Possible resurrection of the TSR-2

An individual proposed the idea, in 1979, to restart the TSR-2 project. Reportedly with updated systems. The plan was to use XR220 and XR222 as prototypes.

It is my considered believe that the idea was never going to work because:-

• The lack of drawings would require a prototype to be reverse engineered. In order to create the drawings.
• Platform Design Authority (DA) approval would be required. As a licenced build.
• Original retained systems and newly installed systems would require their DA approval. In order to support the project and contribute to the Platform Safety Case.
• A production location would be required. At the time there was only three contenders – Brough, Warton and Woodford.
• A projected sales figure would be needed (in order to identify the profit margin).

There would be no sales (or builds) because:-

• A potential customer, the RAF for example, would be banned from buying the product by the government. International sales wouldn’t get UK government approval either.
• BAE “owned the rights” and would be banned, by the government, from allowing them to be passed on.
• System DA’s would find it very difficult to work on a project that had previously been terminated.
• All three production locations, mentioned above, were owned by BAE. They were busy anyway doing their respective day jobs.

So, it is not surprising his fanciful idea came to nothing.

One final point. A few years ago, I read an article in a Key Pubs magazine (Aeroplane?) about the TSR-2 project. They claimed the type was to be allocated the name “Merlin”. I had never heard that fact before. Or seen it mentioned since. Other sources have since mentioned the name “Eagle”. Also never heard before.

H

Nobody knows, JB.

Certainly, when resurrection was suggested in the early ’80s, it was said to be still superior to the Tornado in some respects.

Was there a long-term requirement for an aircraft that was rock-solid stable and supersonic at ground level? Possibly, but who knows?.

On one flight the Lightning chase pilot had to climb to get out of turbulence. The TSR2 pilot said “what turbulence?” On another flight, as I recall the only supersonic one, the TSR2 engaged partial reheat on one engine. The Lightning needed full reheat on both engines to catch up.

Avionics updates wouldn’t have been a problem. The avionics bay was huge – I’ve seen smaller rooms – and of course it predated integrated circuits or microchips but only by a few years so there would have been room to spare.

A few years ago I downloaded a paper from the RAF Historical Society – Journal-17B-TSR2-with-Hindsight – which seems to be still available.

A search found it straight away.

It seems that despite the decade of bemoaning the cancellation, no one (at least of what I’ve read) has answered the question as to whether or not in the long run the cancellation was a good thing.

If it was going to have a ten year career (because of an inability to adapt to other roles) then perhaps it was money well saved.

Further to my earlier ‘piece’ above, I wrote B.A.E. Of course it was B.A.C. !  But thinking further I then remembered a superb paper written for ‘The Aviation Historian’ quarterly journal published by subscription only. Please see,  issue 44,  published July 2023. www.theaviationhistorian.com

The paper is entitled Healey’s Axe The Cancellation Of The TSR.2. The author is Professor Keith Hayward FRAeS. The Professor gave a lecture on the TSR.2 in May 2023 at RAF Museum Midlands for the Royal Aeronautical Society Conferance on the TSR.2.   As a source of information he used official papers from the then newly elected Labour Government of 1965. These document sources are included as a detailed addendum at the end of his paper.

The journal, I understand,  is about to change its format and the editors may still have copies to remainder. May I suggest check their website!

I appreciate that this may seem to be thread creep. I apologise if that is so, but this paper, I suggest, is quite far reaching and also looks internationaly at the politics and the types of aircraft emerging in the USA and elsewhere at the time. It may also make it easier to confirm what happened to some of the part constructed aircraft that were on the Brooklands production line at the time.

I suggest these strings are a very welcome arrival for a couple of reasons. Firstly does this series of correspondence hint at the maturation of this Forum after too many years of wilderness? I do hope so. Next, there are stil too many unknowns about the TSR  2. It’s possible future development after all this time and isn’t it possible some discrete files could now be opened?

I had the great pleasure in exchanging letters years ago with one of the long retired office managers at BAE Brooklands where a big chunk of the design work was carried out. Some of the senior personel even came from R.J Mitchell’s team at Supermarine and remember they created the Spitfire. They stayed with the company for many years and retired from the BAE group after this debacle.

The tears of frustration that afternoon when the cancellation news came through caused great despondency.  I have a short unpublished chapter written by my contact of his memories from 1928 via his management apprenticeship starting in 1928 on that day. It that tells the whole team’s despondency. That same team contributed to the Concord design.

I think Contributor J. Boyle’s question is so timely and welcome and this is what this Forum used to do so well. Please let’s have more well informed debate with an eye on the Resurection of TSR2 story – or whatever is really going on!

I think it was Stanley Hooker that said the Operational Requirements Board(?) kept pulling numbers out of thin air for the specification with no thought as to whether it was feasible or even genuinely necessary. For examples, supersonic at low-level, then they added an extra 100 miles out of the blue to the range required.

What amazes me until this day is despite the complete dog’s dinner of management – BAC being lead contractors on what was basically an English Electric design, massively over-stuffed committees continually interfering… – they seemed to be well on their way to meeting most if not all of the specification.

Think it was a great idea but I dont think the technology back then was mature enough at that time.

I previously asked this question here  (back in the well attended “glory days” of the forum): I never received an answer, which I took as I was asking a question best left unanswered.

Was the TSR-2 airframe capable of the “growth” (or maturation) necessary to become a successful multi-million type in the 1970s-90s? 

Could it have been a Tornado a decade or so earlier…or was its airframe optimized for the low/fast delivery of nukes and it didn’t have a place in a world where types had to do various missions?

To put it bluntly, could it do what the Phantom and Buccaneers did?

(If it couldn’t, don’t feel bad…Many good types were cancelled because of a change in technology and tactics.

The Canadian CF-105 came around the time when the UK said all interceptors would be missiles and even the U.S. cut back its F-106 buy and never fielded another purpose built interceptor (sensing ICBMs were the threat) and the XB-70 came when it was clear that the advent of SAMs meant high flying bombers were at risk, whatever their speed.).

Indeed it was – XA894 on 3 Dec 1962.

XA903 went on to do flight trials, of the Olympus, for the Concorde project.

…..That’s if I can manage to read my own notes on the subject.

H 

Was it a TSR.2 Olympus that took out the test-bed Vulcan at Filton?

The hydraulic leak on the day of cancellation was only the latest mishap to XR220.

On delivery to Boscombe Down the lorry jacknifed after entering the site and the fuselage half fell off the trailer, damaging the extreme rear. After hurried design of lifting equipment it was assembled and examined. The damage, originally thought to be superficial, was more substantial although still able to be repaired at Boscombe Down. After repairs were completed there was a further delay waiting for flight-capable engines.

Although the original dry Olympus was a model of reliability and development, Bristol really struggled with the TSR.2 version to start with.

dhfan you are correct – sort of. I read in a book several years ago. That XR220 was due to fly on the morning of the cancellation. It was delayed by technical issues. The flight was reprogrammed for the afternoon. However, the announcement of the project cancellation was made mid-morning in parliament. That was the first BAC or anybody else, outside of the government, had heard of the idea. The minister stated the project was to stop immediately. Hence XR220 never got its chance to fly.

I believe the book in question is Testing Years by Roland “Bee” Beamont (1980). If that is true then its straight from the horse’s mouth – so to speak.  

XR220, stayed at Boscombe Down and was authorised, by the government, to complete some engine ground running trials in support of the Concorde project. This occurred throu’ late 1965 and into early 1966. The airframe was then disposed of. So, the story about the RAF hiding it away is a little wide of the mark!!!

H

XR220, now at Cosford, was complete and planned for its first flight on the afternoon of the day it was cancelled. I have heard, although I don’t know if it’s true, that the wiring looms were deliberately cut when it was prepared for transport.

My father was one of the police escort motorcycle outriders when it was delivered to Henlow.

XR222, now at Duxford, was never completed although is now cosmetically complete.

XR219, the only one to fly, was maliciously sent to Shoeburyness for target practice.

IIRC, there was briefly a proposal in the early ’80s, whether serious or not I don’t know, to revive the project, as it was apparently still superior to the Tornado, but the destruction of drawings etc. made it a non-starter, apart from any other considerations.

More recently, some folks who didn’t have a clue how an aircraft is designed, produced and supported resurrected this idea that the TSR.2 might be put into production.

I’m not sure how the ‘five’ produced aircraft figure was arrived at, but I recall quite a few substantial fuselage sections ended up at P&EE Foulness. When I was at Halton there was an awful lot of TSR.2 stuff used for teaching there too. We were in awe: I trust it all survived… 

Yes, it is XR220 at RAFM Cosford.

In the end the RAF got the Buccaneer – which it didn’t really want. However, the type went on to serve with distinction.

Some of the TSR-2 avionic systems were used in latter types Tornado for example. As well as being further developed for use in the current Typhoon.

H

So, I am guessing this one hidden and then resurrected by the RAF must be the one at the RAF Midlands Museum at Cosford?