Replacing Canberra sensibly

[uk 75]

The English Electric Canberra became the UK's light strike bomber in both nuclear and conventional roles. It served long after it was obsolete in the face of Russian fighters and air defences.
The RAF realised this and embarked on a programme to replace Canberra in the early 1960s. As we all know the result was that by 1964 only one prototype of the resulting design (TSR2) had flown, and the eventual Canberra replacement (Tornado) would take another two decades to materialise.
Fortunately for the crabs as the Senior Service calls the RAF, help arrived in 1968 in the form of the Buccaneer and the F4 Phantom, initially a US Navy plane.
If you visit this site regularly you will know that discussions about TSR2 make disagreements over Brexit look amicable.
Everyone has a view ranging from indifference to imcandescent rage.
With all the knowledge we have here, could we get a Canberra replacement into service in 1964?
Simple, I hear you say, join the Navy and go with the Buccaneer..Trouble is the S1 Buccaneer was a pretty awful plane though S2 was soon on its way.
The US looked at the same problem and came up first with the F105 Thunderchief and then the F111. Both had a dodgy time in the Vietnam War.
The Soviet Union had its own equivalent of Canberra, the Il28. The first design of its Sukhoi successor was similar in appearance to TSR2..Yakolev provided its own interim answer (Yak28) but it was the Sukhoi that entered service in the 70s (before Tornado).
Of course Tornado served for three decades, something that would have astonished the men drawing up a a Canberra replacement in the 1950s.
So fast was the pace of military progress in the Cold War that work on TSR2 replacements started even before it left the drawing board.
The revolution in electronic gadgets dreamt up by boffins (as they would seem to those 50s men) made it possible for smaller airframes to do more.
So maybe Buccaneer would have been the right answer.

 

[Fluff]

I'd suggest you need an external event/threat to make the mandarins realise the game is up for the Canberra's. Which basically means the USSR flies something like a real AWACS linked to supersonic fighters with medium range AAM. or at least appears to do so....

Navy already has Buk S1 on order/being delivered, is forced to loan 1 Sqn to the RAF, while Blackburn promises to try harder on the S2. The plan is to have a lot of them(RAF and RN - same mission), and well basically 'some will get through'. The solution is sold as a sensible interim step, while industry develops a supersonic penetrator.....

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Simple, I hear you say, join the Navy and go with the Buccaneer... Trouble is the S1 Buccaneer was a pretty awful plane though S2 was soon on its

I'd heard that the Mk 1 was underpowered, but this is the first time I've seen it described as "pretty awful". I'm not saying that you're wrong. Only that I've not heard it before. Please educate me.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Snip to the Opening Post.

Will you be awarding bonus points for export contracts? Specifically, the RAAF and RNZAF buy it to replace their Canberras?

 

[uk 75]

The Gyron was unreliable and meant that Buccaneer S1 had to give way as quickly as possible to the S2.
The excellent Buccaneer Boys book details the saga.
It alao contains accounts of the S50 bought by S Africa.

The Buccaneer Boys: True tales by those who flew the 'last all-British bomber': Amazon.co.uk: Graham Pitchfork: 9781909166110: Books

Buy The Buccaneer Boys: True tales by those who flew the 'last all-British bomber' Illustrated by Graham Pitchfork (ISBN: 9781909166110) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

The RAF wanted a supersonic aircraft and because of the fear of surprise nuclear attack on its UK and German airfields wanted rough field operating capability. Neither of these was absolutely necessary and trying to combine them in one aircraft helped make TSR2 complicated and expensive.

 

[uk 75]

In fairness to the RAF the Canberra replacement was complicated by the re-roling of its medium bomber force.
The Valiant served in three squadrons in UK providing a theatre nuclear force for SACEUR. Canberras remained only overseas with RAf Germamy and in the Near and Far East Air Forces.
Even in NEAF and FEAF Victors and Vulcans took on the serious strike role.
When TSR2 and F111 die the role of providing 50 strike aircraft for UK and NEAF/FEAF falls to the Vulcan B2.
Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carey two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Gyron was unreliable and meant that Buccaneer S1 had to give way as quickly as possible to the S2.

Is the engine's unreliability as much as a problem for RAF aircraft as it was for RN aircraft. If you're mainly operating overland there's more chance of being within range of an airfield if one of your engine fails. I don't know but suspect that landing on an airstrip with an engine out is safer than landing on an aircraft carrier. I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong on that point.

Was the Gyron's unreliability inevitable? If it wasn't can one of the possible replacements be Buccaneer S.1 with reliable Gyron engines? Were there any alternative to that engine that would have been more reliable and as a bonus more powerful?

 

[zen]

To my memory from a very detailed book on the Buccaneer.
The chief issue with Gyron Junior, is a rubber ball valve in the air bleed. This suffered from salt encrustation and blockage or getting jammed open ir closed.
In clearing this the rubber ball would be damaged and need replacing.

