TSR2 thoughts

Damien’s book covers fighter (really aew/interceptor) versions. Not an idea taken at all seriously and not at all a planned use for the raf’s buy.

Is there any evidence of that or is it just heresay? It strikes me that TSR2 has exactly the wrong airframe to be used as a long range interceptor – small wing in comparison to the fuselage, it would have had a poor high level loiter performance. It was designed as a fast, low level strike aircraft – and not one with a huge range, it was a tactical aircraft.

Similarly, it would not have been terrible agile for the same reason – pre fly by wire, the best dogfighters had a large wing area – the F-15 being the prime example.

I don’t think it was the intention for it to be “agile”, or a “dogfighter” The thinking was that she could be pushed up towards the North Cape, from where, using her own radar in conjunction with GCI (eg Saxa Vord), she could launch AAMs against Soviet bombers heading south-west.
Compared to the Lightning, with its very limited fuel capacity and outdated avionics, TSR-2s with tanker support could have fulfilled this role admirably.
As indeed would have been the case whatever she might have been tasked with.

Better be careful with that line of reasoning….judging a aircraft by combat erformance.
If we go by your parameters, the postwar RAF and most of it planes could be found wanting.

Er.. yes. Would anyone deny it?

But I will make a point here. I was not ‘attacking’ anything.

I posted that the F111 was said not to deliver the promised performance which was a reason given for the cancellation of the RAF order. Stating a fact is not ‘attacking’ anybody.

Then Batman came along with his “We were very pleased with it” and I was interested to establish exactly what it was he/they found so pleasing.

I do not involve myself in nationalistic slanging matches. You need to get over to mod Mil for that

Moggy

Which equals “It doesn’t have one”?
I was just checking the parameters by which its performance as a warplane was judged.
Thank you.
Moggy

Better be careful with that line of reasoning….judging a aircraft by combat erformance.
If we go by your parameters, the postwar RAF and most of it planes could be found wanting.

Whats good for the goose in attacking American planes, should apply for UK aircraft as well.:D

Yep – small wing, set a long way back to give good low level ride / stability.

I often wonder if it had gone into service, how many accidents would have occured…………..

…………. because all my pussy cats would have been ( unforgiving ) two seat trainers 😉

What was its combat record like?

Moggy

Not very good, they were relegated to a range where they faired not so well.

I think you are inferring more than was intended from my question.

I was merely interested in what way the RAAF was happy with the aircraft as stated by Batman.

Any way you want. There’s extensive publication on the subject, and a major book on it out post-retirement – ‘From Controversy to Cutting Edge’ by Mark Lax – recommended to the TSR 2heads for the real alternative’s development in a Commonwealth service.

I suspect your comments originate in a common but very outdated assessment of the F-111.

It was probably a very capable combat aircraft, though we will never know. However as I understand it, it still didn’t live up to the performance promised at design stage by the makers, the reason for its rejection by the RAF / Govenment

(Or maybe we should say ‘the pretext’? )

Probably pretext. To be fair to the politicians, the F-111 was a new generation of complex warplane, and like the TSR 2 and others of that era, cost more and delivered less in the early stages of development, including into service. However in RAAF service, the F-111 matured well, and then was upgraded several times, getting an advantage from an established, top-line ‘platform’. They were never sat around with guessed performance but took part in multiple exercises; there’s data to be examined as to capability, not speculation, although that is not the same as combat. But they were bought as a deterrent. In that, as I said, they did the job 100% – which is an excellent score.

If military performance in action is vital to understanding, the 1986 El Dorado Canyon and much earlier Vietnam experience of the USAF is available, the Vietnam episode relating to a very much undeveloped F-111, probably incorrectly used.

The record of the RAAF’s F-111 is (mostly) public, and Australia has every reason to be pleased with it and its crews’ achievements. It’s not as open to speculation as the endless TSR-2 myths are, so it doesn’t have the ‘legs’ on these kind of forums. But in the real world, it did its job.

