If (and it’s a big ‘if’) everything had worked as advertised, the TSR2 would have been outstanding in its main role – delivering laydown nukes against well-defended targets. It would also have been as good at recce (including IR/TV imagery datalinked to a ground station) and no doubt could have been turned into a good EW platform. It would have been awesome in the anti-ship role too.
It had enormous range – especially if the conformal tanks had been fitted – and could maintain supersonic low-level speed for much longer than just about anything else. It could fly from short, rough fields and was fully autonomous, which meant it could operate from ‘in the field’, and it could launch a mission in five minutes. Low-level speed was about M1.2 and it was theoretically a M3 high-altitude aircraft, although (like the F-111) it would have been limited by the skin temperatue to about M2.5.
I’m convinced that if it had been produced it would have served right throughout the ‘low-level’ era. Whether it would have lasted much beyond is open to question. It would have needed a big avionics core update to make it compatible with new weapons/pods. Still, like the F-111, it would have made a very good precision bomber with a phenomenal range – just stick some LGBs under the wings and a tank in the bomb bay and you’re looking at around 1200 nm radius.
My guess is, though, that it would not be around today. Like the 111, it would have been retired in the 90s as being just too big and too expensive to justify once its main mission had gone.
We will probably never know why the TSR2 never went ahead. Partly the result of a party in opposition using it as a weapon against the government of the day, and when they got into power themselves they had no choice but to cancel it. Partly because of inter-service fighting. Partly because of Duncan Sandys’ outrageous 1957 ‘no more manned aircraft’ statement. Partly because no-one at the time really understood just how good it was and how long it could have lasted. Who knows.
There is, AFAIK, NO evidence to suggest that the aircraft was anything short of brilliant. There is also no hard evidence, one way or the other, regarding the programme’s costs. The ‘figures’ quoted by politicians in Parliament vary by 1000 % from lowest to highest! The truth is in there somewhere.
The F-111 buy cost £336 million – over three times what the lowest equivalent TSR2 programme cost was – but a third of the highest!
Thanks Paul! Now that really does look good.
Super stuff! You can certainly see how the 1971 V-80 became the late 70s V-80 (Ka-50).
Do you have any drawings/photos sowing the V-50? AFAIK this had a Chinook-style layout and was also a 400-km/h bird.
PS Are you sure the V-100 design is late 80s? I have seen its date published as 1976. It was certainly shelved in favour of V-80 (Ka-50) development, but did they continue work with it later?
The J 29 was built ‘thick’ because it was wrapped around an engine with a centrifugal-flow compressor, which are short and fat. The engine was the SFA RM2, a licence-built version of the de Havilland Ghost (engine for the Venom but modified with a central intake). The most important thing about the ‘Barrel’ was that it was Europe’s first swept-wing jet fighter (if you ignore the German WW2 designs).
Disestablished 11 years ago!
I believe the retirement schedule has been accelerated so that ALL ‘Cats will be gone by spring 2006. VF-211 are the next to go through conversion. The East Coast Hornet training unit has already got some Supers