So strictly Gyron Junior's faults are fixable as is it's performance. As we've gone over elsewhere DH felt they could get it upto 10,000lb dry and did for the T.188.
Chief issue is DH ceased to have much interest in related fixes and tuning after all the aircraft that would use it were cancelled. Leaving only a limited number for S1 Buccaneers and 4 for Bristol T.188 supersonic research aircraft.

Now had Blackburns RAF specific OR.339 'interim' and developed Buccaneer variants 'won' the early tendering. It would be because they could meet IOC much earlier than any all new platform.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

To my memory from a very detailed book on the Buccaneer.
The chief issue with Gyron Junior, is a rubber ball valve in the air bleed. This suffered from salt encrustation and blockage or getting jammed open or closed.
In clearing this the rubber ball would be damaged and need replacing.

Would an RAF aircraft be less vulnerable to salt encrustation and blockage than a RN aircraft because it's spending less time flying at low level over the sea and won't be parked on an aircraft carrier for long periods of time?

 

[Deleted member 2278]

This ground has been trod many times before. Tempus cyclicus. By all means don't let that stop you though. I'll take this opportunity to coin a standardized response.

Ahem.

Ideally? Pershing and latterly Tornado GR.1 for the bomber role. Happy waiting for the latter. A fanned Dominie for the EW training and PR roles (either with a LOROP pannier or nose option TBD due cofG).

 

[Hood]

Yeah its ad infinetum on this topic really.

No point crying over low-level supersonic with field performance, everyone was heading the same way. You can't ignore the Yak-25-28 series, or F-105 or F-111, A-5 or even Mirage IV. Supersonics with pointy-missiles of instant sunshine was what everyone wanted. Field performance definitions varied, the RAF's mistake was not having a graph that proved the average German farmer's field was 50km sq large or some equally insane inflated figure.

I suppose EECo could have tarted the Canberra up if anyone was interested: 2-seat, nose radar, rotating bomb bay doors, beefier Avons or another low-bypass type.

For what its worth, I don't think any nation really cracked the jet tactical bomber segment before 1968 excepting the early subsonic Canberra, Il-28 and Vautour. Even the USA struggled to get something ideal and went with the Canberra. None of the replacements really shone to the same extent - due to cost, complexity and sheer bulk in some cases. Even the F-105 turned the fighter-bomber concept into a hefty hulk.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In fairness to the RAF the Canberra replacement was complicated by the re-rolling of its medium bomber force.
The Valiant served in three squadrons in UK providing a theatre nuclear force for SACEUR. Canberras remained only overseas with RAF Germany and in the Near and Far East Air Forces.
Even in NEAF and FEAF Victors and Vulcans took on the serious strike role.
When TSR2 and F111 died the role of providing 50 strike aircraft for UK and NEAF/FEAF fell to the Vulcan B2.
Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Part 1 of my response.

This is the Canberra section of Plan L at 27th September 1957 from National Archives file AIR 2/14707/30150.



This is the Valiant section of Plan L at 27th September 1957 from National Archives file AIR 2/14707/30150.

 

[zen]

Context
US solutions nearly concurrent got cancelled and UK noted they hadn't paid enough attention to the issues low level flight threw up.
Only Vigilante made it to service and there was some experimental flights with Hustler.
Tactical was left to F.105 Thunderchief.
Of which we now know Gyron (not Junior) and Olympus powered options existed as proposals to UK.
As did a modified F8U-III with Conway.
Either of these 'superior' American aircraft would solve this at the time, in or on time at a much more affordable cost.
Of which F.105 was put into production and worked both for Tactical Laydown of nuclear and conventional stores.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In fairness to the RAF the Canberra replacement was complicated by the re-rolling of its medium bomber force.
The Valiant served in three squadrons in UK providing a theatre nuclear force for SACEUR. Canberras remained only overseas with RAF Germany and in the Near and Far East Air Forces.
Even in NEAF and FEAF Victors and Vulcans took on the serious strike role.
When TSR2 and F111 died the role of providing 50 strike aircraft for UK and NEAF/FEAF fell to the Vulcan B2.
Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Part 2 of my response.

The 4 Canberra Light Bomber squadrons in Bomber Command disbanded between December 1959 and September 1961. (That is: No. 139 on 31st December 1959; Nos. 9 and 12 on 13th July 1961; and No. 35 on 11th September 1962.)

This meant that there were 16 Canberra squadrons (5 light bomber, 4 interdictor and 7 MRPR) at the end of March 1963 instead of the 20 squadrons (9 light bomber, 4 interdictor and 7 MRPR) planned for that date in September 1957.

I don't know the number of aircraft per squadron at 31st March 1963.

However, the total at 31st March 1964 was 150 aircraft instead of 154 planned in September 1957. That is:

• 40 aircraft in the 5 remaining Light Bomber squadrons as planned in September 1957.
• 48 aircraft in the 3 Interdictor squadrons as planned in September 1957.
• 62 aircraft in the 7 MRPR squadrons instead of the 66 planned in September 1957. This was because:
  • The squadron in Bomber Command had 8 aircraft instead of 16.
  • The squadron in Second Tactical Air Force deployed in Malta had 10 aircraft instead of 8.
  • The squadron in Far East Air Force had 6 aircraft instead of 4.

Of the 7 Valiant Medium Bomber squadrons:

• 3 became Tactical Bomber squadrons (replacing the 4 Canberra Light Bomber squadrons in Bomber Command) as follows:
  • No. 207 Squadron with effect from 1st January 1960
  • No. 49 Squadron with effect from 1st July 1961
  • No. 148 Squadron with effect from 13th July 1961
• 2 became Tanker squadrons with effect from 1st April 1962. However, my source went on to write that No. 214 Squadron had been flight refuelling since August 1958 and No. 90 Squadron went into the FR role in October 1961.
• 2 were disbanded in 1962. They were No. 138 Squadron which disbanded on 1st April 1962 and No. 7 Squadron which disbanded on 30th July 1962.

No. 543 Squadron continued to operate Valiant until they were grounded but they remained on strength until May 1965 when the first Victor SR Mk 2s arrived.

According to Humphrey Wynn in the RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces the Air Council made the decision to assign 3 Valiant squadrons to SACEUR on 15th May 1958. The reasoning behind this was that the Valiants had H2S radar and the Canberras did not which gave the Valiants an all-weather capability that the Canberras lacked.

Another reason for disbanding the 4 Light Bomber squadrons in Bomber Command was...

Because of the probable limitations of their fatigue light, it is doubtful whether present holding of Canberras of various marks would be enough to support the front line as presently planned (64 in the UK, 48 in Germany, 32 in MEAF and eight in FEAF) until a Canberra replacement became available. Low-level flying with nuclear bombs for which some of these aircraft are, or are being, adapted produced airframe fatigue very much more quickly than flying at the Canberra's designed height...

SACEUR recognised the all-weather capability of the Valiant but regretted the reduction in the numerical reduction in the force assigned to him. However, the RAF responded that that the Valiants would have multi-carriage capability and that one Valiant would replace two nuclear-capable Canberras.

If that's the case why did the RAF assign 3 Valiant squadrons to the Tactical Bomber role instead of 4? That is to produce a total of 32 aircraft carrying 2 bombs each (64 targets) for a one-to-one replacement of the 64 single-bomb carrying Canberras (64 targets). They could have transferred one of the Valiant squadrons that disbanded in 1962.

The answer was money.

Since medium bombers are more expensive to run than Canberras, it is likely that this would not be acceptable financially other than, say, on a 1 for 3 basis.

64 ÷ 3 = 21⅓ which is about 2¾ squadrons with a Unit Equipment of 8 aircraft.

 

[uk 75]

As Hood points out this subject is well trodden, but as you can see from the contributions above I think anyone new to this site and the subject will have found it informative and enjoyable.

I am grateful to participants for entering into the spirit and providing such detailed contributions.

 

[Avimimus]

I have to admit that the word 'sensibly' in the thread title just makes me want to propose a variable geometry VSTOL Canberra (and yes, I know that VG and VSTOL do not get along).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In fairness to the RAF the Canberra replacement was complicated by the re-rolling of its medium bomber force.
The Valiant served in three squadrons in UK providing a theatre nuclear force for SACEUR. Canberras remained only overseas with RAF Germany and in the Near and Far East Air Forces.
Even in NEAF and FEAF Victors and Vulcans took on the serious strike role.
When TSR2 and F111 died the role of providing 50 strike aircraft for UK and NEAF/FEAF fell to the Vulcan B2.
Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Part 3 of my response.

These are the relevant section of Plan P of March 1964 from National Archives file AIR 20/11708/68770.



There were 174 aircraft (24 Valiants and 150 Canberras) in 19 squadrons at the end of March 1964 and a projected total of 116 aircraft (106 T.S.R.2s and 10 Canberras) in 12 squadrons at the end of March 1975. That's a reduction in one-third in the number of aircraft and also one-third in the number of squadrons.

The Air Ministry Requirements section of the File showed that 11 T.S.R.2s were on Air Ministry Requisition and that there was a Further Requirement for 182 which produced a Total Requirement for 193 aircraft. The Remarks column said...

The 11 aircraft requisitioned are pre-production models which will eventually be delivered to production standard. In addition limited approval has been given for 30 production aircraft.

The Aircraft Programme section showed the 193 aircraft being delivered in the 5 financial years 1967/68 to 1971/72. That is between 1st April 1967 and 31st March 1972. They were Forecast deliveries based on provisional advice on production. However...

Quantity, 6 pre-production aircraft will be delivered in 1966/67. They will be returned for modification to production * standard and are included in the total of 193.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In fairness to the RAF the Canberra replacement was complicated by the re-rolling of its medium bomber force.
The Valiant served in three squadrons in UK providing a theatre nuclear force for SACEUR. Canberras remained only overseas with RAF Germany and in the Near and Far East Air Forces.
Even in NEAF and FEAF Victors and Vulcans took on the serious strike role.
When TSR2 and F111 died the role of providing 50 strike aircraft for UK and NEAF/FEAF fell to the Vulcan B2.
Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Part 4 of my response.

This is the Medium Bomber, Strategic Reconnaissance and Tanker forces in Plan P of March 1964.



The combined Medium Bomber & Strategic Reconnaissance Force was:

• 112 aircraft in 15 squadrons in March 1964, which reduced to...
• 96 aircraft in 12 squadrons in March 1966, which was maintained until March 1970, when it was reduced to...
• 22 aircraft in 3 squadrons in March 1973 and then there was a slight reduction to...
• 21 aircraft in 3 squadrons in March 1975.

I wonder if this means that at March 1964 Polaris was expected achieve Initial Operational Capability in March 1970 and Full Operational Capability in March 1973.

One of the footnotes says...

There will be insufficient aircraft to back the Victor B.2 squadrons and the Victor O.C.U. to normal standards.

Which I'm also guessing is why the Victor B.2s weren't maintained at the normal strength of 8 aircraft each.

Another footnote says that 3 Vulcan B.2 (Free Fall) squadrons had an overseas reinforcement commitment from October, 1964 to 1970 and that thereafter this task would be undertaken by the 3 Victor B.2 Squadrons.

The Air Ministry Requirements section showed no Victor B(K).1 tankers on Air Ministry Requisition, but there was a Further Requirement for 24. The Aircraft Programme section had 8 aircraft delivered in the 1965/66 financial year and 16 delivered in 1966/67, that is between 1st April 1965 and 31st March 1967. They were forecast deliveries based on provisional advice on production.

Only converting 24 aircraft explains why the Victor B(K).1 tanker squadrons wouldn't be at the normal strength of 8 aircraft each and decline from 22 aircraft in 2 squadrons in March 1967 to 18 aircraft in 3 squadrons in March 1975. However, 30 Victor Mk 1 bombers would be converted to tankers instead of the 24 planned in March 1964.

 

[uk 75]

I am guessing that although the Victor B2 carried a bigger conventional bombload the Vulcan was found to perform better in the low level nuclear strike role.
The Victors were also needed to increase available refueling tankers for UK air defence after the carriers were cancelled.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Victors were also needed to increase available refuelling tankers for UK air defence after the carriers were cancelled.

When I read the relevant chapters in Wynn I discovered that the RAF wanted to convert 3 Valiant medium bomber squadrons to tankers, but the Treasury would only provide the money for 2.

Therefore, I'm guessing that the 3 Victor Mk 1 tanker squadrons in Plan P were a revival of the earlier plan.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Are you saying that the TSR.2's specification was originally for an aircraft that could carry one atom bomb, but it was changed to an aircraft that could carry two because the Valiant could carry two? If you are. What is your source for that?

And which nuclear bomb was specified? Red Beard, Project E or WE.177?

As far as I know the Canberra could carry one Red Beard or one Project E internally while the Valiant could carry one Blue Danube or two Red Beards or two Project E bombs internally.

According to this gentleman the TSR.2 could carry one Red Beard or two WE.177 bombs internally.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9fZX6z_smo

So was the original specification for an aircraft that could carry one WE.177 internally and was amended to an aircraft that could carry two?

 

[uk 75]

I have no source but my own eyes.

Compare the relative sizes of TSR2, Canberra and Valiant. The TSR2 is larger than Canberra but thanks to WE177 rather than Red Beard it has the load capacity of Valiant.

 

[CJGibson]

This might help.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Are you saying that the TSR.2's specification was originally for an aircraft that could carry one atom bomb, but it was changed to an aircraft that could carry two because the Valiant could carry two? If you are. What is your source for that?

And which nuclear bomb was specified? Red Beard, Project E or WE.177?

As far as I know the Canberra could carry one Red Beard or one Project E internally while the Valiant could carry one Blue Danube or two Red Beards or two Project E bombs internally.

According to this gentleman the TSR.2 could carry one Red Beard or two WE.177 bombs internally.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9fZX6z_smo

So was the original specification for an aircraft that could carry one WE.177 internally and was amended to an aircraft that could carry two?

I have no source but my own eyes.

Compare the relative sizes of TSR2, Canberra and Valiant. The TSR2 is larger than Canberra but thanks to WE177 rather than Red Beard it has the load capacity of Valiant.

That doesn't answer my questions.

However, I found the answers last night in Chapter 9 "Weapons" and the Appendices of "TSR2 Britain's Lost Bomber" by Damien Burke. (Scribd's copy).

GOR.339 (issued March 1957) and the first draft of OR.343 (issued May 1959) required the internal carriage of the tactical nuclear weapon specified in OR.1127 i.e. Red Beard.

However, OR.343 was amended in mid-1960. The aircraft now had to carry a pair of nuclear bombs internally. Burke's explanation for this was that while TSR2 was scheduled to replaces Canberra on a one-for-two basis the number of targets which the force was committed to deal was not going to reduce.

Red Beard was heavy and it was too big to allow the carriage of two internally. Two could be carried externally, but that would have significantly reduced the aircraft's range due to the increased weight and drag.

The Air Staff looked into the American Mk 28 bomb (a Project E weapon) and discovered that two of them could be carried internally and...

In October 1960 OR.343 was modified to include provision for the carriage of either one weapon (internally), a pair of the right size internally or a pair externally, the paired weapons being Mk 28s or a possible British future weapon (ASR.1177), and Red Beard if there was no other option.

ASR.1177 produced the WE.177 bomb. Chapter 9 confirms the illustrations provided by @CJGibson in Post 23 because there are photographs of the TSR2 mock-up fitted with pairs of WE.177s side-by-side as in tandem in its bomb-bay.

However, Burke also wrote that TSR2 would probably have carried the WE177C (which was deployed by RAF Germany's Jaguars and Tornados) and due to its increase in size would have precluded the carriage of more than one internally.

The extract from Post 6 that I quoted in Post 22 again.

Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

The information from Mr Burke's book shows that the decision to change the internal carriage requirement from one nuclear bomb to two had nothing to do with the ability of the V-bombers to carry two internally.

And that simple fact did not lead to TSR2 growing in size. That's in part because while it is a fact it isn't the reason for the change in the Operational Requirement. The other part is that they found a smaller bombs (the Mk 28 and WE177) to fit the aircraft rather than redesigning the aircraft to fit two Red Beards with the result that the TSR2 did not grow in size.

 

[uk 75]

Although your tone suggests I am obliged to be cross examined when I make my comments/questions, it is in fact my device to get answers and information from posters here.
You have provided with CJ's help a detailed account of how the TSR2 acquired its revised nuclear payload.
As I make clear I have not done the serious research that many here have done, but I like to draw out the knowledge of those who have
I apologise if this causes offence.
If the payload does not drive the size difference between TSR2 and Canberra despite doubling the nuclear strike load then what does?
Contemporaries were all too aware of how big the TSR2 was. Its role as a purely nuclear bomber (a V bomber substitute) was a major plank in Labour Party opposition to TSR2. They also called for the cancellation of the Nuclear Deterrent.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In fairness to the RAF the Canberra replacement was complicated by the re-rolling of its medium bomber force.
The Valiant served in three squadrons in UK providing a theatre nuclear force for SACEUR. Canberras remained only overseas with RAF Germany and in the Near and Far East Air Forces.
Even in NEAF and FEAF Victors and Vulcans took on the serious strike role.
When TSR2 and F111 died the role of providing 50 strike aircraft for UK and NEAF/FEAF fell to the Vulcan B2.
Whereas Canberra could only carry one nuclear bomb internally, V bombers could carry two. This simple fact led to TSR2 growing in size.

Part 5 of my response.

The Situation in October 1967

The Vulcan B.2 force reached it's peak strength of 72 aircraft in nine squadrons during October 1967 when 101 Squadron converted from the Mk 1 to the Mk 2. The nine squadrons were Nos. 9, 12, 27, 35, 44, 50, 83, 101, 139 and 617. Three of these squadrons (Nos. 27, 83 and 617) were armed with Blue Steel stand-off bombs and the rest carried free-fall bombs.

However, under Plan P of March 1964 this strength should have been reached by March 1966 - 18 months earlier.

There were six squadrons of Victors in October 1967. These were:

• Nos. 101 and 139 which were medium bomber squadrons equipped with Victor B.2s carrying Blue Steel stand-off bombs.
• No. 543 equipped with the Victor SR.2s which as the aircraft's designation suggests was a strategic reconnaissance squadron.
• Nos. 55, 57 and 214 which were tanker squadrons operating the Victor Mk 1 and Mk 1A.

The 16 Victor and 72 Vulcan medium bombers in 11 squadrons carried the British strategic nuclear deterrent. According to Plan P of March 1964 it should have been maintained at this strength until March 1971.

However, this strength wasn't maintained for long because 12 Squadron disbanded on 31st December 1967 which reduced the size of the force to 80 aircraft in 10 squadrons.

1969-74

The Royal Navy's Polaris submarines relieved the the Medium Bomber Force from midnight on 30th June 1969 and according to Wynn in RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces signified the end of an era for the RAF strategic bombing capability.

