BAC TSR2 | The British Cold War strike and reconnaissance aircraft that was cancelled | Upscaled
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2022
- The British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 is a cancelled Cold War strike and reconnaissance aircraft developed by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), for the Royal Air Force (RAF) in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The TSR-2 was designed around both conventional and nuclear weapons delivery: it was to penetrate well-defended frontline areas at low altitudes and very high speeds, and then attack high-value targets in rear areas. Another intended combat role was to provide high-altitude, high-speed stand-off, side-looking radar and photographic imagery and signals intelligence, aerial reconnaissance. Only one airframe flew and test flights and weight-rise during design indicated that the aircraft would be unable to meet its original stringent design specifications. The design specifications were reduced as the result of flight testing.
The TSR-2 was the victim of ever-rising costs and inter-service squabbling over Britain's future defence needs, which together led to the controversial decision in 1965 to scrap the programme. It was decided to order an adapted version of the General Dynamics F-111 instead, but that decision was later rescinded as costs and development times increased. The replacements included the Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, both of which had previously been considered and rejected early in the TSR-2 procurement process. Eventually, the smaller swing-wing Panavia Tornado was developed and adopted by a European consortium to fulfil broadly similar requirements to the TSR-2.
The introduction of the first jet engines in the late-World War II period led to calls for new jet-powered versions of practically every aircraft then flying. Among these was the design of a replacement for the de Havilland Mosquito, at that time among the world's leading medium bombers. The Mosquito had been designed with the express intent of reducing the weight of the aircraft in order to improve its speed as much as possible. This process led to the removal of all defensive armament, improving performance to the point where it was unnecessary anyway. This high-speed approach was extremely successful, and a jet-powered version would be even more difficult to intercept.
This led to Air Ministry specification E.3/45. The winning design, the English Electric Canberra, also dispensed with defensive armament, producing a design with the speed and altitude that allowed it to fly past most defences. The design's large wings gave it the lift needed to operate at very high altitudes, placing it above the range where even jet powered fighters were able to intercept it. The Canberra could simply fly over its enemy with relative impunity, a quality that made it naturally suited to aerial reconnaissance missions. The design was so successful that it was licensed for production in the United States, one of very few such cases. The Martin RB-57D and RB-57F American-built reconnaissance subtypes further extended the wings up to a 37.5 m (123 ft) span for extremely high altitude capabilities.
This high-speed, high-altitude approach was effective until the late 1950s, when the Soviet Union began to introduce its first surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). SAMs had speed and altitude performance much greater than any contemporary aircraft. The Canberra, and other high-altitude aircraft like the British V bombers or United States' Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, were extremely vulnerable to these weapons.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 89 ft (27 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 2 in (11.33 m)
Height: 23 ft 9 in (7.24 m)
Wing area: 702.9 sq ft (65.30 m2)
Empty weight: 54,750 lb (24,834 kg)
Gross weight: 79,573 lb (36,094 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 103,500 lb (46,947 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Bristol Siddeley B.Ol.22R Olympus Mk.320 afterburning turbojet engines, 22,000 lbf (98 kN) thrust each dry, 30,610 lbf (136.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.15 at 40,000 ft (12,192 m), M1.1 at sea level
Range: 2,500 nmi (2,900 mi, 4,600 km)
Combat range: 750 nmi (860 mi, 1,390 km)
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 15,000 ft/min (76 m/s)
Thrust/weight: 0.59
Armament
Total weapons load of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg); 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) internal and 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) external
Internal weapons bay, 20 ft (6 m) long, with (initially) 1 Red Beard 15 kt nuclear weapon or as intended 2 × OR.1177 300 kt nuclear weapons or 6 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) HE bombs. Final designed normal load in nuclear role of up to 4 × WE.177 nuclear weapons, two side-by-side or in tandem in weapons bay, two on external underwing stores pylons.
Avionics
Autonetics Verdan autopilot modified by Elliot Automation
Ferranti (terrain-following radar and navigation/attack systems)
EMI (Side looking airborne radar)
Marconi (general avionics)
Cossor (IFF)
Plessey (Radio)
#TSR2 #BACTSR2 #supersonic 
Наука
Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes and their stories, missions: ruclips.net/p/PLBI4gRjPKfnNx3Mp4xzYTtVARDWEr6nrT
@Ken Fullman That is common across all British aircraft. It is called a fin flash. A nation's airforce roundel broken down into a simple colour scheme that is mirrored on the other side. So on the port side you'd see an inverse French flag.
😊😊😊
😊
😊
Regardless of the development problems and costs of TSR2, I distinctly remember the Labour opposition promising before the 1964 election that "we will not cancel TSR2". One of the first things they did when they got into power was cancel it. That should tell you a lot about politicians and their promises -- no matter which party they belong to.
I don't think anybody had shown Labour the stratospheric cost over runs at that stage as in opposition you are not allowed to see the figures, plus there was a very elastic estimate of an in service date for the aircraft. It could have been another six or seven years before a squadron saw one, by which time it would have been obsolescent, certainly in avionics. Remember there was only one customer so we'd have built...maybe 100-130 maximum. Tornado came along not that long after, the tripartite project ran like clockwork by comparison with TSR2 and they built nearly 1000 aircraft for four customers. They learnt a lot from TSR2 about how not to run a project. It was regrettable, but as hard decisions go I think they got it right. Sorry n'all that.
Very interesting, funny how long it can take to build a new plane model, compared to a new Spaceship for new moonlandings, wich was less than 10 years, I'd say 5 full years of actual work.
So a real Brit fiasco without Outside (USA) help like Canadian Avro Arrow that got cancelled because "defense Planes were over with"... it worked fine.
It was a rub for Grumman and Lochheed, so it had to go
Oh my! Politicians lying, who would have thought.
@@wildboar7473 As a Brit, I don't think American influence was a factor except to the extent that F 111 was offered to the UK a lot cheaper. GD didn't tell us about the bugs in it though which caused that contract to be cancelled in any event. Neither can I be 100% certain there wasn't skulduggery by the USA, but I've never seen enough proof in the TSR2 case. Britain was broke at that time and so cost is a critical factor. It's all circumstantial and people add 2+2 and make assumptions. Lockheed and the F104 German contract on the other hand has convincing evidence of skulduggery, so we know it happens and it would be naive to think otherwise.
I was at Cranfield College of Knowledge when last two TSR2s flew into Cranfield airfield. They were parked outside top hanger for ages. What a beautiful aircraft. The design, engineering and technology was top notch thanks to its brilliant designers. The politics that stopped it being used was a slap in the face for aviation industry.
“All modern aircraft have four dimensions: Span, Length, Height and Politics. TSR2 simply got the first three right.” (Sir Sydney Camm)
My Great Grandmother Florence Camm was Sydney Camm’s Cousin.
*_@zenzen9131_* Great quote.😊
Some people in the brit isles need to get off their hi horse since the TSR2 pales in comparison the the XB-70 and the SR71.
Some people in the small island nation of britain continue to drown themselves in nostalgia, are ‘poisoned’ with ‘colonial arrogance’ and ‘dreamy jingoism’.@@phonicwheel933
I joined the avionics industry as a graduate while it was still reeling from the cancellation of the TSR2.
I remember the engineers saying they can destroy the aircraft but they can’t destroy our brains. I learned more from them in the next two years than the whole of my degree course.
I became disillusioned with the lack of support for what we knew were “world beating” projects and a general sell out to inferior US designs so like many of my kind joined the “brain drain” and emigrated.
Britain’s loss has been my gain. I have had a long and prosperous professional career and travelled widely but I often wonder what might have happened if the British government had supported it’s aircraft industry.
:) sounds like the Canadian history, with Avro Arrow, usa helped to shotdown.
Me too. I served an undergraduate apprenticeship at Warton in the aftermath of the cancellation. However I know that the expensive machine tooling was put to good use for the MRCA/Tornado production , as well as the Jaguar and Concorde engine pods. Lessons were also learned by the design team such as the problems installing the engines from the rear, when they jammed half in/out !!
All our politicians only support foreign companies not british have done for years .pay people to sit on there back sides all day doing nothing that's OK.
@@maly2ts408 You know this for certain ? This is most interesting. Don’t leave everyone in suspense, provide some juicy detail.
My Father was very heavily involved with the TSR2 at weybridge being the chief hydraulic engineer on the project, he was so saddened by the cancellation that he left the aircraft industry to work in the maritime industry, all his colleagues emigrated to America Boing, Lockheed etc.
I can still remember being angry as a 12 yr old on hearing of the cancellation of the TSR2.
I was looking for a first Drawing Office job, just as the market was flooded!
I do been 37. What a a farce.
I was a serving member of HMF at that time, working within Sigint. I too was angry when Harold Wilson's 'lot' cancelled the TSR2, which on the face of it, seemed to be a stupid move.
It wasn't until I was seconded to GCHQ for related Radar study, that I learned that a part of the cancellation reasoning, was centred around the fact that the Russian's had developed a new system of 'Over the Horizon Radar', effectively rendering the kite obsolete in proposed Low level attack roles....... Hard economics!
What ever one's stand point is with regard to Harold's decision in regard to the TSR2. One thing he did get right, was the refusal to get our armed forces involved in any way, wiith the War in Vietnam.
The other thing that I seem to recall was, when Labour finally left office, there was a fiscal surplus left in the coffers !
@@creech847 Suit your self bud. Your prerogative.
It was NOTHING to do with "outflying" anything, back in the 1960's. In effect what was being alluded to was , that the kite was rendered obsolete because it could be detected as it was getting off the ground. So based upon your none sensical statement. The kite had taken off and also outflown the radar Before the First radar pulse had been reflected back to its source of transmission. QUITE IMPOSSIBLE.
@@creech847 If you have read my post, then you will know where the details came from, I have No intention of playing along with your game.
Quite tiresome, I don't have the time to waste with you. Go your own way, keep yourself amused!
My late father, a WW2 mosquito recce pilot and instructor, could not believe what was happening to our aircraft industry at that time. He was so glad he left the RAF in 1946 despite an advancement beyond wing commander and into test flying being offered. I remember visiting Farnborough every year and felt so proud as a youngster of our R and D. The dead hand of politics has since destroyed so much of our Nation's Pride it makes you weep for those who fought in WW2 and since.
governments come and go. TSR2 is unique and available at RAF Duxford.
Politics has pretty much gutted the country as a whole.
@@paulainsworth9611 Sadly it's missing alot of important parts... though I do recall hearing that the radar from TSR2 ended up in Tornado.
@@RogueWraith909 "though I do recall hearing that the radar from TSR2 ended up in Tornado" You recalled wrong!
@@LondonSteveLee Okay smart arse, where did it end up?
I was lucky enough to know and talk to test pilot Jimmy Dell who had the last flight. He said they did a flight in the morning then went for some lunch expecting to fly again in the afternoon. When they got back from lunch, the aircraft was surrounded by armed guards and they could not get near it anymore. That was that. Jimmy was a lovely man. As a young engineer I loved to hear his tales of Lightning flight tests. I was also lucky enough to meet Roland Beamont on a few occasions.
Jimmy Dell is in a look at life test flying a lightning .. sadly he died in 2008 . well remembered .. I ve often thought about how cool it would be to hot wire XR 220 and take it for its maiden flight ..
congratulations on getting to talk to jimmmy dell too
I remember as a aeroplane made 16 year old watching the TV with my parents when it was made public that the TSR2 was to be cancelled. I didn't understand it as the newspapers said this was the most advanced aircraft of its type in the word and the prototype was flying for Gods sake ! I went into another room to be by myself and cried. It 58 years since that fateful day and it still makes me emotional.
Roland Beaumont is one of those men who would have been a great leader in any age, any place.
Designed by geniuses. Killed by politics. How many brilliant aircraft has been created? Lightning, v-bombers, mosquito, harrier. We really need to let the talent flourish.
It's also a money question. Now they seem intend on building large warships which they can't crew without the help of the US.
Hunter, Buccaneer, the list goes on.
The knowledge carried by all those technicians, from the guys tightening the bolts on the wings to the guys designing it.....immense.
The knowledge completely sqandered more like
My father was a Sqd Ldr and had worked at Bentley Priory. He was working with Ferranti at RAF Wilmslow which gave the impression it was a closing Station but was actually the hub for the electronics. He was incendiary when TSR2 was cancelled. It was far superior to anything else in the market. It was his belief that Denis Healey cancelled it so the US Phantoms and F1-11 had a free market . This was done as a bargaining chip to get back on the good side of US after the Philby McLaine affair slowed the sharing of information.
So many parallels with the Arrow…
Exactly what I thought... Avro arrow was one of a kind
Diefenbaker was. A dick.... Avro arrow was a splendid aircraft for its time..... This is coming from a Soviet airplane fan
@@barracuda7018 The interesting point about the Avro Arrow is that all the data plans etc still physically exist, unlike the British TSR 2 which was purposely destroyed.
A visibility study was conducted several years ago in Canada if it could be built again , the answer was yes.
Just need a patriot Canadian Billionaire Willing to spend 24 million Canadian dollars !
I was thinking the same thing.
As a boy, I lived on the flight path to Warton, and had the privilege of seeing this beauty fly overhead. Many men who lived nearby became unemployed as a result of this fiasco.
Read up about the Avro Arrow and check out who benefitted from the scrapping of these 2 aircraft
@@JohnSmith-bx8zb There was also an aircraft made by Shorts that got cancelled resulting in the closing down of that company... similar things went on there as with TSR2.
@@RogueWraith909 I think the Shorts aircraft you refer to was the SR 117 that was offered to NATO but the Lockheed company bribed main members to buy the Starfighter. The Americans have a special relationship with themselves.
The only successful uk aircraft built recently are with the Europeans
@@JohnSmith-bx8zb you said: *_the Lockheed company bribed main members to buy the Starfighter._* Where did that claim come from? Do you have a reference?
@@phonicwheel933 try reading wiki they reference US state department reports
Amalgamate or die? Had they never heard the phrase 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?
They did the same with the British automotive industry and British Leyland. Killed it almost outright!
I will never be convinced the TSR2 is not the most beautiful / coolest-looking aircraft ever designed. I had a single picture of it in a book of world aircraft when I was growing up in the 80s and the design cemented something in my creative brain re: "what looks fast" that has never faded for me, not even 30+ years later.
