage space from day 1, and as a result had to back off on the mission capabilities due to the inability for 4K to do all the stuff, however VERDAN was the only ruggedised digital computer in the world in the early 60s so they had no options. By 1966 double sided VERDAN was due to enter service soon on the HMS Resolution, so it's incorporation into the TSR2 would have doubled storage space to 8K and allowed the full gamut of mission capabilities (nav waypoints, attack profiles etc) to be programmed in.
 
I take away three killer problems with TSR2 which would make me cancel it, though there are plenty more.

Cost is really the axeman. BAC could not quote a price for it after years of development.

Fragility of the airframe. TSR2 was much bigger than F111 and made of specialised materials which were far more fragile

Maintaining the beast required more people than a Vulcan and details like not having interchangable engines and the high fuselage did not help.
 
Given the British signed up to develop both the F111K and AFVG I struggle to see cost as an issue, although the TSR2 was very expensive. After all the F111K was cancelled due to cost and the French withdrew from the AFVG ostensibly for the same reason lumping Britain with the entire programme until it was merged with the MRCA.

RAAF F111C were built in 1967 and delivered directly into storage, where they sat for 6 years while problems with the fragile wing carry through box were addressed. Cancelling the TSR2 in favour for the F111K doesn't make potential airframe problems vanish.

The MkII avionics the F111K shared with the FB111 and F111D were notorious for being maintenance hogs, IIRC the F111D was infamous for having the highest maintenance cost vs flying time in the USAF. Cancelling the TSR2 in favour of the F111K on the grounds of maintenance doesn't get the RAF an easy to maintain aircraft.

So for me the question is; is there any piece of critical kit in the TSR2 that cannot be made to function? If not then the best course of action is to persevere and pay the costs which cannot be avoided.
 
Rule of cool said:
So for me the question is; is there any piece of critical kit in the TSR2 that cannot be made to function? If not then the best course of action is to persevere and pay the costs which cannot be avoided.
Click to expand...
This.
A lot easier to improve on a solid airframe and fixed wing.
A lot easier to jam in new avionics, when they have actually shrunk in size.
Anyone actually think Bristol couldn't solve problems with Olympus Ol.22?
 
Producing 50 aircraft (and that is all it would have been) was no good outcome for BAC. There were no other countries that would pay for them, and the US were offering inducements like the Lightning deal with Kuwait and Saudi and maintenance of USAF F111s based in UK.
Jaguar was much more to BAC's liking if you listen to the Cosford Seminar.
150 TSR2s originally mooted craftily replaced all the V bombers but once the RAF only needed 50 replacing, TSR2 was going to die.
 
I think the 'TSR2 as a V bomber' replacement is overblown. Sure the TSR2 will replace the 3 sqns of Valiants assigned to SACEUR, but they were also planned to replace Canberra sqns based in Germany, Near East and Far East.

The 50 F111K order was because the rest of the RAF's requirement would be made up with the AFVG; the original idea was for 110 F111K and the RAF bought 220 Tornado GR1 so 193 TSR2 is about right.
 
Rule of cool said:
Given the British signed up to develop both the F111K and AFVG I struggle to see cost as an issue, although the TSR2 was very expensive. After all the F111K was cancelled due to cost and the French withdrew from the AFVG ostensibly for the same reason lumping Britain with the entire programme until it was merged with the MRCA.
Click to expand...

Hindsight, hindsight hindsight;- At the time TSR2 was cancelled they were still expecting to build 3000 F111’s for what eventually was approx 500.

Australia was equally over optimistic about F111 development/operational costs.

France withdrew from AFVG because, just like every other joint military project up until today, if they’re not leading it, it’s not gonna happen.

As said before in post 24, TSR2 didn’t work for BAC due to the low production numbers, it didn’t work for the government due to costs because there seemed (wrongly) to be a cheaper alternative and ultimately it didn’t work for the RAF because supersonic low level nuke delivery was tactical flawed.

While I’m sure a working weapon system would have emerged, It’s irrelevant as the major actors either didn’t want or wouldn’t want it.
 
Of course it's hindsight, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Britain could pay all of the development costs for 1 aircraft they they control or part/half of the development costs of 2 aircraft that they do not control after already putting 150 million into the first option.

The question was could the TSR2 work and in the absence of a show stopping technical problem everything else is just window dressing that has counter arguments..
 
The ultimate test of TSR.2 style operational profiles was Iraq for the RAF.
Result was fairly obvious, a single first pass without any loitering about was fine. It worked and had they been delivering nuclear weapons that would be the end of it.