The two Victor B.2 squadrons had already disbanded. No. 100 went on 30th September 1968 and 139 ceased to be on 31st December 1968. One of the Vulcan B.2 squadrons (No. 83) disbanded on 31st August 1969.

This left 56 Vulcan B.2s in seven squadrons (Nos. 9, 27, 35, 44, 50, 101, 139 and 617) and the 8 Victor SR.2s in one squadron (No. 543).

• 16 Vulcans in two squadrons (Nos. 9 and 35) moved to Akrotiri, Cyprus in 1969 where they replaced 32 Canberra light bombers in four squadrons (Nos. 6, 32, 73 and 249).
• The 40 Vulcans in five squadrons that remained in the UK became Tactical Bombers assigned to SACEUR and restored the capability that was lost on 1st May 1965 when the three Valiant squadrons (Nos. 49, 148 and 207) disbanded. However, 27 Squadron disbanded on 29th March 1972 which reduced the UK-based Vulcan force to 32 aircraft in four squadrons.
• At some point the role of 543 Squadron changed from Strategic Reconnaissance to Maritime Radar Reconnaissance (MRR) and it became part of the Tactical Air Support to Maritime Operations (TACSMO) force. (Or the MRR role was added to its existing duties.) The squadron disbanded on 24th May 1974. It was replaced by 27 Squadron operating the Vulcan B.2 (MRR) also known as the Vulcan SR.2. No. 27 re-formed on 1st November 1973 so I'm guessing that it took six months to become operational and that's why No. 543 didn't disband until May 1974.

The Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 cut most of the remaining British forces in the Mediterranean and the two squadrons in Cyprus returned to the UK in January 1975. However, instead of disbanding they augmented the force assigned to SACEUR which increased from 32 aircraft in four squadrons to 48 aircraft in six squadrons.

1975-93

This force of six Vulcan B.2 bomber and one Vulcan B.2 (MRR) squadrons continued into the early 1980s. The seven squadrons were disbanded between December 1981 and March 1984 as follows:

• 617 Squadron disbanded on 31st December 1981
• 35 Squadron disbanded on 1st March 1982
• 27 Squadron (the MRR unit) disbanded on 31st March 1982.
• 9 Squadron disbanded on 1st May 1982.
• 101 Squadron disbanded on 4th August 1982
• 44 Squadron disbanded on 21st December 1982
• 50 Squadron's aircraft were converted to Vulcan K.2 tankers and it operated in that role from June 1982 (Source: RAFWEB) until 31st March 1984 when it disbanded. This was the last Vulcan squadron in the RAF.

Three squadrons (Nos. 9, 27 and 617) would re-form as Tornado GR.1 squadrons between June 1982 and August 1983. No. 101 would re-form as a VC.10 tanker squadron in May 1984.

Meanwhile the redundant Victor B.2s and SR.2 were converted to K.2 tankers:

• 55 Squadron operated the aircraft from June 1975 until October 1993 when it converted to the Tristar and VC10. (Source: RAFWEB) My source also says that both of these aircraft were 'borrowed' from the relevant operational units.
• 57 Squadron operated the aircraft from July 1976 until 30th June 1986 when it disbanded. (Source: RAFWEB).
• 214 Squadron continued to operate Victor K.1 and K.1A until it disbanded on 29th January 1977. The squadron was one of the victims of the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75.

According to Putnams Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 by Peter Lewis (Eighth Edition, 1988) the Mason Review also cut the number of Victor Mk 2 tanker conversions from 29 to 24.

The Buccaneer in RAF Service

The 48 Canberra interdictors in three squadrons (Nos. 3, 14 and 16) in RAF Germany disbanded between June 1970 and June 1972.

• No. 14 disbanded at Wildenrath on 30th June 1970, but re-formed the next day (1st July 1970) at Bruggen as a Phantom ground attack squadron.
• No. 3 disbanded at Laarbruch on 31st December 1971, but re-formed the next day (1st January 1972) at Wildenrath as a Harrier ground attack squadron.
• No. 16 disbanded at Laarbruch on 30th June 1972, but was re-formed as a Buccaneer squadron later in the year. See below.

They were replaced by two squadrons of Buccaneers:

• No. 15 which re-formed at RAF Honington on 1st October 1970 and moved to Germany in January 1971. It converted to the Tornado GR.1 in 1983.
• The second was 16 Squadron (which had been one of the Canberra interdictor squadrons) which re-formed at RAF Laarbruch on 1st October 1972 as No. 16 (Designate) squadron and declared operational on 8th January 1973. It converted to the Tornado GR.1 in 1984.

