BAC TSR.2 Carrier Capable?

There are so many ironies in the TSR2 saga. The Admiralty was undoubtedly dead-set against the TSR2 for obvious reasons, and historians have painted Mountbatten as the “bad guy” who did a great deal to kill-off the project. Maybe he did (although documentation shows that it was the US’s better offer which ultimately swayed the Australians, not Mountbatten) but in fairness it was the manufacturers who effectively destroyed the aircraft for themselves. Okay, they did this because of the way in which the Government bullied them into merging, but if all parties had taken a more realistic view and not treated TSR2 as a “super plane” which would be funded with a bottomless bucket of money, the whole saga would have ended very differently. The real irony is that despite their political motives, the Admiralty were right, and the RAF should have simply opted for the Buccaneer in the first place… which they did eventually of course even if by force rather than choice… and then reluctantly admitted that it was a brilliant aircraft!

To sum up,
it wouldn’t/couldn’t launch,
you couldn’t maintain it,
it couldn’t land,
it was not needed,
it wasn’t designed too,
the RAF pilots couldn’t,
the Navy pilots didn’t,
Mountbatten would not have allowed it

Other than that, sounds like the perfect plane for the job.:D

(Let’s have a moment of silence for all those writers of silly specifications throughout the decades…:D)

TSR2 was not equipped with an arrestor hook of any description.

“hook” does not equal carrier capable.

From above by Dragonfly: “The TSR.2 possibly could have handled a Carrier Landing too. It does have Short Field Arrestor Gear”

Dragonfly, short field arrestor gear is quite different than the arresting gear, hook and structural requirements for a carrier capable aircraft. It is a common misperception when many see a “hook” on the belly or rear of a tactical land based jet and they think it could land on a carrier. Most tactical land based jets had/have a deployable arrestor gear or hook for short field arrested landings, but the forces associated with an airfield system are much less severe than those on a carrier. The “hook” on these land based aircraft helps slow and stop the aircraft as it runs out, but could not withstand the arresting forces aboard a carrier- it would just rip off. The hook on a true carrier based aircraft is much beefier (as is the airframe, and the attachment points for the tail hook) than these short field systems. If you ever compare say a F-4 phantom tail hook, and the strap like system on a F-104 you will see a world of difference.

Hope that helps.

The F4 weighed in at 60,000lbs max for launch, TSR2 a massive 102,000lb the energy needed to throw it off the bow to full flight speed using the steam catapult is doubtful, the nose oleo would need beefing up and extending to allow correct angle of attack over the bow.
TSR2 could not be taken below deck for servicing or protection from weather, it was just too big.
TSR2 was never designed to land on a carrier, again it was too big and heavy, the undercarraige was not designed from the outset to do so. The arrestor system on the carrier in the 60s was not designed to routinely accepted a 100,000lb aircraft, the pilots of RAF TSR2s would not have had any training messing about with deck operations, the Navy would not have had stick time in TSR2s. The RAF would have had no reason to jepodise a very expensive aeroplane on a carrier and the Navy knew they could do the job with their very capable Buccaneer.

To sum up,
it wouldn’t/couldn’t launch,
you couldn’t maintain it,
it couldn’t land,
it was not needed,
it wasn’t designed too,
the RAF pilots couldn’t,
the Navy pilots didn’t,
Mountbatten would not have allowed it

As chox, Resmoroh, Benyboy and Cking have added……

………..no 😀

That tiny wing? With two olympus? onto the (old) Ark royal? ….No

Rgds Cking

The TSR.2 possibly could have handled a Carrier Landing too. It does have Short Field Arrestor Gear, i.e. a BIG hook between the jet pipes. I assume, however, that this was just for emergencies and any use would require subsequent tests for structural damage.

I think warbird enthusiasts appreciate the technology and respect those that served. Very few want to glorify war.

I like TSR.2 as much as everybody else but I think dispite its Star Wars looks it would have been superseeded in any role very quickly.

TSR-2 off carriers

I’m not into the Warbird thing at all (glorifying war etc.) , and this thread is a Sunday Afternoon ‘filler’, but I think TSR-2 could have been LAUNCHED from a carrier….first website i found with a Takeoff run gives 490 metres (and that would be off land)….don’t forget the USN had P-2 Neptunes(admittedly rocket boosted) assigned to carriers before the NA Savage was ready. I’m sure I read somewhere the Vickers Valiant was studied for Carrier launch…….

Mountbatten had a lot to answer for in very many areas of UK life (particularly in the military) – and not for the best.
He was not the sharpest knife in the box, and had delusions of grandeur – very dangerous!!
Resmoroh

Ah well was worth a shot.
Thanks for the replys anyhow =]

Is there any chance the TSR.2 couldve been used in aircraft carrier operations had it gone into service? With the requirements of the aircraft being similar the those of the buccaneer, one could assume so.

The height of a Carrier hangar at the time was 17′ 6″ and TSR2 was 23′ tall.
Size wise she was a monster, bigger than the Vigilante by a considerable margin, also she was not ‘foldable’ (as was the Buccaneer etc) and at nearly 90′ long I don’t believe she could use the lift anyway. She would have had to have been redesigned from the wheels up and strengthened for deck landings operations.

I think there were political reasons too.(Lord Louis Mountbatten preferred the Buccaneer for his fleet requirements and was anti-TSR2 for the RAF)

as Chox said

Er…..no:D

er… no:D