But second pass by another Tornado and it was flying into AAA like Nobody's Business.

And systems like JP.233 was similar. First pass ok as long as they had no warning. Second pair hit flak by the bucket load.

And the US essentially went "this is what we found out in Vietnam".

So do we think TSR.2 would have enjoyed a similar swansong?

Probably not since it's more achievable to jam in more EW and cruise the Olympus powered beast at altitude.
So arguably the TSR.2 fits a post low level obsession better as that high speed, high altitude cruise for reconasense requirement would allow it to speed through while jamming all and sundry.

As like Vigilante doing high speed recce.

But what it would be less good at is loitering about hunting Scuds. Though good at dashing out to swat them when discovered And would cover set reconasense patterns well.

Where this gets even more curious and interesting is potential ADV for the GIUK Gap
Not ideal for loitering about, but if AWACS can give it a target....it would be fine for stand off engagements with long range AAMs.
 
I once read that what the RAF was thinking of when they spec'd GOR339 was the Yalu bridges in the Korean war, although I also expect the air campaign against Egypt in late 56 would also have been on their minds. It was supposed to enter service in the late 60s, so the contemporary targets would have been downtown Hanoi 72 and the pontoon bridges over the Suez Canal in 73 and the F111 did well against the former.
 
You have put your fingers on the nub of the problem .TSR2 is either a Valiant (two nukes) or a Canberra ( one nuke) replacement. It cannot be both.
Once it can carry 2 , you only need 90 odd to replace Canberras. This brought the total order down to about 150…
That would have been fine but much of the Canberra roles could be done by something smaller and cheaper.
So we get back to 50 theatre bombers.
On the one hand the Cabinet has BAC saying sorry we cannot give you a price and the US coming up with an offer.
BAC should have realised in 1962 that noone was going to buy more than 50.
 
How is it cheaper to develop and buy a whole second fleet of aircraft and it's supporting systems and infrastructure?
If BAC couldn't give a price how did the Government know it was too expensive?
 
There probably wasn't anything that wasn't fixable - of course the caveat is that the prototype only made a few sorties and we have no idea what problems may have cropped up - look at the Jaguar, nearly a decade of trials and three prototypes destroyed (2 due to the engine). We don't know what fatigue issues there may have been - again Jaguar had a fair few fatigue niggles even during testing.
We don't know what avionics bugs might have been picked up - yes a lot of the kit found use in later aircraft, but that was after extended development.
So there is a whole heap of known unknowns and unknown unknowns there. Of course with political willpower and money it could be overcome.

I don't think that TSR.2 would have aged well. It would probably have received JP.233 for example, but with only four hardpoints, the provision of LGBs would have been problematic if anything else was needed underwing . Visibility from the cockpits would have been poor for sighting ground targets and for look-out for enemy fighters/threats around them (the nav is in no position to 'check six'). Presumably the bomb bay would have been converted for auxiliary fuel tanks - although as I've pointed out before, the TSR.2 had a stack of fuel already - and an aircraft of this size with just four external hardpoints would have been extremely limited by the 1980s.
In its favour, TSR.2 would have had a full ECM system, RWR and chaff/flares - the full range of kit most other RAF aircraft didn't have well into the 1990s. And, its more effective than keeping antiquated Vulcans around until the 1980s.
 
uk 75 said:
You have put your fingers on the nub of the problem .TSR2 is either a Valiant (two nukes) or a Canberra ( one nuke) replacement. It cannot be both.
Click to expand...

The number of nuclear weapons it can carry is irrelevant to whether it's a Canberra or Valiant replacement, the increase in warhead numbers is due to a combination of warhead miniaturisation and the British government's decision to limit the yield of tactical nuclear weapons to 10kT.

What makes the TSR2 a Canberra replacement are the requirements it is designed to meet, which explicitly tequest a Canberra replacement.
 
The F111 only had 4 pylons that pivoted, so while it could carry 6 fuel tanks that was only at the fully extended wing sweep and they were jettisoned when the wings were swept back, so in practice were rarely used. What the F111C & F did have was Pave Tack in the bomb bay, which presumably the TSR2 could adopt.

The Cabinet decision to limit tactical nukes to 10kt between 1962-68 was another bad decision for the TSR2 as it drove the RAF to adopt 'stick bombing' ie 4 x 10kt tactical nukes when a single 200kt would have done the job. This drove external carriage, which in turn limited performance due to kinetic bomb heating issues not to mention the drag of external ordnance. IIUC during WE177 development the RAF wanted something like 20 x 100kt and 80 x 300kt weapons for the envisaged targets, although there was an agreement within NATO that nothing over 200kt would be used west of the inner German border.
 