This would have been a World Beater. Criminal that it was cancelled. The craft in Gerry Anderson's - Terrahawks looked a lot like this and would have been an apt name for it.
it would have been just yet another mil waste. war with russia would never happen anyway
Not really a5 vigilante , same era, slightly smaller, was faster and still a debetable plane, its tactical bomb role was soon negated by ICBM's and so it soon became a recce plane, which well it was much to expensive in the long run for such limited use.
TSR2 would have been pretty much the same, UK would never have gottten use out of it.
At least the A5 had some use in the recce role..
It would certainly have been a great low level strike bomber and reconnaissance aircraft, maybe seeing use for a long long time, but of course its nuclear bomber role would be quickly obsolete, but would make a good rece aircraft still. But tbh many projects the UK has been involved in have produced great aircraft, especially as Multirole/fighter bombers e.g. Tornado. Typhoon, F-35 etc... Which typically became more popular and useful than large strategic bombers.
Remember when I was in Technical College in 76/77 we used items "obtained" during the destruction phase as practical examples for our Technical Drawing classes. Remember our lecturer would quote the Schweppes advert "Schhh... You Know Who" without saying it was him that stole the items.
My uncle worked on the unique all moving tail fin design. Years ahead of its time. Mountbatton played a part in its cancellation through his direct support for the GD F111 sale to the Australian Air Force.
Harry Zeffert, my father was the chief designer of the TSR2 electrical/electronic systems and controls. When the program was cancelled I had already moved to the US. The next day after the cancellation I flew back to London. My mother was very very worried about my father's health and was sure I could help him get back to a normal life. Harry was already
working on designs for the BAC1-11, 2-11, and 3-11. He retired from BAC in 1974 and passed on in 1987. Adrian Zeffert
Correction. Harry passed away in 1997.
Brilliant video. My dad worked on the inertial navigation system for TSR2 with Elliott Bros. at Boscombe Down.
Very cool! 👍❤
My father-in-law developed gyroscopes used on TSR2. He ran the Precision Products Group of BAC. He told me that he sold gyroscopes to MOD for tens of thousands and saw them on Tottenham Court Road going for a few quid two years later.
@@glynnwright1699 How about that. So sad that we squandered what was the most advanced aeronautical industry in the world. My dad's area of expertise was data analytics. Those gyros were crucial to the inertial navigation and cutting edge tech for their day. I wonder if they met?
@@Gorbyrev My father-in-law was given the guidance system of a V2 when he was serving in the military at Farnborough and told to work out how it worked. He went on to create a division of BAC with around 600 employees. They built the gyroscopes for the ballistic missile submarines, they were ten times more accurate than the American equivalents. It is very likely that they met.
I did my doctorate on the application of stochastic calculus to inertial navigators augmented with GPS and other sensors.
@@Gorbyrev My father-in-law was given the guidance system of a V2 when he was serving in the military at Farnborough and told to work out how it worked. He went on to create a division of BAC with around 600 employees. They built the gyroscopes for the ballistic missile submarines, they were ten times more accurate than the American equivalents. It is very likely that they met.
I did my doctorate on the application of stochastic calculus to inertial navigators augmented with GPS and other sensors.
the similarities both in fate, and appearance, between the TSR2 and the Avro Arrow, are striking. they are of course very different technically, but i think there are some very interesting parallels between their stories, and their shapes.
One very noticeable parallel is that they were both technologically beyond the capabilities of the financially influencial USA and thus a threat to its own aircraft industry.
@@Kimdino1 You can't blame the influence of the USA except in the cancellation of their own similar aircraft due to the development of the SAM's. The F107, F-108, XB70 A-11, A12 were all contemporaries of Avro Arrow and the TSR2. Whitehall's conscious decision to destroy the British Aircraft Industry was public and embarrassing. The British went indigenous build anyway. The TSR2 like the USA ones i mentioned were obsolete and DOA. Some say the AVRO Arrow flew as the MiG25 mixed with the USA A-5 Vigilante.
@@Kimdino1 nailed it!
And the involvement of the Americans...
@David Peters Sorry. Big and Bad Uncle Sam wasn't the High Flying Interceptor Killer you are making him out to be. But his Bastard Half Brother. COMRADE SAM, AS IS Surface to Air Missile. This and of course White Halls famous Sonnet, "Good Bye to Indigonously Built and Designed English Anything for the next 70 years" It was Her Majesty's Government that shot down the TSR2. The Arrow was obsolete before it left the Design stage. But it did fly. As the MiG25 Foxbat. It's program so lousy with Soviet Spys it looked like the cloak room at Westminster at tea.
COMRADE SAM wiped out many more US AIRCRAFT.....THE F107, F108, B-70, A11, A12 Are just to name a few. Name a program where the US Government got in the way.
Stunning aircraft and like all the best ones looks so awkward with the gear down but once they're up ! ..boy old boy what a machine
Realmente uma pena eles terem destruído os aviões e as ferramentas para construi-lo, uma falta de respeito com os recursos gastos e com todos que trabalharam no projeto.
Obrigado por compartilhar!
TSR2 Can be found at Duxford and one of her sisters is at Cosford. Still a thing of beauty in my eyes.
I thought they were all destroyed?
@@garynew9637 no. 2 left as Paladin says. 👍
@@garynew9637 Obviously not.
I visit Cosford as often as I can, and give XR220 a little cuddle whenever I'm there
@@magikjoe3789 I ve only had chance to visit and cuddle Xr 220 once so far still hope to go back .. shame XR 219 got destroyed .
The UK bought the Phantom and scrapped a wonderful aircraft. It should have had the Bristol Siddeley Sapphire engine and it would have been a world beater. It really asks the question of who gained from this deal
Well apart from General Dynamics & the General Secretary Moscow......
The Americans, they like to dominate the world, although they always need British Superior knowledge.
The USA
@@macron6156 USA, Uneducated States of Aresoles 🤣
Follow the money
I've done a lot of research on TSR-2 and concluded that that the requirements were ridiculously ambitious (short take off, long range, supersonic performance, low level, nuclear strike) for the time, the enforced industrial structures were unworkable, the project management arrangements crap, and the sales prospects negligible beyond perhaps Australia. On paper the final design seemed great and the prototype looked good - but there were still so many major problems that cancellation was probably the right course. After wasting more money on the F-111, the RAF's final mix of RN inherited Buccaneer's and Phantom's was perhaps the best outcome. From an industrial perspective, the UK's big mistake was not developing an affordable supersonic successor to the Hunter, this lead to an open goal for French and American aerospace companies.
Probably the smartest assessment of any of the comments I've read in this and there's some good comments in this.
The real question people should ask is: What did Britain learn from it?
As an engineer I'd say the worst project is the one nobody learns anything from. So I would regard the destruction of the jigs, drawings, etc fairly disastrous and the burning of the airframes insanely childish.
The part where he describes the meeting of 58 followed by the meeting with 61 is telling. I'm Australian but did my degree in America (graduated 88). During that time America was proposing Space Station Freedom. Version 1 of that was costed at $20 Billion. Bush Sr. said NO it can't cost that much. So they redesigned it and the cost was then put at $30 Billion. Bush Sr. said NO AGAIN it can't cost that much. So they redesigned it and the cost was then put at $40 Billion. They then went and dragged others into the ISS program and America spent $120 Billion.
One of the very sad realities of government projects is that there are companies very adept at milking the damn hell out of them. Australia is seeing that right up front with Submarines right now.
A supersonic Hunter replacement wasnt even necessary, we had the Lightning. The F4 and the Buccaneer did not have the range, nor could they do what the TSR2 would have been able to do.
