Just how good was the TSR. 2 ?

Hey guys I am curious to gauge some opinions. No doubt like the rest of you I have read alot of good things about the British low-high level penetrator of the mid 1960s which was the victim of a short sighted government.

Essentially from all accounts the TSR.2 was better than the F-111 (which the UK decided to buy off the shelf instead of developing its own fighter.) It is with some irony that the faults of the F-111 saw the RAF flying leased F-4 Phantoms and up-dating Buccaneers as a stop gap.

The TSR.2 was going to be expensive to build, BUT it was faster than most fighters, have better high level and low level strike capabilities than most bombers then and for many years after. Had sophisticated avionics, HUD, sidewards radar, large fuel tanks, excellent range and a good pay load.

The UK labor govt decided to save millions of pounds there and then, by buying American, but in turn they ended up costing the MoD billions decades later.

I have read that even by todays standards the TSR.2 would still be capable. One can only speculate on what its upgrades would bring.

What are your thoughts on this 'never was' great.

Kym

 

kind of a moot point ,the labor govt turned out to be right in buying us f111s which as it turned out were never needed anyway ...look at the gazillions we yanks have foolishly squandered for our boondogle b1 bomber project , which has been passed by new technology and the collapse of the red boogyman bear ....our needs today could be served with a fleet of b29s or liberators with upgraded munitions and avionics

 

The reason why B-1B, F-111 and TSR-2 all had bad design missions were shown by Tornado GR.1s in Gulf war 1.


Utter waste of money and lives.

 

majorwoody - we never actually bought the F-111s

Hubsu - the main losses to the GR1 (if memory serves) was during the airfield attacks, as the RAF employed weaponry that required a straight flight down the centre of the enemy runway. Which isn't smart when you're being shot at. The Buccaneer (see the first post) provided sterling work as a low-level attack plane in Iraq with minimal losses.

 

The exercise in buying American off the shelf however showed that the UK was no longer a leader in Aviation design. And to this day that is true, with all of the joint national projects.

I remember reading some where that the UK govt put down a deposit on the F-111's which as we all know never came. Yet when they did enter USAF service they were far from what was advertised until ALOT more US$ was spent to justify them.

I am curious to know what they would have been like, had the TSR.2 been purchased by Australia as opposed to the F-111. From what I have read the TSR.2 would have been more versatile and easier to up-grade and enhance compared to the F-111.

That is all speculation now however.

Kym

 

If memory servers right, only one tornado was lost during an attack which required for the plane to fly straight and level while cratering the runway with an JP-223 bomblet dispenser.

If low level high speed penetration is still succesfull, then where are the planes flying those missions?

edit: Maybe a better question is: Where are all the designs that are to be replace or already replaced all the planes that fly/flew low level high speed penetration missions? As there are still a few 30 year old designs flying their designed low level high speed penetration missions around the world. Most of the planes for that mission are being retired without a plane flying similar mission.

edit2: And the Buccaneers were sent to the theatre to help to get the Tornados out of the weeds and up, since Tornados lacked targeting capabilities for medium-high level bombing :]

 

I've see what is one of two examples left, at the RAF Cosford museum and to be honest it doesn't look that good. It's very slabsided with very short wings. But before anyone jumps on me, I know that doesn't prove anything.

I would make the point that the 60's was a period where the UK had defence projects that turned out to be either:
wildly over budget
not as good as the developers said they were
basically obsolete before they got into service
or some combination of all three

After twenty odd years of trying to keep up with the Jones (the USA and USSR) it was also the decade where pretty much admitted it wasn't a super power any more. We couldn't afford to throw money at projects like the yanks could or make the cuts to living standards like the Russians.

 

Wow incredible memory!!!

A total of 6 RAF GR1s were shot down during the war, this includes 1 shot down during a JP233 mission (although about 3 minutes after deploying the weapon), 4 shot down at low-level dropping unguided bombs during the initial stages of the war, and 1 lost during a medium-level mission involving laser-guided munitions.

http://www.operationgranby.com/p1_equipment_tornado.php

BYW only 1 aircraft lost in 100 JP233 sorties is not much!

The RAF delivered over 3,000 tonnes of ordnance. This total comprised over 100 JP233 airfield denial weapons, some 6,000 1,000lb bombs (of which over 1,000 were laser guided), over 100 anti-radar missiles and nearly 700 air-to-ground rockets. No air-to-air missiles were fired.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/operations.html

 

This also applies to the 70's, 80's, 90's and current!

I do wish the government would take the original quote, double it and add 10 years to get something realistic when looking at the tenders

FNG

 

are there any specs of both aircarft?

F-111a vs TSR2?

Powerplant
Max. speed
Service ceiling
Range
Empty weight
Max. take off weight

 

The all-knowing google tells range for a hi-lo-lo-hi mission for each plane as:

Tornado: 650nm
TSR-2: around 1000
F-111: 600

TSR-2's range most probably is just an estimate, so for a real mission radius, cut the range in half.

 

Add 1 Italian Tornado which was shot down over Bagdad (AFAIK) in a very unfortunate mission.

Correction:

Note the last one was shot down by AAA
from:
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/hunt.htm

 

That is the problem with googling...

Speed can also influence range. The best long range cruise speed for the FB-111 was around 440kt. An F-111A had a hi-lo-lo-hi combat radius of 1005 nm, including a 100 nm dash at M 0.9:
100 nm @ M 0.9 means 50 nm less radius,
100 nm @ M 1.0 means 150 nm less radius,
100 nm @ M 1.1 means 300 nm less radius,
100 nm @ M 1.2 means 400 nm less radius.

 

ive heard that the canucks developed a wonder weapon in the arrow fighter ,that it was superiour to anything produced in america ithe time but it was torpedoded by the us military industrial complex , was the arrow really the uber fighter brought low by back room politics ?

 

woody:
The story, as I recall, was that the Canadian aviation industry was thought to have been penetrated by Soviet "moles" who were sending the "Arrow" production data and specs back to the Russian Motherland.
More cloak and dagger stuff than purely industrial spying...

Tim

 

The Arrow is suppose to have been a top interceptor as opposed to a fighter, it is certainly born from its era.

Is that true re the spying ?

 

No, the Arrow was a very good airplane that was going to have some tremendous engines. The weapons system was way behind schedule. way over cost and not performing to spec. much as Canadians love the US conspiracy theory. it was actually the Canadian government that killed the project. PM John Diefenbaker, a Conservative scrapped the Liberal sponsered program and all the planes as well.

 

THANKS CAN, im glad to here that american industry did not stoop so low as to sabatoge a great design put of greed .