Hood said:
I don't think that TSR.2 would have aged well. It would probably have received JP.233 for example, but with only four hardpoints, the provision of LGBs would have been problematic if anything else was needed underwing . Visibility from the cockpits would have been poor for sighting ground targets and for look-out for enemy fighters/threats around them (the nav is in no position to 'check six'). Presumably the bomb bay would have been converted for auxiliary fuel tanks - although as I've pointed out before, the TSR.2 had a stack of fuel already - and an aircraft of this size with just four external hardpoints would have been extremely limited by the 1980s.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s the case. I’ll agree that the view from the cockpit could have been better, and will add that the nose radome was constrained, which would have limited what could have been done from a forward looking perspective. However, TSR.2’s (or should we say Eagle RB.1 on the assumption it has entered service in this scenario) other characteristics lent themselves to a bright future. There may have only been four external hard points but they were well spaced with good weight ratings, an Eagle RB.1 fitted for LGBs could have taken a designator in the bomb bay along with a fuel tank to offset drag from four Paveways under the wings. The RAF wasn’t a massive LGB user until the 1990s, so our Eagle RB.1’s ability to haul six 1,000lb bombs without breaking its outer mould line would have been impressive for its era. That cavernous avionics bay gives plenty of scope for systems upgrades.

I suspect it would have been cherished too. From bases in West Germany, Lincolnshire and Akrotiri it could have delivered WE.177s to any Soviet Black Sea Fleet or Baltic Fleet naval base and covered all of the Soviet satellite states and most of Belarus and western Ukraine. All in a package that would have been a very challenging target for the PVO. Basically, a far superior range/payload capability, but with similar survivability characteristics, compared to a Tornado and 15 or more years earlier.

My own view is that TSR.2 revisionism has now overcompensated. The old theories of conspiring Admirals, KGB employed Prime Ministers and American subversion working to thwart British technical brilliance are clearly absurd, but the more recent narrative that it was fatally flawed seems over the top too. My own observation is the naivety of the RAF in its conception. There was far more realism about the difficulty of high-speed low level during the OR.314/324 studies than there was at the beginning of the TSR-2 process, the cost and time estimates were very optimistic given what was known about the challenges involved - that may have been wilful.
 
JFC Fuller said:
the cost and time estimates were very optimistic given what was known about the challenges involved - that may have been wilful.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't surprise me, and I think the RN did it too with carriers, baiting the hook with small cheap ships until the govt is on the hook, then it's as big as practical. Pollies are very sensitive about shock headlines, better to soothe them with little white lies that they'll go along with.
 
I can see 50 TSR2s for SACEUR replacing the Valiants at Marham if it could have been in service by 1970 when the Vulcan B2 had taken on the role.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Basically, a far superior range/payload capability, but with similar survivability characteristics, compared to a Tornado and 15 or more years earlier.
Click to expand...
I think I'd more be of the view that a Tornado was better at almost everything but had a radius about 200nm lower? Which disadvantage was largely removed by basing in Germany rather than UK, and AAR. And the NATO refocus to flexible response and ending of East of Suez.

The longer range would definitely be a useful niche at times but I think I still prefer the hundreds of Tornados and Jaguars to a few dozen TSR2s.

If cost is no object then cancel TSR2 and just do UKVG as a longer ranged Tornado

Hood said:
There probably wasn't anything that wasn't fixable - of course the caveat is that the prototype only made a few sorties and we have no idea what problems may have cropped up
Click to expand...
You can say that basically anything is "fixable" given enough time and money, but this isn't a very useful view. e.g. I'm sure it's "possible" to do a complete airframe rebuild of TSR2 and put ECRS MK2 in the nose.

I think the only really critical airframe bit that's come up was material choice (TB's session at the RAeS event goes into this) - quite probably would have required significant re-manufacturing or extra new airframes after not many years; which all adds significantly to cost. Or maybe it'd be fine.

At the same point you can also just cut back on what performance is accepted into service. What BAC was proposing at cancellation was a long way down on the actual requirements in a number of areas e.g. speed, range

Performance, cost, time are all linked and compromises need to be made in any programme
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
At the same point you can also just cut back on what performance is accepted into service. What BAC was proposing at cancellation was a long way down on the actual requirements in a number of areas e.g. speed, range
Click to expand...
FFS, they went from 1000nmi combat radius in requirement to the airframe delivering about 750nmi!
 