@@paulbrookes5365 TSR2 couldn't met the operational requirement either!!! That's the number one reason that caused the RAF to ask for it to be canned and the F-111 be bought in its place!!!!
Gidday one reason that Australia did not buy the TSR2 is that the extremely short range of the aircraft of only 1000 miles that would not even get from Sydney to Darwin 2000 miles and even further to Perth, if it was to attack say djkart a Indonesia it would not get there, without several re fills by tanker whereas the F1-11 could go there easily and return, the F1-11 was a much bigger Aircraft, that was the same problem with the British commercial aircraft was range, the competitor to the Boeing 727 of those days could not get to Perth which was the route it would be purchased for so the B727 came the preferred aircraft
@@johnmacey2375 Australia buys American aircraft because they have the range. Australia needs ships and planes with long range on internal tankage, as unlike Europe, we are not spoiled for choice for airfields and ports with ample supplies of fuel. And the reason for this is sparse population except for the east / Pacific coast, and this is highly unlikely to change.
My grandmother worked at Bells Asbestos in Slough making insulation panels for this aircraft, the staff were given photos of the plane which she would show with pride
They did the same thing with the Avro Arrow here in Canada. Sounds like exactly the same story !
Maureen, yes in Canadas case it was Diefenbaker the Prime Minister who cancelled the Avro Arrow, in Britain's case, it was Wilson the Labour Party Prime Minister who cancelled the TSR 2, but I can tell you that Wilson was warned by the Soviets on one of his frequent trips to Moscow, before he became Prime Minister, that if he became Premier, he was to cancel the project, otherwise the Soviets were going to go ahead with a similar project of their own, in other words Harold Wilson was made to do something that would mean the end of the all British design and built military aircraft industry!
@@davidmichaels8934
How do you know about USSR and Wilson?
Such a Beautiful Bird! Damn shame it got cancelled.but its nice there is a survivors!
Thank you. This is of great interest to me, as an ex-RAE and ex-RAF IAM Farnborough man (1958-66). I flew in the IAM's Hunter T7 XL563 in September 1963.
My late Uncle was an apprentice designer at Hawker just after the last war, staying with them in their various incarnations until he retired. He worked on TSR2 (he was a pneumatics expect) and I remember him talking about the cancellation to me when I was a teenager (it would have been in the early 70s). He was still quite cross! Still, he did get to work on the P1127, which he was proud of, and quite right too!
Watching this, you can understand how British industry perished. Infighting, pointless meetings. Ridiculous.
The same spite was shewn in the cancellation of the Miles M52 supersoniv jet of 1946 and to some extent, the scrapping of the Fairey Rotodyne rotorcraft 'helicopter' (and its research material) in 1962.
And the Saunders-Roe SR.177 rocket interceptor, Blue Streak and even the Black Arrow satellite launcher.
And the Avro Arrow in Canada
@@georgejoseph4164
Similar project with the crazy desire to eliminate all traces of its existence.
Throw away all data, so expensively gained.
And US pressure to by American! F111.
To tow it away for £30k of SCRAP!
@@freemenofengland2880 Poseidon , launched from submarines, was a safer, and more effective weapon system than Blue Streak, an example of technology overtaking the project.
@@70sVRsignalman Didn't that get replaced with AMERICAN made Polaris?
1:55 "it was an aircraft years ahead of its time" statement should have been "it was an aircraft decades ahead of its time" being they said it was better than the Tornato that came almost 20 years later, and not only could it not do every job the TSR could do, but the jobs it could do that TSR was meant to do, it wouldn't have been able to do as well!!!
It was a gorgeous looking design
But to be fair, So was the Vigilante A5, it could do the same missions, had better thrust, AND it could land on carriers.
The A5 Vigilante had the same engines as the F4, but with it’s better aerodynamics, was much faster. I was offered a seat in an A5, but declined, as I didn’t want to go unarmed over North Vietnam. Besides, the F4 was way cooler.
The A5 would have done great service in the Falklands and, as mentioned, could land on carriers.
Alas, the roads not taken.
@@jkoysza1 A5, Falklands... on which carrier???
UK had no carrier capable of CATOBAR.
had they had such a carrier, with F4's, the Falklands War would have been over much quicker.They would have intercepted the Argies before the Falklands instead of on Ingress.The Harriers had little loiter capacity..because the Ski Ramp VTOL system only allowed harriers with little fuel.
The A5 over Nam was so slick and fast, flack exploded well behind it.. even on BDA runs after an attack..
But arguably as a tactical bomber it was not a very effective design.. And I think BAC TSR2 would have been no better .. Mountbatton was right.. the Buccaneer was the better buy, As gorgeous as it looked, in hind sight, there is nothing in that design that would have allowed it to be the long serving , versatile and capable fighterbomber it pretended to be.
By the late 60ies, it became painfully obvious that SA2 Guideline was a threat to high flying planes and made sure of that all strike fighters would be forced back to low level, which made Supersonic Tactical planes like TSR2 with its stubby wings obsolete overnight.. And the Buccaneer was designed for low level outright. I think that was what killed off the TSR2, the Brits saw what happened in Vietnam, looked at their spec sheet, and realized it was a stillborn for such conditions.
But is easier to point fingers at American competition and politics as the blame for its demise.. but really it just made sense to cancel it.
All of the excellent research of the 50's and early 60's was undone by one thing - money. The UK was broke and therefore could not sustain its excellent aircraft industry and was at the mercy of US competition and political pressure.
Remember also, one of the drivers of being broke was the overly generous welfare system. One wonders how much aircraft development funding was diverted into bonbons eaten on the couch by the unemployed?
political pressure being the kay factor and the reason we (brits) are still so pissed off about it
@@thethirdman225 as i said in another comment (but not quite emphatically enough) about the cost the production line to build the TSR2 was built all the jigs and fixtures were in place and had to be cut up and destroyed (in a huge rush apparently) so it wasn't a plane with all sorts of problems they were mostly sorted and it was ready for production! 'someone' needed a competitor out of the way and used the war debt as leverage to make sure!
My Dad worked on the TSR2 project . I have actually touched the one in Cosford Museum XR220 ,so beautiful , so sad .
👍😎
I took some pictures of that one a few yrs ago when it was outside looking all lonely on it's own. Sad days.
@@amoebavirus1508 criminal isn't it !
so have I ..
My Father was involved in the safety equipment (ejector seats, brake chute) on TSRT based at Warton, he always said it was a fantastic aircraft, we have a great photo of it in flight.
My father was chief toolmaker on the TSR2 programme and he took me, a 15 year old schoolboy, to see the first flight at Filton.
Only 1 TSR2 ever flew and is now in the museum at Cosford. 5 more were in production at weybridge at the time the programme was scrapped. These 5 were scrapped on site.
The idea that they ended up as targets at Shoeburyness is not true.
beleiving that Missiles could replace manned fighter aircraft was a mega error. . . It costed us, in Canada the ARROW program and then a major part of our Airplane industry. . .😑
It caused a brain exodus from Canada...