Regards,

Disappointing, Rob. I’ll leave you to argue your view of the irrelevance of deterrence with the entirety of Britain’s V force crews, Britain’s forces in Germany, etc.

I think you are inferring more than was intended from my question.

I was merely interested in what way the RAAF was happy with the aircraft as stated by Batman.

It was probably a very capable combat aircraft, though we will never know. However as I understand it, it still didn’t live up to the performance promised at design stage by the makers, the reason for its rejection by the RAF / Govenment

(Or maybe we should say ‘the pretext’? )

Moggy

There were also plans to utilise her great fuel load, hence loiter capacity, to act as a long-range interceptor to catch Soviet aircraft coming down from the North Cape

Is there any evidence of that or is it just heresay? It strikes me that TSR2 has exactly the wrong airframe to be used as a long range interceptor – small wing in comparison to the fuselage, it would have had a poor high level loiter performance. It was designed as a fast, low level strike aircraft – and not one with a huge range, it was a tactical aircraft.

Similarly, it would not have been terrible agile for the same reason – pre fly by wire, the best dogfighters had a large wing area – the F-15 being the prime example.

Disappointing, Rob. I’ll leave you to argue your view of the irrelevance of deterrence with the entirety of Britain’s V force crews, Britain’s forces in Germany, etc.

The RAAF’s F-111 was an operational, frontline strike aircraft for decades, and throughout that period generally regarded by partisan and independent observers (including RAF) as the most effective type in role in the region.

As a weapon, the RAAF were very happy with the F-111. (It’s possible the TSR 2 may have been as good – but that aircraft never got beyond prototype, as we know, so it really has an entirely speculative efficacy as a warplane.) I’m personally glad the RAAF never needed to ‘prove’ the Pig’s capability by killing people for the edification of web-geeks like us.

Regards,

Meanwhile, programming can now return to the much more popular fact-free TSR speculation.

As a deterrent, 100%

Which equals “It doesn’t have one”?

Isn’t that, in theory, an ideal situation?

As a deterrent, 100%.

Which equals “It doesn’t have one”?

I was just checking the parameters by which its performance as a warplane was judged.

Thank you.

Moggy

What was its combat record like?

As a deterrent, 100%. 😎

Steering away from any silly partisan or parochial debate, the RAAF’s examination of the TSR 2 and decision on the F-111 was politically troublesome and difficult in the acquisition phase. By any measure, now just retired, as a strike aircraft it was an unbeatable option for an air force of the RAAF’s size, even cost effective, a tall ask for the complexity required for the capability. That is a reasonable case study for the larger RAF, albeit with slightly differing criteria.

Regards,

What was its combat record like?

Moggy

Which I think the labour government of the time wanted to substitute for the TSR2, but eventually it became both short on performance and long on cost, so the order for 50 was cancelled.
Moggy

Well that’s tough moggy, but it wasn’t cancelled for us. And we were very happy with its performance.

Which leads me to ask…
would it have had a lengthy RAF career?

Only until Cameroon’s ‘condem’ government caried out it’s SDR

.

stendec

I don’t think so – there was another aircraft that met this description, the F-111.

Which I think the labour government of the time wanted to substitute for the TSR2, but eventually it became both short on performance and long on cost, so the order for 50 was cancelled.

Moggy

These points and many more..

In a shameless plug on an ex forum members book, I can recommend the “TSR-2” book by Damien Burke.

last Christmas, given a choice of two books to buy me (the other being Tim McLellands) my dear old mum found Damiens and it has page after page of detail on these questions. I can’t speak for the other book, but Damiens is excellent IMHO.

Also, if you search the forum there are endless debates, but a couple of “what if” models which were outstanding. One, Gulf War 1991, and another in Israeli markings with some “blisters” and various pods etc.

all good (harmless ?) fun….

Shame Maggie Thatcher couldn’t have done anything with it

Isn’t the maximum speed of the TSR-2 still classified?