JFC Fuller said:
I don’t think that’s the case. I’ll agree that the view from the cockpit could have been better, and will add that the nose radome was constrained, which would have limited what could have been done from a forward looking perspective.
Click to expand...
There is the possibility that the work done on the larger canopy for the aborted trainer version might have been implemented, it seemed to be structurally possible to do that - at the cost of some supersonic heating restrictions and bird strikes might have been an issue (Jag T.2s needed thicker canopies to cope).
Buccaneer never got a radar upgrade, its possible TSR.2 might never have either. Should have been possible to scab on LRMTS or a laser rangefinder and/or FLIR easily enough under the nose.

JFC Fuller said:
There may have only been four external hard points but they were well spaced with good weight ratings,
Click to expand...
BAC looked at overwing hardpoints for the mini-TSR wing it thought about using for P.45, so that's a possibility for an upgrade too.

JFC Fuller said:
Eagle RB.1 fitted for LGBs could have taken a designator in the bomb bay along with a fuel tank to offset drag from four Paveways under the wings.
Click to expand...
Agreed, it would be possible to use AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack.
If you have Pave Tack, internal ECM etc. then yes, four LGBs could be carried and that would be very competitive (four 2,000lb Paveway III would be very formidable).

JFC Fuller said:
My own view is that TSR.2 revisionism has now overcompensated. The old theories of conspiring Admirals, KGB employed Prime Ministers and American subversion working to thwart British technical brilliance are clearly absurd, but the more recent narrative that it was fatally flawed seems over the top too. My own observation is the naivety of the RAF in its conception. There was far more realism about the difficulty of high-speed low level during the OR.314/324 studies than there was at the beginning of the TSR-2 process, the cost and time estimates were very optimistic given what was known about the challenges involved - that may have been wilful.
Click to expand...
True, it may have gone the other way. I wonder if some of it is an attempt to deflect blame back onto industry?
The Air Staff probably was naive - although OR.314/324 included bespoke weapons too which added to the 'bleeding-edge' tech needed - but I guess at a time when aviation was rapidly progressing it was thought that the sky was the limit and that what looked impossible in 1957 might be possible within 5 years and old hat by 1967. They probably did get caught up in the hubris, and of course they probably wanted to make sure TSR could do everything as they only had one shot at it and by making it indispensable, hopefully make it cancellation proof too.

red admiral said:
I still prefer the hundreds of Tornados and Jaguars to a few dozen TSR2s.
Click to expand...
I don't think that a second order would have been impossible - once the production line was running, BAC might have had compelling reasons to promote a second batch to bring the overheads down further, offer lower prices and keep Weybridge/Warton running longer until the next project came along.

red admiral said:
I think the only really critical airframe bit that's come up was material choice (TB's session at the RAeS event goes into this) - quite probably would have required significant re-manufacturing or extra new airframes after not many years; which all adds significantly to cost. Or maybe it'd be fine.
Click to expand...
This would have been a massive headache (one can imagine that if these issues coincided with the Nott Review for example that it might have led to early retirement), but then as I've said earlier, Jet Provost, Hawk and Jaguar all needed remedial work in that area. An element of remanufacturing would have been unavoidable in any case in any future upgrade programme during the 1980s.
 
red admiral said:
I think I'd more be of the view that a Tornado was better at almost everything but had a radius about 200nm lower?
Click to expand...

Tornado was only more capable in terms of nav-attack avionics, which had no unique tie to the airframe. In every other respect it was a compromise and essentially operated with only two weapons pylons for its whole career.

An austere initial TSR.2 with nothing but doppler and terrain-clearance would still have been superior to Canberra and Bucc.
 
Kiltonge said:
Tornado was only more capable in terms of nav-attack avionics, which had no unique tie to the airframe. In every other respect it was a compromise and essentially operated with only two weapons pylons for its whole career.

An austere initial TSR.2 with nothing but doppler and terrain-clearance would still have been superior to Canberra and Bucc.
Click to expand...
All aircraft are compromises

Tornado had 5 under fuselage hardpoints and then the side racks either side of the wing external tanks. The under fuselage rails in particular were very flexible.

Comparing against Buccaneer then again you've got slightly higher radius (100-200nm), and the ability to carry 2 extra iron bombs. But at multiple times the cost of a Buccaneer, which made many people question the value for money.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom