TSR-2: What could have been? By Benjamin Goodlad

[@richardvernon317]

Pretty good talk, but failed to put a lot of stuff in correct context. Aircraft was not built for Strategic mission. At time of OR343 release, Deterrent mission was V Bombers / V Bombers with Blue Steel and then Blue Streak IRBM (after Thor). Skybolt ordered after Blue Streak canned and then Navy given mission with Polaris. Tactical Nuclear Strike mission from start to finish part of NATO ACE mission. TSR2 Specification was built around 3 missions in 2 war scenarios. OR343 actually states in order of priority the mission of the aircraft in the below order. 1. High Altitude / High Speed / Long Range Recce in a limited war against a limited Air Defence System using mostly supersonic interceptors in either the Middle or Far East. Radar and Visual recce systems. Aircraft has to be able to do this from existing RAF Bases to far edge of known threat countries. That 900-1100NM range allowed an aircraft from Cyprus to deal with everything in the CENTO area and from the SEATO area from Butterworth / Singapore and Darwin in Australia (namely Indonesia). RAAF have same mission as regards SEATO. The primary reason for this aircraft was to support British Treaty obligations (NATO / CENTO / SEATO). Mach 2 requirement needed for this mission to allow aircraft to outrun fighter interception. Long ferry range required so that minimum force could be based in theatre and re-enforcements be flown out from UK with minimum or no tanker support. UK basing preferred as overseas basing more expensive and costs the country foreign currency in paying troops and for logistical support, which the UK is a bit short of (one of the reasons we don't want to buy foreign kit unless we have to either). 2. Longish range / High Speed / Low Level Recce in a global Nuclear War in the face of an integrated air defence system using radar controlled gun, SAM and supersonic interceptors. Real time transmission of recce data required to support British Army Guided Weapon strike systems in central Europe. Aircraft needs to be dispersed away of main operating bases in time of tension so that they don't get Nuked by a Soviet medium range Ballistic missile before they can take off. This is why the Short Field requirement exists. Rough Strip or Grass is their to allow a variety of disused or civilian airstrip's to be used in time of war to avoid being caught on the ground. It wasn't going to do extended operations from grass fields. One flight in to deploy and one flight out to go home or end the world!! 1000NM range required from UK, Short Airfields not so much of an issue in UK, but a major issue in West Germany. 3. Nuclear / Conventional Strike. Nuclear in Europe. Conventional in limited war. Navigation and attack system required a computerized Inertial / Radar based system outside of ground based beacons with multiple waypoints and weapon delivery modes (10 waypoints / 3 weapon modes). Radar required Terran following mode for Europe and low level attack phases in limited war using Nukes in the former and iron bombs in the later to get under radar and SAMs. Ground mapping radar to give as close as possible a map like view of the ground as radar reconnaissance flights imposable over eastern European targets. Nav / recce system to be able to spot targets of opportunity like soviet tank columns. Of course what happened is for security, none of these reasons are passed on to the Industry, so they don't think its important and they ignore it thinking the RAF are just pulling numbers out of a Hat and they fail to meet any of the requirements, thinking the RAF would accept something less!!! RAF went ape when they found out that TSR2 couldn't do any of the above and canned it for F-111K. F-111k canned because price has gone through the roof due to the devaluation of the pound and Aircraft also can not meet operational requirements or time in service date. Also Far East Commitment is dying as East of Suez has already started , CENTO is on the verge of falling to bits and NATO war plans are changing to fight a conventional war first from main operating bases with long runways, which makes Buccaneer a viable aircraft to go into the new doctrine. Buccaneer and F-111K buys were small (50 odd aircraft) to allow for the aircraft to do deep strike role and replace Canberra in West Germany. Hunter replacement was going to be P1154 supersonic VTOL aircraft. P1154 killed by Royal Navy pulling out of programme and buying Phantom (under Conservative Government) and P1154 (RAF) killed to release funds for TSR2, plus RAF happy to replace Hunter with Harrier / Phantom mix (P1154 design a bit of a dogs dinner anyway, Afterburning jet nozzles on the side of an aircraft not a good idea). These aircraft still going to be operated under NATO Tripwire "Can of Instant sunshine chuck fest from the git go" war plan at the time they was ordered. Vulcan after release from UK Deterrent mission does UK based NATO Tactical Strike Mission, plus CENTO mission until that Treaty dies in 1974. As for Air Defence of West Germany, it is almost never covered that from 1963 to the end of the Cold War, the Surface to Air Missile was king!!! The Air Defences of West Germany were built around two SAM belts. 40KM from the inner German Boarder was the MIM-23 HAWK / IHAWK belt. When active, the Missile Engagement Zone covered this whole area of West Germany from 200 to 10,000 feet. HAWK Force was operated by Danes, Dutch, Belgium, FGR and US Army. In the Middle of West Germany running from the North Sea to Switzerland was the MIM-14 Nike Hercules Belt. This covers the whole of West Germany with a High Missile Engagement Zone. Operated by the same nations as the HAWK force, when activated zone starts at 10,000 feet and is a no go zone for manned aircraft. HAWK belt has to be transited either at very low level outbound or via safe lanes at slow speed inbound. Fighters peace time job is police airspace at all altitudes. in wartime, do low level air defence below NIKE MEZ and behind HAWK MEZ. only time that they would go high / go forward is to cover gaps in MEZ's while SAM batteries reloading or repairing battle damage (post Flexible Response policy implementation). Move towards fighting conventional war lead to airfield hardening and all weather SHORAD defences around airfields UK air defences 1960 - 1976 during Tripwire, small force of Lightings for peace time air policing, plus Bloodhound 1 SAM Defences around Thor Sites and V-bomber bases. Primary role of both in war to stop any Soviet Pre Strike recce effort before IRBM assault to stop Soviets targeting dispersal airfields. Bloodhound 1 gone from 1964, Bloodhound 2 force use in UK Air Defence in 1966-68 very small, primary role of UK SAM assess for overseas deployment / Reinforcement of Middle and Far East. System drawn down in Far East and UK during 1967-69 with most remaining operational equipment deployed to West Germany to defend clutch airfields. Jaguar upgraded from Advanced Trainer to Strike Aircraft to allow Phantoms to be released for Air Defence Mission in UK and West Germany. MRCA started to replace Jaguar, Buccaneer and Vulcan in GA/Strike role, plus Phantom in UK Air Defence Role. No Fighter Threat to UK, So Tornado ADV built as Bomber Killer. Small number of Lightning retained to make up numbers due to final batch of Phantoms being Cancelled. ACA (later Typhoon) comes about due to Mig 29 / Su 27 to replace Phantom and remaining Jaguars. UK based SAMs (Bloodhound 2 and Rapier) deployed to meet NATO funding requirements to allow building of UK Hardened airfields assigned to SACEUR.

