Chox, have you encountered the article by Professor John Young & Sean Straw, “The Wilson and the demise of the TSR2, October 1964-April 1965” in Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol 20, Issue 4 (December 1997) pp18-44?

It probably doesn’t say much, if anything, that you don’t already know, but thought I’d mention it on the off chance.

If anyone is still following this, the archive will be back – but there’s a catch, in that you have to subscribe to it.

The current price structure seems to suggest that it’ll be captured in a subscription package of about £150 per year (which gives you access to everything on the Flight site).  Also, if you don’t subscribe, you’re limited to accessing 4 articles per month, which, I imagine, may reduce traffic to the site…

F-111K would have been known as the Merlin GR1 in RAF service (documents to be found in the Air 2 files in the National Archives).

7 and 15 were the only two numberplates mentioned in the contermporary documents as specific candidates for the first two RAF front line units, but reading between the lines in others, 100 and 45 might well have been possible candidates as well had there been sufficient airframes.

However, the RAF was only intending to buy 50 by the time the cancellation came, which suggests that there’d probably only have been two squadrons plus an OCU, giving a front line/OCU establishment of no more than 36 aircraft, with the remainder being reserves and on the strength at Boscombe Down.

The F-111 was to have been joined in service by the AFVG, so we’d have been running two VG strike types.

As we all know, AFVG went belly-up, and had the F-111 been in service, I suspect that the obvious course of action would’ve been for the RAF to simply have bought more F-111s because of the savings on the logistical side of the house which would’ve come from having a single aircraft type, rather than go down the path of another collaborative project.

There is a 3(F) Harrier era patch available from Terrane.co.uk for the grand sume of £4.06…

John Eacott’s splendid site is a good place to start!

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/v/navy_photos/phantom/

Peter – the problem of ‘fleet within a fleet’ relates to some UORs and the fact that these aren’t (obviously) fitted on every airframe.

Also, the cleared ALARM load on the F3 is only two. The capability was obtained under a UOR to allow it to be deployed on TELIC, but it was decided not to send the aircraft out to theatre for use in the SEAD role. There was talk of clearing one of the shoulder pylons on the inboard pylons (i.e. the rails the ASRAAMs are carried on) for the carriage of two more ALARM, but nothing’s come of that.

PII – The IDS underfuselage pylons fit because they don’t actually get in the way of the missile recesses (although they obviously prevent missile carriage) – you’ll get some idea from looking at:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Panavia-Tornado-F2A/0736814/L/

to see where the pylons fit, and from:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/Panavia-Tornado-F3/0630629/L/

Which gives an idea of how there is sufficient room under the fuselage to mount the pylons without the recesses being an issue. If anyone saved all the photos taken from the XI(F) Sqn shots taken at the time the ALARM capability was announced, there was a very good one showing the underside of the aircraft with the pylons (and ALARM) fitted, clearly illustrating the way the pylons attach without problems. Sadly, since the RAF site was upgraded a while back, it’s impossible to find the photos there (but the webmasters on the RAF site have enough trouble with spelling and identifying the right aeroplanes to be getting on with at the moment…)

The GR variants can, in theory, carry eight iron bombs under the fuselage, on the twin carriers SL mentions. Except trying this load while operating at medium altitude in hot and sandy places gives the GR4 the capabilities of Blackadder’s asthmatic ant with a heavy load of shopping.

GR4 isn’t cleared to carry ASRAAM, although given the projected out-of-service date for the Tornado, that may come eventually, I guess.

Pods – single pod, leaving two pylons free for LGB – other configuration seen sometimes is LDP, Joint Recce Pod and single EPW/PW

During Telic, some GR4s carried a combination of a TIALD pod and two unguided 1000lb bombs.

Outboard pylons could, in theory be used for weapons, but used for BOZ/Sky Shadow. The latter is getting old now.

Two Storm Shadow far more likely than four, even if the load is possible; likewise, nine ALARM is unlikely, with a smaller number of weapons being loaded alongside other ordnance (some GR4s have been seen carrying two ALARM on the outer shoulder rails on the inboard pylon.

Don’t forget the RAPTOR recce pod, carried under the fuselage, been used for a while, but not with full service clearances.

Also, the GR4A doesn’t have the cannon, since the ‘A’ suffix models had these omitted for the internal recce system that was fitted (no longer supported in RAF service)

Ah. Didn’t realise most of my post was completely superfluous. Sorry about that. 😮

I believe (but bear in mind this info came from a KC-135 driver on exchange over here in the UK) that your impression that the 16th was due to reform was absolutely correct, and that the decision to change was taken quite recently.