But yet, the TSR.2 was just *TOO* limited in operational capability because it was primarily designed as a _nuclear_ weapons delivery platform. The Panavia Tornado that the RAF finally got from 1980 on could carry more (and a much wider range) of weapons and because it was a true variable geometry design with thrust-reverser equipped engines, could operate out of shorter runways, too.
You make some interesting point, @Sacto1654, but remember the Tornado was designed about 20 ish years after TSR 2, and in that time defence requirements changed.
@@militaryaviationtv But the RAF still needed a replacement for the rapidly-aging Canberra bomber by the early 1960's. They should have taken up Blackburn's offer of a larger, more capable version of the Buccaneer, which would have made it a very potent low-altitude interdiction platform and be operational by 1968. The RAF tried again with the Anglo-French AFVG project, but when that idea was dropped, they _finally_ joined the Panavia consortium in 1969, which resulted in the Tornado, the Canberra replacement that the RAF so desperately needed (and ten years later arriving than originally anticipated).
An ex artillery chap who served in the Royal Observer Corps with me told me one TSR2 finished up on a range at Shoeburyness . No idea if that was correct .
I believe the one taken to Shoeburyness was the only TSR2 that flew before being destroyed by gunfire testing, I believe the one at Cosford was the second one that was due to fly on the day of the cancellation and was impounded and never flew the one at Duxford was part built and somehow survived
sadly it was found out that we had run out of cash. The mistake was that the Super Buccaneer was not developed to its full potential. The Buccaneer was found out to be cheaper, faster and better at low level than the F111. As with all aircraft its the SAM that causes the problem. Not forgetting that the famed Duncan Sands Tory MP sounded the death knell for manned aircraft and unfortunately that mindset was embedded in the with the Defence Procurement side of government which of course was music to the ears for cancellation.
@@militaryaviationtv Perhaps as with the Jaguar the French could have been brought on board to get it over the line, as Roland B said in the interview, the French Government believe and fund their aircraft industry.
the aircraft that should have been. we are going to find the same with the typhoon and f35. the f35 is going to become a burden with unreliability and low payload for little gain compared to the typhoon leaving us dependent on the americans
Some of the things he says about the F-111 are not true. 1. Britain was given a fixed price, so all cost over runs would have fallen on the U.S. 2. The F-111 worked very well. It killed more tanks in 1991 Persian Gulf War than any other collation aircraft. Even though other type of aircraft were present in larger numbers. 3. Only the Naval F-111B wasn't going to work. Both the USAF and the US Navy knew this. US Navy left the program as soon as they could. It had been Robert McNamara's idea. The US Navy then got the F-14 instead. Not mentioned but important. The terrain following radar allowed the F-111 to fly at very low altitude at night and in the weather. no other aircraft in the world could do that, including the TSR-2.
Over budget it may have been - but I can't help but think (beyond the politics of Jenkins, Mountbatten and many others) that the budget argument was so short sighted. As Beamont said, the aircraft had the potential to be continuously updated, particularly as technology ensured equipment became smaller. Thus the government would have got incredible value for money from a multi role aircraft that would have been in service for a very long time. The F111 scenario is also extraordinary - government climbing into bed with another high tech (and this time swing wing!) aircraft still being developed, with spiraling costs that resulted in cancellation appears to be a good example of TSR2 events repeating themselves. Farcical.
The main value of the TSR2 would have been as a testbed for prolonged Mach 2 flight. The Concorde suffered from the lack of a prior testbed (a) Concorde was forced to use high take off and landing speeds due to the lack of compressor air blown wings, allowing high angles of attack, with much lower take off and landing speeds. (b) Supersonic boom neutralization : TSR2 would have been a suitably sized testbed. (c) Once Mach 2 flight was developed, Mach 4 would be the next step, allowing Trans Pacific range.
It was too limited as primarily a _nuclear_ bomber. The Brits were lucky they were able to get into the Panavia consortium, which produced a combat that was much superior to the TSR.2 with the Tornado, which could carry up to 16,000 lb. of various weapons loads and could operate out of shorter runways, too.
Of coursei it's impossible not to admire Roly Beamont. But some of the received opinion and consensus around the TSR2 goes largely unquestioned and unchallenged. The F111 conspiracy theory is not exactly replete with evidence (although the complete destruction of the airframes and tooling is very odd). And his point about the Falklands seems mildly unhinged.
@@californiadreamin8423 The received opinion, which seems to be subject to almost no qualification, is that the TSR2 would have been a tremendous success. We don't know that - and it had a lot of systems that were entirely untested (much like the F111). I think that has led to a lot of overclaiming for it.
@@californiadreamin8423 I know who Roly Beamont was. His long and excellent record does not mean that his assessment should go unquestioned - especially with the benefit of hindsight around the development difficulties of similar aircraft and systems.
I have enormous respect for Roly Beamont and his achievements, but he's talking utter rubbish here. The conspiracy is nonsense, the deal before Denis Healy in 1965 was something like £195 million for maybe 20-30 x TSR.2 by 1971 or for the same money 110 x F-111K by 1969. If the TSR.2 was chosen, the RAF would be flying a tiny number of unique aircraft with no export potential, no NATO commonality in systems and weapons, the running costs would have been immense. Beamont talks as if the money side of things was unimportant. The F-111 programme did indeed run into problems, for the British mostly financial. The idea the TSR.2 would not have suffered any more increasing costs between 1965 and 1971 when its original budget had tripled between 1955-1965 is laughable. Despite its early failures and remedies, F-111 was in squadron service, meeting all its design requirements and serving well in the Vietnam War within ten years of a contract being signed. TSR.2 had just 24 test flights (at low weight, with no avionics, none in full operational mission profile) after ten years of development and required another six years to get into service. As a result of its long gestation, the TSR.2 was old technology (1955) when it flew (1964) - Beamont keeps mentioning how they had spent ten years making this aircraft only to be cancelled - ridiculous! Reminds me of John Belushi in Animal House when he's expelled "Six years of college wasted!" TSR.2 was terribly inefficient and obsolete in 1965 - turbojets against the F-111K's turbofans (every nap of the earth supersonic bomber since has used turbofans) skinny low drag, low aspect wing, not a swing wing (every nap of the earth supersonic bomber since used swing wing), we'll never know about the avionics they never even made it to the test bench. So fuel consumption, stability and avionics - the three things F-111 discovered were the big expensive problems and needed lots of extra development (1968-1970 for the F-111) - and we are to take Beamont's word the much smaller British Aviation industry, with less money, less R&D support would have had no problems getting TSR.2 into squadron service? He tells us it was pretty much perfect out of the box - yet he mentions problems with the delivery and reliability of the engine, he mentions the landing gear issues "less said the better!" - didn't mention the fuel system was so bad vibration in running two pumps meant only one reheat could be used at a time, didn't mention the aircraft was never flown in its most difficult regime (under 200ft at over M:1), and never had its avionics even close to being fitted - so perfect seems a ways off. The blame laid on the Labour Government fails to take into account the disastrous policies of the Macmillian and Home Conservative governments before them - The 1957 Defence review which gutted the aviation industry and the subsequent forced amalgamations of the competition companies. They cancelled so many promising aircraft and missiles (FD.2, P.1121, SR.177, F.155T, black Valiant, thin wing Javelin, thin wing Vulcan). Labour cancelled the TSR.2 and the F-111K and began development of the turbofan, swing wing AFVG which turned into the MRCA, which turned into the Tornado - fifteen years later. So much spin on this machine.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a cliche to say that this, that or the other thing was years ahead of its time, but in the case of the TSR2, it really was.
Same story with the Arrow. Us DOD promoting different systems and couldn't have a k1ller like the Arrow coming from another country.
Indeed...the Arrow could have been an exceptional aircraft.
@@militaryaviationtv But no better than a lot of others. It was a pretty potent airplane, but the F106 was at least as good.
I don't believe the F111 was a flop. The TSR2 was a class act that should never have been abandoned.
It certainly had a troubled history, but was still flying and still doing a valuable job into the 21st century.
Britain missed an enormous opportunity, not only in terms of technological ability but also in overseas sales.
First time I've seen the footage of the tiptoe landing.
All at Boscombe Down
Seeing how Russia has kicked up again, I think a 21st century tsr2 could come in handy.
If things had worked out, the original TSR.2 may still have been in service...