There were also three squadrons operating Buccaneers in the Maritime Strike role as part of the TACSMO force. Although one of them only existed for a year. They were:

• 12 Squadron re-formed at RAF Honington on 1st October 1969. It moved to Lossiemouth in 1980 where it disbanded on 1st October 1993. On the same day a new Tornado equipped No 12 took over the numberplate in the same role and is still based at Lossiemouth.
• 208 Squadron re-formed at Honington on 1st July 1974. It moved to Lossiemouth in July 1983 where it disbanded on 31st March 1994.
• 216 Squadron re-formed at Honington on 1st July 1979 with the aircraft that had belonged to 809 Naval Air Squadron. It disbanded at Lossiemouth on 4th August 1980 after just over a year's existence. However, the squadron would re-form as a Tristar tanker-transport unit on 1st November 1984.

The Buccaneer was grounded for a period in 1980 due to suspected metal fatigue problems and about half were withdrawn. (Source: the Putnams book on RAF aircraft since 1918.) This resulted in the number of Buccaneer units being reduced from five to four. The short-straw was drawn by 216 Squadron.

 

[JFC Fuller]

There was an earlier squadron pattern planned for TSR-2. Note that the squadrons and associated UEs are my guess based on the given aircraft numbers and alignment with the existing Canberra/Valiant squadron pattern:



This would have given a frontline of 170 aircraft. Against the light bomber force proposed in Plan L there are the following variations:

1. 24 TSR-2s in Bomber command against 64 Canberras; this reflects the May 1958 decision to replace 4 x 16 UE Canberra squadrons with 3 x 8 UE Valiant squadrons as discussed above
2. RAFG actually gains 2 aircraft, though FEAF loses 2 (the split between strike and recce in FEAF isn't given in the source document for the above table)
3. NEAF, the Akrotiri Strike Wing, loses 1 x 8 UE strike squadron

I have seen this described as the "initial plan" but suspect that in the very earliest days of OR.339 there were assumptions, if not plans, for even larger forces. This one was pared back by reallocating some specific roles to the P.1154 and accepting that the double nuclear weapons carriage of the TSR-2 allowed for a smaller force.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 27.

What is your source?

Scribd has a copy of "TSR2: Britain's Lost Bomber" by Daimen Burke. Chapter Three "Designing TSR2" contains the following paragraph...

At about this time the RAF was finalizing the number of TSR2s it wanted. Initial thoughts were of numbers to gladden George Edwards’s heart; a front line of 170 aircraft was required. Add to that forty aircraft for the Operational Conversion Unit (OCU), plus ninety aircraft as ‘backing’ (i.e. replacements for others as they were worn out, crashed or, if the unthinkable happened, shot down), and you had a total of 300. These numbers would soon tumble downwards as the costs began to rise.

Which corresponds to your "initial plan" for 170 front-line aircraft. Unfortunately, Burke does not say when, but it appears to be late 1959 or early 1960.

About 20 years ago my local library had a book called "TSR 2: Phoenix Or Folly?" by Frank Barnett-Jones and if I remember correctly that book said that the original requirement was for 290 TSR2s. That's nearly the same as the original requirement for 300 aircraft claimed by Burke.

 

[uk 75]

What is remarkable is that the RAF does adapt very well to the change from massive nuclear release to flexible response in the 1960s.
After the trauma of TSR2 and F111 cancellation the Vulcan B2 is given the job of replacing the Valiants with 48 serving into the early 80s.
The magical 150 P1154 Hunter replacements end up being replaced by a similar number of Jaguars.
But it is MRCA Tornado which in spite of much scepticism from aviation journalists and politicians solves the problem albeit in 1984 rather than 1964!

 

[Pioneer]

Well, whilst deliberating about a Blackburn Buccaneer derivative for the RAF as a Canberra replacement, I've always loved the look and potential of the larger supersonic Hawker-Siddeley P.150 [aka 'Super Buccaneer'].
In essence a Buccaneer S.2 with the airframe being lengthened by five feet, four-wheel bogies on the main landing gear, removal of folding wing ability, a new thin wing and improved Spey engines with reheat capability giving it a top speed of Mach 1.8.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[robunos]

Okay, here's one from out of left field, what if English Electric / BAC leverage their relationship with the Martin Corp. (from the B-57), and propose a version of the Martin Model 316 / XB-68 ?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/martin-model-316-xb-68-tactical-bomber.479/page-4

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Well, this being an alternative timeline, it has a problem. It is so left field it might actually be possible. Knowing what we know about logic and the folk we are really talking about here. Or, I have had one too many bottles of beer today, yesterday,whatever. Having decided to celebrate my 64th birthday with two beers. I know but I have to do something to inspire the alternate timeline theory in me. Seriously tho' Some of these flights of fancy are so mad they might just have been doable at the time.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, this being an alternative timeline, it has a problem. It is so left field it might actually be possible. Knowing what we know about logic and the folk we are really talking about here. Or, I have had one too many bottles of beer today, yesterday,whatever. Having decided to celebrate my 64th birthday with two beers. I know but I have to do something to inspire the alternate timeline theory in me. Seriously tho' Some of these flights of fancy are so mad they might just have been doable at the time.

In the spirit of the above....

Are there any remotely plausible ways in which the "real world's" TSR2 could have been put into service on time and at cost?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, whilst deliberating about a Blackburn Buccaneer derivative for the RAF as a Canberra replacement, I've always loved the look and potential of the larger supersonic Hawker-Siddeley P.150 [aka 'Super Buccaneer'].
In essence a Buccaneer S.2 with the airframe being lengthened by five feet, four-wheel bogies on the main landing gear, removal of folding wing ability, a new thin wing and improved Spey engines with reheat capability giving it a top speed of Mach 1.8.

Regards
Pioneer

I think projects like the "Super Buccaneer" would be subjected to the "Spey Phantom Effect". That is the changes to the airframe, engines and avionics would result in R&D and production costs comparable to designing and building a new aircraft.

That said the R&D and production costs of the improved Spey engines for "Super Buccaneer" might have been shared with the R&D and production costs of the engines for the "Spey Phantom".

 

[Grey Havoc]

Well, this being an alternative timeline, it has a problem. It is so left field it might actually be possible. Knowing what we know about logic and the folk we are really talking about here. Or, I have had one too many bottles of beer today, yesterday,whatever. Having decided to celebrate my 64th birthday with two beers. I know but I have to do something to inspire the alternate timeline theory in me. Seriously tho' Some of these flights of fancy are so mad they might just have been doable at the time.

In the spirit of the above....

Are there any remotely plausible ways in which the "real world's" TSR2 could have been put into service on time and at cost?

Would probably require Wilson never getting into power.

 

[starviking]

Well, this being an alternative timeline, it has a problem. It is so left field it might actually be possible. Knowing what we know about logic and the folk we are really talking about here. Or, I have had one too many bottles of beer today, yesterday,whatever. Having decided to celebrate my 64th birthday with two beers. I know but I have to do something to inspire the alternate timeline theory in me. Seriously tho' Some of these flights of fancy are so mad they might just have been doable at the time.

In the spirit of the above....

Are there any remotely plausible ways in which the "real world's" TSR2 could have been put into service on time and at cost?

As in the design as built? Damn hard.

As in the competition winner, P17? Possible, if this whole design by committee can be avoided.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, this being an alternative timeline, it has a problem. It is so left field it might actually be possible. Knowing what we know about logic and the folk we are really talking about here. Or, I have had one too many bottles of beer today, yesterday,whatever. Having decided to celebrate my 64th birthday with two beers. I know but I have to do something to inspire the alternate timeline theory in me. Seriously tho' Some of these flights of fancy are so mad they might just have been doable at the time.

In the spirit of the above....

Are there any remotely plausible ways in which the "real world's" TSR2 could have been put into service on time and at cost?

Would probably require Wilson never getting into power.

That won't work because TSR.2 was several years behind schedule and several times over the originally estimated cost when Harold Wilson became Prime Minister. If the project had been proceeding on time and at cost when the Wilson Government came into power it wouldn't have been cancelled.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Would probably require Wilson never getting into power.

And Mike Yarwood would have had a very different career due to Harold Wilson and Dennis Healey being his best remembered impersonations.

 

[red admiral]

As in the competition winner, P17? Possible, if this whole design by committee can be avoided.

But Vickers concept won, and was then smashed together with EE's P.17 configuration. Then centre of gravity moved to EE and airframe development and totally lost the "cost conscious" part of Vickers' concept that won...

Maybe being firmer that Vickers is prime / lead systems integrator, and EE are subcontracted for airframe?

 

[Pioneer]

Well, whilst deliberating about a Blackburn Buccaneer derivative for the RAF as a Canberra replacement, I've always loved the look and potential of the larger supersonic Hawker-Siddeley P.150 [aka 'Super Buccaneer'].
In essence a Buccaneer S.2 with the airframe being lengthened by five feet, four-wheel bogies on the main landing gear, removal of folding wing ability, a new thin wing and improved Spey engines with reheat capability giving it a top speed of Mach 1.8.

Regards
Pioneer

I think projects like the "Super Buccaneer" would be subjected to the "Spey Phantom Effect". That is the changes to the airframe, engines and avionics would result in R&D and production costs comparable to designing and building a new aircraft.

That said the R&D and production costs of the improved Spey engines for "Super Buccaneer" might have been shared with the R&D and production costs of the engines for the "Spey Phantom".

Thanks for your feedback NOMISYRRUC, I concur with your analogy.

The fact that the Buccaneer was a proven design with appreciated capabilities in the strike role, as well as it's potential in growth would allow for any avionics growth derived from the development of the P.150 to be incorporated into Royal Navy Buccaneer S2's. While as you state, the R&D being applied to an afterburning Spey turbofan could be shared and the benefit of a RN/RAF F-4K/M Phantom II or F-8K Crusader.

Regards
Pioneer