The design was compromised from it's inception. Due to money being tight it had to use the same basic engine as the Bristol engine for the Concorde, a turbojet. The F111 used more efficient turbofan engines. Although slightly smaller this aircraft had a greater range with a greater weapons load, this being the main reason for the Australia's order. RR had offered a turbojet design for the TSR2 programme but this engine could not be used on the Concorde. With the introduction of ballistic missiles it's roll as a strategic nuclear bomber was no longer required leaving the TSR2 to expensive for it's other intended roles. The later Tornado as we know was a lot small, uses turbofans and was not a true strategic bomber.
TSR2 wasn't a strategic aircraft at all!!! When it was being designed it's mission was totally tactical!!! The job of duking it out with Moscow's air defences was the job of Blue Streak, Skybolt and finally Polaris. The 1000NM internal fuel range with 100 NM supersonic dash was to allow the aircraft to fight limited wars against Indonesia or Egypt from existing RAF Bases without tanker support.
@@richardvernon317 From an Australian perspective, European military aircraft and ships have a much shorter combat radius compared to the American alternative, the reason being, the Americans need airplanes and ships based on the West Coast USA that need to traverse the vast Pacific . Australia has a similar problem hence the purchase of the P51 Mustang, F86 Sabre & FA18 Hornet.
The TSR2, like the Canadian Avro Arrow, were both potentially great aircraft, but both needed a lot more work, time, and money, to achieve this, and potential total orders were in relatively low numbers, meaning high unit cost, meaning was there a cheaper, and affordable alternative ? Was the alternatives sufficient for the perceived task at hand ? All Governments have a responsibility to wisely spend taxpayers money ( stop laughing, this is serious ! ) , and the demands on Government expenditure need to be aligned as close a possible to available revenue (some recent events may belie that ! ) .
Defence expenditure, by its very nature, can be eyewateringly expensive, especially if the potential threat, in reality , is perceived to be a relatively low risk, all things considered. When modern combat aircraft have a unit cost exceeding the debt of small nations, it should not be surprising that Governments get to a point that they only see continual cost blow outs, delays, and political pain for a perceived overly expensive ( and apparently failing ) project. Persistence is fine, if the end result is achievable, but often enough a delayed project with cost blowouts can kill an otherwise reasonably competent government ( ultimately, nothing saves an incompetent one, though recent experience with some "leaders" in the short term at least, may suggest otherwise ! ). Bearing all of the above in mind, sometimes Governments come to the unpalatable conclusion, that killing a project is the only viable alternative.
I do not think that the Wilson Labour Government came to that decision lightly, but Government finances were in a worse shape than initially thought, the looming currency crisis required action ( another painful decision ), it became clear that the TSR2 Programme required a lot more time and money, and the decision to pull back from East of Suez, combined to cause the programme to be cancelled. Subsequent events indicate that, ultimately, the decision to cancel TSR2 was the correct one under the prevailing circumstances.
@@70sVRsignalman but the alternative they chose was no closer to ready and significantly less capable???
I love that interview with Wing Commander Roley 'Bee' Beamont, CBE, DSO & Bar, DFC & Bar, Beast of a pilot & Bar, War Hero & Bar, Genuinely Nice Chap & Bar..
RIP Ace. We shall not forget x
Most excellent video!!
Australia had ordered TSR.2 but the Americans said they would supply F.111's at a lower price. Unfortunately, and typically of American equipment, when finally delivered the F.111's were double the cost.
The TSR2 was inadequate for australis requirements it could only fly half way( if that ) across the continent and could not strike any likely target in the pacific, too small no range
@@johnmacey2375 and heavy due to the swing wings
Wah! Wah! Damn Brits always blame the Americans for their own government not having the balls to follow through on their own. The F-111 and/or F-4 didn't kill the TSR-2, the British government did. Stop looking for scapegoats and put the blame where it belongs.
I fell in love with this aircraft when as a lad, I saw it in the 1976 RAF yearbook. I was smitten by it's angular beauty and tantalised by the idea of an alternative reality in which it flourished. I had pictures of it on my walls and in a scrapbook and the Idea of its cancellation frankly depressed me as a youngster. I've always felt a deep emotional connection with TSR2. Is it heretical to question it's existence? Surely it was overpowered, and with a wing loading far too high despite the blown flaps maneuverability would be difficult.. Was it's avionics suite archaic in the face of the miniature electronics emerging?. Was it's weapon load too small for the size and power of the airframe?. Was it just too expensive for the return when the Buccaneer with a TFR could do the job attacking in the transonic range?.
myself and many other s feel an emotional connection to TSR 2 too
I heard a while back that TSR2's Radar system ended up in the Tornado... Which was designed years later... can't have been that bad if it ended up in a plane that served for decades. :D TSR2 is beautiful, with a little more developement it could've been really good!
there was some annoyance when Australia cancelled the tsr2 deal, maybe it was a fantastic aircraft but common with all British aircraft of the time the British establishment had a view that australia would accept anything, the problem wiht the tsr3 from Australian perspective the aircraft could not even fly from newcastle base to Darwin where it would operate from, any australian bomber/ fighter would need to be able to fly at least 2000 miles or more , the tsr2 could not fly past alice springs which was about half way to darwin, when if based at Darwin the tsr2 could not operate to say Indonesia and back, the F1-11 fulfilled all Australian re1uirements and was the obvious choice and this aircraft with modifications operated very successfully in the RAAF and was much loved in service , this above problem is the same reason why australian airlines went to Boeing instead of vickers, from Sydney to Perth is practically the same as London to Moscow , at the time there were no British aircraft that could do that, East coast was serviced by the 700 and 800 viscounts for many years then came the booing 727 and douglas dc9 fantastic aircraft
That music at 45:00ish is brilliant.
Sounds like a PPG Wave synth.
Excellent, Love it
In the end, the RAAF was more than happy with the F-111 which had a fine record of service over four decades.
The reality is that the US was Australia's most important ally and had been since 1942. I also suspect that elements of the RAAF and Dept of Air in Canberra remembered Britain's unwillingness to supply Australia with modern aircraft less than two decades earlier in WWII. Everything has consequences including British strategy and attitude to allies in wartime.
Edit: Lord Beaverbrook persuaded Australia to manufacture the Beaufort early in the war despite its test pilot describing it as a terrible bombing platform. After the destruction of Darwin in February 1942, Churchill promised three squadrons of Spitfires that were diverted to North Africa for six months, arriving in 1943 in obsolete and worn out condition. Just imagine, if Churchill had supported Australia's objections to the diversion, Spitfire fans today could be discussing the performance of brand new Spitfire Vs against Zeroes at the height of the fighting to defend Darwin in 1942.
The difficulties Australia encountered in obtaining modern aircraft throughout WWII have been documented by Australian historians such as David Horner and David Day.
Britain couldn't supply Britain itself with enough aircraft, and bombs weren't falling on Australian cities
If Oz could build a Beau themselves , they should have been capable of a Spitfire
while Canada built Aircraft to SEND to Britain
Australia has abundant resources the UK Mainland does not, so that your excuse?
That's a bitter whinning lazy bogan atittude you have, not a battling Aussie at all
@@farmerned6 It is bizarre the way the British expect history to be rewritten to pretend that Australia was happy with the level of assistance provided by Britain in WWII.
There is not much i can do about the attitude of the Australian government in 1942 or of those within the Dept of Air in 1961.
@@guyh9992
OK- where in 1942 were the reserves of troops & war material , the British had, that could have deployed been in the SE threatre ?
@@farmerned6 Perhaps you should develop a time machine so you go back and tell the Australian government where they were wrong.
Whinging about the fact that Britain has not had any real influence over Australia since around March 1942 isn't going to achieve anything.
@@guyh9992 " I also suspect that elements of the RAAF and Dept of Air in Canberra remembered Britain's unwillingness to supply Australia with modern aircraft less than two decades earlier in WWII."
YOUR words - no one elses
Again , please explain where in 1942 these supposed vast stocks of brand new spitfire Mk9's were sitting doing nothing, instead of being sent to Oz?
Is there anything that government touches that it doesn’t make worse? We’d all be better off with no government at all.
time for some one to succeed where guy fawkes failed
I thought we had just tried that. How long did it take the Tories to choose a replacement for Boris?
A very interesting documentary about this fabulous British aircraft I wish we had one still flying but due to there thirsty engines it's not possible sadly! But the English electric lighting is one of my favourite British made aircraft as I've seen many of them flying in the 1980s at uk airshows.😎
*_@justinobrien3593_* In 1955 our family were in transit at RAF Warton and used to see the P1, as it was called then, flying over us. We were amazed because it looked like something from outer space, and you only heard its sound after it had gone out of sight.
In 1965 I was in the RAF and missed a joy ride in a Lightning because I had a cold at the time. A few weeks later I got a ride in an Anson which wasn't quite the same.😊
Great video, when I was a schoolboy my technical drawing teacher (Mr Munson) had worked on the design of the TSR-2, when it was cancelled he became a teacher (Hampstead comp), and he never got over the cancellation of the program,
The story I heard, from someone who worked around the project, was that some at least of the aircraft were cut up by the people who had worked on them.
Don’t worry she’s remembered in the anime series “Stratos 4” as the TSR.2MS by the ‘Meteor Sweepers’. She may not destroy ground targets but can knock down meteors from space.
She's also in the PS2 game Deadly Strike 3. Btw, thanks for your post because I had never heard of Stratos 4 and am going to start watching it now!
Parts of the TSR2 still existed up until 1984 as I personally saw the 3 axis gyroscope and the memory core module from the avionics. These were manufactured by Sperry who also built the avionis for the Concorde
Two surviving airframes.
@@harrisionstan3773 apparently some TSR 2 engines and other bits are around other museums .. too
Haven't you been to Duxford? There's a TSR2 there!
No I have not been to Duxford and assumed the airframe they had was taken away. Still I have no interest in seeing it and was only shown the gyroscope as the apprentice trainer justvhappened to have it in the training centre. It measured 4 inches cubed and had 3 completely separate gyroscopes for pitch, roll and yaw. Its is still one of the most advanced gyros ever produced and modern aircraft are only now catching up to THE TSR2 s capabilities
@@geraldtalbot6400 I wouldn't agree that we're only just surpassing TSR2s capabilities because they weren't actual capabilities - but ATTEMPTED capabilities. The thing is, the kind of thing they were TRYING to achieve back then with simple analogue computers and brilliant mechanical engineering is trivial today with modern sensors and digital computing. Even if we take a step back in technology - somewhere in-between, take the moving map navigation system on Sea Harrier FA.2 - leaps ahead of TSR2s system despite being a relatively simple microprocessor controlled system without modern digital computing or GPS. What they were trying to do with TSR2 was simply beyond the electronics of the day. They should have taken a pragmatic approach (like the F-111 project) get the basic aircraft finished and then work on the systems over time as technology progresses. The US then went on to make the same TSR2 "deliver everything" mistakes with F-22 and F-35!
Wow ! It's got the most beautiful landing gear movement!
Does the Buccaneer’s tail assembly somewhat resemble that of the F-4 Phantom II, except for its vertical stabilizer well forward on the fuselage? Both introduced in 1958.
The US never forgave the UK for breaching its air defences in high altitude penetration exercises with V Bombers. They didn’t want their aircraft industry competing another technically superior aircraft.
I don’t dispute what you say but what is your evidence ?
The Lightning also proved to the USA that they were not infallible probable the only plane of its day that could break the sound barrier in a vertical climb and go way higher than the USA spy plane.
@@SuperTerwin 👍And by all accounts the TSR2 would have been capable of outrunning a Lightning🤔
@@californiadreamin8423 just type into you tube “ when Britain nuked America “ quite an interesting story tbf
@@eldavieo I’ll do that. Not many people are aware that after the war the U.K. was denied access to the bomb technology as a foreign power, and compelled to develop its own. I believe years later an agreement was found in Roosevelt’s personal papers signed with Churchill, giving that access.
Miles M.52 = Competitor to USA’s Bell X1 = M.52 cancelled
TSR 2 = Competitor to USA’s F111 = TSR 2 cancelled
Saunders Roe SR.177 = Competitor to USA’s F 104 = SR.177 cancelled
Now I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but…
.........makes you wonder don't it ....................................
The TSR2 and the Canadian Avro Arrow are the two shining examples of the US aviation industry in conjunction with US politicians effectively killing off all future competition. The once great British aircraft industry now almost gone. Thank god Airbus managed to succeed despite the best efforts of the FAA.
Well, no. Youre wrong.
The miles m52 was not cancelles because of pressure from the states. It was cancelled due to budet. Much of the design info was given to the usa which was then used on the x1.
At the end of the day, despite its claims of being so far ahead of its time, the tsr was less advanced then the f111 by a long margin, still full of problems and early its its development had tripled in cost and had no customers except the british airforce.
Much of this history is romanticism. Its easy to dream up a fantasy of a world beating aircraft when it only got to fly a few times and never had to actually acomplish anything.
This isn't the only British aircraft that was as good if not better than every competing aircraft in the whole world at the time it was being built, and wasn't built or manufactured, and the biggest problem they had was Americas domestic market was so large it allowed air-frames to be cheaper because the number of aircraft they bought for themselves, so for the export market and if they decided to go all in on an aircraft they could also promise foreign nations even lower prices on individual aircrafts for all - that is what killed the British aircraft industry. I understand that the F-11 could carry more weapons and had a greater range but the speed of the TSR2 seperated it from F-111 and would allow it to do several jobs better/safer (recon) and if you look how much better later varients of aircraft get the later versions of TRS2 would have been far more impressive than the base model.
remember seeing it on J car park at warton on an open day, wonderful aircraft
What a pretty plane, good lines and a solid look to 'er.
Gonna look for a modelkit one of these days.
Airfix did a 148th kit a few years back still a few on sale
I recommend the Airfix 1/48. Builds well, and an impressive size. Built mine as a fictional RAAF version with underwing missiles in toned down markings. Supposedly some inaccuracies with the undercarriage, but I can live with that.
yep I got the 1. 48th scale version .. so that s cool .
@@harrisionstan3773 I had problems with the under carriage of my airfix TSR 2 aswell ..
Harold Wilson was a Soviet. The design team were in tears when the goons came in and took everything
No he wasn’t, most soviet spies came from Cambridge University.
Millions were spent trying to prove Wilson was a spy but he was given a clean bill of health by MI5 spy catchers.
Here are just some of the theories and
Conspiracy theories why Harold Wilson and the Labour government cancelled the TSR 2.
He was really a secret KGB spy who was given the orders to cancel it by Moscow.
He cancelled it to get a massive loan from the Americans.
He had been bribed by general dynamics to cancel the project.
He cancelled the project to destroy the British aircraft industry.
He cancelled the project because he was hoping to buy French aircraft to get into Europe.
