There were some technology transfers such as the Rocketdyne engines and Atlas-style tanks, but in many cases the UK solutions to design problems were ahead of those adopted by the Atlas team. Convair engineers who came to liaise with their UK counterparts had some surprises.

Hence the more or less in brackets.;)

Silo survivability had started to look questionable.

They certainly had, but we were still along way from the the scenario that presented itself in the eighties, the concept probably still had some life in it.

The factors that doomed TSR.2 (apart from its political and military opponents ) were its size and the complexity of its avionics, both of which drive up the cost.

I remember the surprise we all had when the first classified drawings of the aircraft arrived at the avionics laboratory where I was working as a very junior team member c.1962. We were amazed at how big it was. What had started life as a Canberra replacement seemed to have ended up a ‘mini-V-bomber’. It was a theatre bomber rather than a strike/interdictor.

Much of its avionics was pushing the boundaries of the then-current technology, yet still had curious gaps – for example there were no plans for an active EW suite.

To my mind, a more sensible solution to the RAF’s 1960s requirement would be to have split the requirement, delaying TSR.2 and buying off-the-self F-105 Thunderchiefs to handle the immediate strike/interdictor task and introduce the RAF to the world of the Mach 2 fighter-bomber.

A delayed TSR.2 could have been fielded in three variants:

A Mk 1 fielded around 1966 with minimal avionics would have given the type as painless an entry into service as possible, allowing the RAF to master the airframe and propulsion systems before tackling the avionics.

A Mk 2 could have swiftly followed, using either modified Buccaneer avionics or an adaptation of the F-105 avionics.

A definitive avionics suite could have been developed to take advantage of the “medium-scale integrated” (MSI) electronics that emerged in the late 1960s, allowing a fully-equipped Mk 3 to enter service in the early to mid 1970s, with the Mk 1 and 2 eventually being reworked to this standard.

The emergence of large-scale integrated circuit technology in the late 1970s followed by VLSI in the early 1980s would have allowed the creation an eventual mid-life upgrade.

The Canberra was initially a theatre bomber, and was really still as such after it became an interdictor. The TSR-2 was also always meant to be a Theater bomber. The idea that the design was evolved to somehow perform a V-Bomber role is complete myth. The aircrafts size was determined by the need for speed and internal weapons carriage and range. If you like the RAF’s strike force for the 1960s/70s should have looked like:

Tactical: P.1154
Theater: TSR-2
Strategic: Avro-730

After Skybolt cancellation there was an effort to make the TSR-2 a semi strategic aircraft, however this did not result in the aircrafts designed being altered for the role and was related entirely to weapons integration.

here’s 2:

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=125

Neither of those says that Iran has Klubs, just that at one point there were negotiations.

This thread scratches the service of a very very interesting question, I will just summarise and not argue any way for now.

1) One crew member?

2) Two crew members?

3) 0 crew members except for a guy back at base or on the carrier?

4) Loads of crew members in an airliner converted to a control and sensor asset operating dozens of no crew member planes?

5) Fully automated flight profiles…….robots?

At the very least I think we will see in the next few decades combat aircraft flying with UCAV’s in company and UCAV’s flying independent missions.

im just posting what i have read in the book, and as you may guess by the one sided view, it was written by an ex RAF air marshall or something as high ranking. But i do believe (if the fugures in this book are to be believed) that the UK made a mistake when it decided to wholly place the nuclear deterrent at sea. and I feel the better option would have been to add an airborne deterrent and maybe even keeping a missile system such as THOR or its equivalent. The reason i say this is that as i am informed the actual Megatonnage of the weapons available to the uk was heavily reduced when handed to the NAVY and also made less versatile………Please excuse my nievity in this subject as im really just dipping my proverbial toe in the water, and havnt got the wealth of info you chaps have……………And yes SKYBOLT would still have seen us reliant on an american weapon, as would THOR, thats my mistake. Hope you chaps dont mind lamens like myself posting messages like this, But i find it a great way of learning….and also finding facts 😉 so cheers

The overall megatonnage may have been reduced but what would have made it to target certainly would not have been. The ability of the V-force to penetrate Soviet air defences even by the early 60s and certainly by the 70s is at best highly questionable. As for versatility, WE-177 remained in service until 1997, tactical and strategic covered, what more do you want.

A nuclear triad would have been vastly more expensive and requires us to go back to the 1950s/60s by the late 50s the RAF had already realised that the V-force’s days were numbered and were pursuing the Avro-730. That would have been a Mach-3 capable stainless steel strategic bomber, I am sure you can imagine how expensive that would have been. Then came Blue Streak, the indigenous (more or less) UK IRBM, it would have easily covered the required targets but started to become expensive and politically difficult when the need to build underground silos came about in the home counties. Polaris represented the most survivable option both in terms of delivery and second strike capability.

As for the RAF, there are some very qualified people in the academic world who make very convincing arguments that the RAF should be dismembered and returned to its creators. With the retirement of the V-force the RAF is little more than a tactical airforce, it survives today by claiming everyone else’s toys for itself. Any future chain home command (real strategic defence network for the UK) would have manned interceptors as only a very small part of its component. So carve the RAF up between the Army and the Navy and create a dedicated and independent Strategic Defense Command for ABM, AD and ASAT responsibilities and be done with it. Extreme view maybe but there is a certain logic to it. After all it was strategic bombing that created the RAF and never learned that the concept was largely flawed (a lesson the Germans learned in 1918) and it is now a role that it is unable to perform.

The French ASMP has an anti-shipping mode. Update the inertial guidance before launch. Missile speed and target range means little movement before impact.

In the case of the Kh-15, range 150 km and speed 1480 m/s = 101 seconds. At 30 kts the carrier has only moved 1.5 km. The warhead is 350 kT – so inside the kill radius.

Each Tu-22M3 can carry 6 internally and further 4 externally.

Naturally the Tu-22M3 still have to get within 150 km before firing (low altitude launch is 60 km BTW). Once they have fired though the 40 km altitude is higher than the 30 km SM-2MR engagement altitude (that is whole point of the aero-ballistic Kh-15).

True, but without nukes it is useless.;) I have always assumed that the advertisement of shipborne AD systems capable of taking out high diving AShM’s had the Kh-15 in mind.

Incorrect. When our defence spending was at it’s highest, we had the best schools/hospitals/NHS/infrastructure in parallel.
The countries Balance of Payments was healthy and we paid less tax!
Those in genuine need of a Social Service were also catered for.

Yeah……….then ‘you’ collapsed and disappeared into the pages of history.

I’ve provided 3 sources that state the missile uses TV for terminal guidance, whether that’s related to DSMAC or not isn’t for anyone here to decide.

Yes it is.:rolleyes:

As for armschair general abilities, I am not the one who claimed that Kh-22 firing Tu-95’s are still in service, that the Kh-65 entered service or used Veniks page as a source.:rolleyes: