RAF history of the 65 to 67 cancellations

[uk 75]

I have found a declassified RAF document giving the most detailed account of the TSR2, P1154, and HS681 cancellations.

 

[uk 75]

Because good things have a habit of vanishing I have screensaved key bits.
First 14 are about the lead up to cancellation of 1154 and 681.

 

[uk 75]

A page got away.

 

[uk 75]

Now we have the process that selected F111 over TSR2. This should generate some interesting discussions as it was a close run thing.

 

[uk 75]

Having decided on F111s the next argument is over land based versus carrier air power. NATO Vs USSR does not feature

 

[uk 75]

The gloves are off in the next stage with not just the RN but also the RAF challenged to find cuts and a clear intention to wind down East of Suez.

 

[Archibald]

Nota bene: as long as you attach the Pdf to the message (as you did), it will not vanish unless the forum itself is hacked or nuked.

 

[BlackBat242]

Nota bene: as long as you attach the Pdf to the message (as you did), it will not vanish unless the forum itself is hacked or nuked.

Well, that did happen to the Warships Projects forum multiple times, as well as to Robert Henneman's Battleships & Battlecruisers forum.

So forgive us if some of us are somewhat gunshy.

 

[Hood]

Folks might find AIR 41/85 equally interesting.

Both AIR 41/85 and AIR 41/94 are Air Historical Branch papers.

 

[Archibald]

Well, that did happen to the Warships Projects forum multiple times, as well as to Robert Henneman's Battleships & Battlecruisers forum.

So forgive us if some of us are somewhat gunshy.

I can understand the trauma, I still hate Photobucket for what they did five years ago.

 

[Charlesferdinand]

Well, that did happen to the Warships Projects forum multiple times, as well as to Robert Henneman's Battleships & Battlecruisers forum.

So forgive us if some of us are somewhat gunshy.

Which is why now I tend to download stuff whenever possible.

 

[alertken]

uk75 has provided a great service to Forumkind (no doubt Hood, too, but I have yet to digest). No citations in my sift of the literature (Confidential, 4/94: when was AIR 41-94 declassified? That military classification would have been because negotiating positions v. US are discussed: it should have been UK Eyes Only). It draws little on the Procurer, MoA's files, so these might be untutored twaddle:
* AFVG with RB153, then M45G6 with "RR HP" (? N. ?T): this was before RR bought BSEL 7/10/66
* RN Jaguar M
* P.1127(RAF) tottering on deletion repeatedly until confirmed by PM Cabinet tie-break, 11/2/66
* talk of F-4 licensed to Canada
* talk of F-4 licensed to UK (maybe the same as actual: data transfer to permit HSAL to be Sister Firm, Shorts and BAC to make-to-print lumps of structure to be sent to UK a/c on the line in MacAir)
* talk that F-4/J79 is seen 11/2/66 compatible with Ark, Eagle...and Hermes (!?), though PM Approves 55/Spey only for Ark and Eagle
* numbers-off changing weekly, F-4, 40 -300 (vague timing, RAF-only), F-111s (50-110)...though TSR.2 never moved, 1/65-chop, from 50.

 

[Hood]

(Confidential, 4/94: when was AIR 41-94 declassified? That military classification would have been because negotiating positions v. US are discussed: it should have been UK Eyes Only).

According to the TNA catalogue, AIR 41/94 was opened on 2 May 2018 - so the standard 25 year release.
AIR 41/85 was not classified at all.

I'm not sure that classification was anything to do with preventing diplomatic blushes as most of the F-111K files were released on 1 January 1999 - only 6 years after the AHB paper was written.
Not sure there is always logic to classification except for the fact that sometimes things get swept up into official files and the judgement that open source does not mean automatic public access; for example last week at Kew I saw a copy of an IMechE journal and the booklet of a public talk both classified and withheld for 25 years despite being open source material. Any IMechE member on the date of publication had all the information from the article on jet engine materials and anyone else could easily track down a copy if they so wished rather than waiting 25 years to read it at Kew!

Interestingly, TNA has listed these files as not digitised on Dsicovery, but of course they can be downloaded from the Air Historical Branch's webpages here: https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/our-history/air-historical-branch/ahb-narratives/
Proof (like with the Arabian Gulf History Archive) that you need to hunt to find accessible digital versions.

 

[BlackBat242]

* talk that F-4/J79 is seen 11/2/66 compatible with Ark, Eagle...and Hermes (!?), though PM Approves 55/Spey only for Ark and Eagle

With some modifications to arresting gear, port catapult, etc the F-4K could have been operated from Hermes - in a lightly-loaded missiles-only reduced internal fuel state.

Useful for CAP over the carrier group and associated ships but not much else.
Which is why they dropped the idea.

 

[zen]

Fascinating read and it'll take me yonks to eotk through the lot properly.
For starters.
P.1154 £1 million verses F4 £0.9 million.

TSR.2 £2.8 million verses TFX £1.5 to £2 million.

HS.681 £3 million verses C-13 £1.3 million.

Just shows they had no inkling of the scale of cost increases that would come.

TSR.2 noted as superior in low level radius of action, blind bombing, penetration of defences and quick action capability. Advantage to TSR.2 in European Theatre against the high density defences there. Less justified against lower capability in other theatres.

Immediately hits home is the near magical thinking on F111A and absence of understanding carrier airpower.....frankly I suspect a lack of proper appreciation of naval power...or indeed the perspective of high level Military.

 

[Hood]

.....frankly I suspect a lack of proper appreciation of naval power...

Well it is the RAF Air Historical Branch after all, doubtless Admiralty historians would view things very differently.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Well it is the RAF Air Historical Branch after all, doubtless Admiralty historians would view things very differently.

The RAF has always been very good at presenting the RAF's version of events to the world before the RN has finished deciding what its version even is.

Though in the interest of fairness, here's the Naval Historical Branch:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/bases-and-stations/navy-command-hq/naval-historical-branch