[@petersone6172]

I think the American government saw TSR2 as too competitive with F111 and that’s why F111 was offered at a lower cost until after TSR2 was scrapped then the costs skyrocketed, not the first time our so called friends used protectionist tactics against us, as they also did with Avro in Canada. These tactics employed against us since the end of WW2 can be seen that we’re now about 15 years behind the US in aircraft design.

[@chrisgermann6658]

Tempest will change that.....unless the UK gov repeat history.

[@FinsburyPhil]

Interesting to think of a successful TSR-2 as killing the UK aircraft industry. Would MRCA have been pushed back such that other European air forces would have had to look for other solutions. Would we have ended up with the F-15 and F-16. It would have been interesting to see a short-bodied TSR-2 taking on the interceptor role of the Tornado F.3, perhaps then negating the need for F-15 and leaving us with F-16s as a fighter-bomber.

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

What if - it would have been an expensive white elephant, Sams would have done to it what Sams did to the V bombers, pushed them to low level with only the Vulcan could operate low level, yet the RAF had the Buccaneer that would do the low level TSR stuff in the hangers

[@johnboy14]

They basically tried to build an aircraft that could do everything and ended up doing nothing.

[@gavinbishop738]

140 TSR2s or 200 Jaguars + 385 Tornadoes for the RAF? Massively guts the RAF combat capability, and likely no/few exports either so it guts UK Industry as well. Its difficult to see this as a better outcome.

[@folksinger2100]

Sadly one needs to read the document held by the RAF Museum titled 'TSR-2 with Hindsight.' From that document it is quite obvious that the MOD Procurement and the Air Marshals wanted it cancelled but to achieve that it need a change of government, hence how Labour carried the can for something that should have been done months earlier. Personally I would have thought that there were 2 options, get the French involved or develop the Buccaneer 2 - the supersonic version - as we all know the Bucc was in service and flying long before the TSR-2 had left the ground!!!

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

There is a document held by the RAF Museum titled ‘TSR2 in hindsight’ Hidden in that are the thoughts of many supporters and detractors. Simply it is possible to see tha the decision to cancel was made long before there was a Labour Government. Even the majority of Air Marshals beloved that with the set backs that the American option would have been better. It is interesting to note that as the operational environment altered and the final replacement aircraft took its place it was found that the Buccaneer performed better at low level. All this by the Bucc that was in service and flying before a TSR-2 wheel had left the ground and it remained flying in service till the 1990’s. The really sad thing is that the Bucc 2 was prevented from being developed. The other sad thing is that people want someone to blame for its demise, most like this guy blame the Labour Party, when in truth it need a change of government to rid the country of this money pit with no orders or export orders. Anther option which could have saved it would have been to partner up with the French, as Beaumont has pointed out the French believe in their aviation industry and observation tells us that they have better procurement systems

[@martindice5424]

Hmm. Some things are…errr .. plausible. Maybe? But, the idea that the UK would have had the ability to preserve it’s totally indigenous aircraft industry is a non starter. Only the US (and recently the PRC) can do that - Russia tries but it’s aircraft are a bit crap. Every other nation co-operates in developing their aerospace industry. TSR 2 exports? Just the Aussies.’ Lovely aircraft - economically and operationally pointless.