He was really a secret CIA spy who was given the orders to cancel it by Washington.
These are just some of The conspiracy theories that I have heard in the past and all of them are rubbish.
My Father was made redundant due to the cancellation , this affected him and me as a young boy.. Remember seeing the plans of the aircraft he brought home.
The F 111 turned out to be very good for Australia.
I hate to say it, but cancellation of TSR2 was probably the right decision. The demanding and contradictory staff requirements were just too ambitious for the technology of the time, and the racks of valve based electronics would have been a maintenance nightmare. Translating the problematic, if good looking, prototype in to an operational aircraft would have expensive and almost certainly impossible before the early 1970's. Okay the Buccaneer wasn't supersonic, but it otherwise ticked most of the boxes and was already in production. The real reason why cancellation of TSR.2 was a disaster is that it left the British aerospace industry without a major new project after the cancellation of other similarly overambitious and niche projects such as the SR.117, P.1165 and HS.681. The UK's failure to develop a relatively affordable supersonic successor to the Hunter had already handed over the export market to France.
No, all what was needed was for the avionics/electronics side to be scaled back. Just get the basic plane into service and then worry about the fancy stuff afterwards - just as the Americans did with the F-111. The problem with TSR2 was trying to deliver everything as a working package in one hit.
From my memory the it was built from Stainless Steel, it was ahead of it's time but as usual anything that costs money is cancelled. Great aircraft
The leading edges were titanium
@@Samothrace83 They cancelled the plan just before I joined what was the Bristol Aircraft Corporation later to become Bristol Siddley Engines then laterly Rolls Royce.
The stainless aircraft was the Bristol 188. It's at Cosford, along with the most complete TSR-2 airframe.
@@596football Not quite right. Until 1959 the Bristol Aeroplane Company consisted of a division producing aircraft and another division producing engines, all at Filton, Bristol. Government-directed consolidation resulted in the aircraft division being incorporated into the newly named British Aircraft Corporation. Simultaneously, the engine division became a parent company named Bristol Siddeley Engines. The name was applied because Bristol aero engines, in another industry consolidation, swallowed up Armstrong Siddeley, a Coventry-based areo engine company. At a later date Rolls Royce (Derby) swallowed Bristol Siddeley, which then became the military engine division of Rolls Royce, which it still is to this day.
@@johnbayntun840 I know that, but it was considered one unit by the workers my father worked there from 1937 and I joined as an Apprentice in 1960 just after Bristol Siddley Engines took over the engine division at Patchway. You could see in the factory guirders holes from shrapnel from the bombing during the war. Unfortunately all that has been demolished now
I started work in 1969 with 2 men who had worked for Elliott Bros. @ Chatham working on the fuel flow metering for the TSR2. In the back room was dozens of boxes of electronics from the plain, electromechanical guidance computers, fuel flow gages & 100s of reels of PTFE cable (a right swine to strip). Wish I had had the foresight to keep a few bits myself.
😯
*_@gravyytube_* I remember Elliot and their 803 and 503 computers. Didn't the Yanks sabotage Elliot computers by producing the DEC PDP8 and PDP11? 😊
I worked for EMI Electronics where they were designing and developing the Linescan tape recording system for TSR2. When TSR2 was cancelled we had the tape decks lying around the lab for months.
Nice. Cheers for the film.
Perhaps the fundimental problem was that the RAF's staff requirement was too wide. (for instance, low level and high level flight having the same performance requirement). It is ironic that the RAF never got the F111 either, although they did get both the Buccaneer and the Phantom and appearently were very happy with both.
According to Aeroplane Magazine's TSR2 issue, the RAF CAS advised the RAAF to purchase the F111 in lieu of the TSR2. The F111 had a longer range, and a heavier weapons load, than the TSR2, added to which the USAF order was far larger
( 563 + 76 FB 111 = 639 ) than the proposed RAF TSR2 order, ( 50 + RAAF 24 + 74 ) so on that basis the RAAF made the correct choice, and this also partially explains the RAF F111K choice. It should also be pointed out that the US electronics fit was more advanced than the British fit in 1963. Again not surprising when the US was building more warplanes, and spending a lot more than Britain on electronic warfare. I think that the MRCA Tornado Programme demonstrated that Europe financially could only keep up with the US if a multinational NATO Programme was agreed to, and thereafter funded. The reality was that Britain simply could not afford to fund the TSR2 in 1964, and the decision to pull back from east of Suez in 1966 simply made the TSR2 / F111K unnecessary. I agree that potentially it would have been a great aeroplane, but the F111 programme demonstrated just how expensive such advanced programmes are.( And we have not started to consider operational costs yet, when the USAF TAC withdrew the F111 from service, their maintenance costs went down by 25%. When the USN withdrew their F14 Tomcat, they also enjoyed a similar maintenance cost reduction.Both aeroplanes were brilliant, and their replacements had a lesser performance envelope, but technology moves on, target acquisition, and on target hits, are now of a higher level of both accuracy, and destructiveness than was the case in the 1980s/1990s Excellent video, Regards from Australia.
the penalty clause payments for F-111 cancelation was more than it would have cost to develope the TSR2.. F-111 was a dog.
The RAF pulled the plug on the F-111K project way too early. They could have ended up buying about 125 F-111K's, which would have effectively replaced all the V-bombers and would have been a nightmare for Soviet defense planners in the 1970's.
@@andyb.1026
Your comment is rubbish.
The F-111 was a viable aircraft.
The TSR-2 was great on paper but an unrealised dream.
@@grahamlucas2712 I only say that as I worked on them,, it was a Dog 🐕 😅
I'm surprised the Labour Gov't didn't give the engine plans to the Soviets like they did with the Meteor..
My Dad was a draughtsman he worked on the Concord and the TSR2 but when it was cancelled he was out of work for good.
Excellent film.
Another case of a wonderful idea that was conceived in the UK but not taken into production. One plane wound up the USA. So far advanced was TSR2 that the American aircraft manufactures rubbed their hands with glee, and we now we see their latest planes now have all of the ideas that the TSR2 had that many years ago
No, no and no. Only one TSR.2 ever flew, and it never left the UK. Where is the evidence for your claim? What of the TSR.2 is in their 'latest planes'? It's not the pure turbojet engines. Or the avionics. Or the intake design. TSR had potential, sure, but so did a lot of cancelled projects. Stop parroting conspiracy theories over pint of brown ale.
A brilliant aircraft cancelled by politics, red tape and a committee from hell.
@@barracuda7018 True, but from all I read about it over the years, it flew fantastic from prototype (so yeah brilliant start at a minimum), sure there was things yet to fix, but I have seen many more projects then and now that were far more problematic & costly ( should have been shelved) and they still went ahead.
and money in the backpocket
Suspect under orders from the USA
No, cancelled by treason.
Nevertheless to try and have both agility of a fighter and range and payload of a bomber was akin to trying to reach upwards and outwards at the same time
My brother was working at Boscombe Down at the time. He said that the aircraft simply wasn't versatile enough
There was the one aircraft that survived at Cranfield, that airfield and the avionics university/research has always been a sort of black site for unofficial projects, the fact it stayed hidden there for all those years before heading to Duxford suggests a lot of research was done on the aircraft to benefit other projects.
No explanation has ever been given why that one aircraft ended up at Cranfield and what they were doing with it.
that would be XR 222. then if its the duxford one .. there are stil rumours today of a 3rd TSR 2 in one piece ..I once sugguested getting the cosford on operational again .. that would be so cool ..
XR222 spent the years until 1977 being used to train students in modern aircraft production techniques and so on before her large size became a nuisance to a rapidly expanding university. Given to Duxford where she was restored for static display. still there
3 of them were take to shoe bury ness and blown up . since then all 3 have mysteriously dissapeared .. with no explanation as to where .. i am still trying to find out
@@brendanukveteran2360 thank good ness that one and XR 220 still survive . XR219 was removed from shoe bury ness after being blown up . no explanation as to where it has since been taken i am still trying to find out
This story reminds me of the saga of the Canadiam Arrow.
"We will use missiles" was the same excuse givin for the cancelation of the Avro Arrow. The TSR2 and the Arrow would have been a good team
Good evening,
We actually know the pain you feel as our Avro Arrow program was pissed away with 5 , count them, 5 aircraft ready to be delivered to our airforce. I know that R.R. could not develop their engine so it was cancelled. I feel the knife close to:my throat, Gordon Crawford declared that Avro would use the Iroquois Engine to power the Arrow. The Iroquois engines were being tested as the US was interested in the Iroquois because we were using their PW J75 with afterburners. The engines that was being used was adequate at the time, but the Iroquois was lighter and producing 10 % more thrust then the PW J75s. The next fact was that we were left high and dry with no weapons pack, so we were now developing the weapons package as well. Then there was the sparrow missiles our airforce wanted so if they were to be part of the pack, then we had to develop the missiles as well. The aircraft was ready to be delivered as is, except, England was a no show, the US was a no show and NATO was a no show, but the US were allowing Canada to use a B47 bomber as a test bed for the Iroquois development, which allowed te US a to monitor the program, Hues aircraft had a weapons system which needed development to use the sparrow, which was supposed to be developed by the US, and the French were highly interested in the Iroquois development for their Miras 3 fighter. There you have it but the arrow was not a prototype, each to be sold and that means that one week before the CF 206 unit was to be tested with the Iroquois engines, the government pulled the plug and destroyed the first 5 units with the 6 unit with the Canadian engines, plus every one on the production line. They destroyed the flying ones along with the jetliner, Iroquois product, the fly-by-wire systems and all paper work and drawings, everything torched and destroyed. The hole program was sold for scrap. We came to England with the hope we might sell you some fighters along with every NATO nation but that was nonsense of course. Cry over what you made, Just so you know, England wanted to purchase a couple of ships for study, in fact, they needed all the data to help with your ship as we did all the work already as our shi2 was flying in 1958, but you was hoping for the fire sale price so at least there is that.
Forever in His service
The TSR2 was the UK's SR-71... Aircraft that were decades ahead of their time and not well understood by their politicians!! Both a/c should still be flying to this day but for short sighted ID10T's!!! Excellent video, thank you!!!
Uk's B1
No, more like a F-111. TSR-2 was built for low level strike - not playing in the stratosphere like SR-71.
With regards to the Tornado, one of the Waddington Air Show commentators said
"MRCA, Must Refurbish Canberras Again"
I do believe NASA still flies Canberras (American built under license)
Mother Riley's Cardboard Aircraft
@@ianddavidson1 I did have a cardboard model that came with a comic in 1964 (I was 9 at the time)
Visually (and role wise too I suppose) the TSR2 really seems like a predecessor to the SEPECAT Jaguar GR.1
That was the start of our troubles. Harold Wilson.
In the early 1970's I was living in Stoke-on-Trent and a member of our local photgraphic society. We had a guest judge who was a serving RAF photo reconnaisance officer. He claimed that TSR2 was cancelled by the Wilson Government because they wanted to borrow millions of pounds to fund their nationalisation projects. They had gone everywhere else such as the World Bank, and everyone had said "NO!". The Americans said "yes, but". The 'but' was the condition that the Wilson government 'deep sixed' the TSR2 project. The Americans were afraid we would outsell their own aircraft. Not only was production to be stopped, but everything to do with the project was to be destroyed so it could never be resurrected.
and that is why all the jigs were destroyed!
Special relationship
*_@warwickholden6332_* Your serving RAF photo reconnaissance officer seems to be remarkably well informed about the inner workings of the UK Wilson and US Johnson governments. What was the source of his claims?
It's not likely that TSR2 would outsell any US aircraft. What is this claim based on?
The reason why everything about TSR2 was to be destroyed, was to save costs. Industry charges the MOD a fortune for storing and maintaining aircraft, jigs, drawings etc.
The best aircraft we never had
I understood that the Olympus was already developed and installed in the Vulcan 2 years earlier . But to uprate it, ie 6th family member from the baseline Olympus B.01.1 (22R )for TSR2 (Concorde was 7th) was a challenge as was its airframe installation and air intake high total temperature some 20deg C higher than thaat of Concorde.
In Canada the AVRO project was canceled by the government as well.
At that time, I worked for a private Engineering company as a centre lathe turner! The company's name was Manor Engineering co, in Nottingham! I was one of their best turner's, and at that time I was only 19-year's old! Yet, I have outperformed the best of their turners of that time!
G65t
If only they had bribed Mountbatten with a few young boys we would be still flying this amazing aircraft
Ahahahaha!
😂
Free rent LOL
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
mountbatten didnt need to be bribed he had loads of money anyway .. he just needed to be persuaded
What was the better conventional deep strike aircraft the TSR 2 or the F-111?
A lot of the tecnology from TSR2 was used in Tornado.
Put in pictures of the Avro Arrow in Canada and the story is almost exactly the same.
Death by politics. The Yanks killed the Arrow.
Yes, both expensive and unneeded plus difficulties in development.
@@bob19611000 Can you name one military aircraft that does not carry those same epithets, "expensive and unneeded"? Such a useful criticism for all you armchair critics. Do you ever read anything except the Guardian?
@@bob19611000 f35 !!!
Avro Arrow-TSR 2? Parallels?
Pity that many commenting about the TSR2 scrapping know nothing about the very similar circumstances that led to the demise of the Avro Arrow
The labour party besides cancelling TSR2 and others, also decided the UK would only build aircraft with France. At the time France didn't have an aircraft industry. The labour party became the founders of the French aircraft industry at the UK's expense
I think that you need to look up Duncan Sands.
As for collaboration with the French, just 1 military aircraft the The Jaguar, The Tornado and Typhoon had no French input except when the walked out of the early Typhoon development as the U.K. and others would not sanction a carrier version of the Typhoon
We have a long & illustrious history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
I joined BAe in 1986 and there were still some veterans there who would get very sad and misty eyed about the TSR2. My take is that it was fantastically advanced but probably reached too far, and the political climate put the boot in. I reckon it would still have been operational in 2000 or so had it delivered. It would have changed the face of military aircraft development. And it was truly a beautiful aircraft. There is one at Hendon I think.
The real problem for manufacturers of Aircraft for the MOD is the fact that they keep changing their minds. Imagine trying to build a car when the remit is a saloon, then changes to a coupe and then an SRV and wonder why the costs go through the roof.
Its at Shifnal.
There's one a IWM Duxford, I always check it out when I visit.
Beautiful aircraft but must have had the glide ratio of a brick.
Tragic similarities with the Canadian Avro Arrow project. Identical ending.