Or the latest version
It would of been tsr4 or something now.
Yes, indeed with mid-life upgrades, it would now have the latest avionics, engines and weapons fit. Oh, what might have been...
Ahead of its time.. Observe the planes behind the taxiing Tsr2.. Including a few Vulcans, a Hastings and i'm sure i glimpsed a Bristol Shaker..!! 🤔🤗
But yet, the TSR.2 was just *TOO* limited in operational capability because it was primarily designed as a _nuclear_ weapons delivery platform. The Panavia Tornado that the RAF finally got from 1980 on could carry more (and a much wider range) of weapons and because it was a true variable geometry design with thrust-reverser equipped engines, could operate out of shorter runways, too.
You make some interesting point, @Sacto1654, but remember the Tornado was designed about 20 ish years after TSR 2, and in that time defence requirements changed.
@@militaryaviationtv But the RAF still needed a replacement for the rapidly-aging Canberra bomber by the early 1960's. They should have taken up Blackburn's offer of a larger, more capable version of the Buccaneer, which would have made it a very potent low-altitude interdiction platform and be operational by 1968.
The RAF tried again with the Anglo-French AFVG project, but when that idea was dropped, they _finally_ joined the Panavia consortium in 1969, which resulted in the Tornado, the Canberra replacement that the RAF so desperately needed (and ten years later arriving than originally anticipated).
An ex artillery chap who served in the Royal Observer Corps with me told me one TSR2 finished up on a range at Shoeburyness . No idea if that was correct .
At least one of the three prototypes ended up there -the other two are in museums.
Only two complete airframes survived. One is in the RAF Museum at RAF Cosford, the other is in the Imperial War Museum at Duxford.
I believe the one taken to Shoeburyness was the only TSR2 that flew before being destroyed by gunfire testing, I believe the one at Cosford was the second one that was due to fly on the day of the cancellation and was impounded and never flew the one at Duxford was part built and somehow survived
sadly it was found out that we had run out of cash.
The mistake was that the Super Buccaneer was not developed to its full potential. The Buccaneer was found out to be cheaper, faster and better at low level than the F111. As with all aircraft its the SAM that causes the problem.
Not forgetting that the famed Duncan Sands Tory MP sounded the death knell for manned aircraft and unfortunately that mindset was embedded in the with the Defence Procurement side of government which of course was music to the ears for cancellation.
In life, they say timing is everything, it was just the wrong time for TSR.2...sadly.
@@militaryaviationtv Perhaps as with the Jaguar the French could have been brought on board to get it over the line, as Roland B said in the interview, the French Government believe and fund their aircraft industry.
Wott a tear .Engines 4 Concorde ., First , Dave
the aircraft that should have been. we are going to find the same with the typhoon and f35. the f35 is going to become a burden with unreliability and low payload for little gain compared to the typhoon leaving us dependent on the americans
Whittle a masterSo waa Issambard .
Some of the things he says about the F-111 are not true.
1. Britain was given a fixed price, so all cost over runs would have fallen on the U.S.
2. The F-111 worked very well. It killed more tanks in 1991 Persian Gulf War than any other collation aircraft. Even though other type of aircraft were present in larger numbers.
3. Only the Naval F-111B wasn't going to work. Both the USAF and the US Navy knew this. US Navy left the program as soon as they could. It had been Robert McNamara's idea. The US Navy then got the F-14 instead.
Not mentioned but important. The terrain following radar allowed the F-111 to fly at very low altitude at night and in the weather. no other aircraft in the world could do that, including the TSR-2.
Over budget it may have been - but I can't help but think (beyond the politics of Jenkins, Mountbatten and many others) that the budget argument was so short sighted. As Beamont said, the aircraft had the potential to be continuously updated, particularly as technology ensured equipment became smaller. Thus the government would have got incredible value for money from a multi role aircraft that would have been in service for a very long time.
The F111 scenario is also extraordinary - government climbing into bed with another high tech (and this time swing wing!) aircraft still being developed, with spiraling costs that resulted in cancellation appears to be a good example of TSR2 events repeating themselves. Farcical.
The main value of the TSR2 would have been as a testbed for prolonged Mach 2 flight. The Concorde suffered from the lack of a prior testbed
(a) Concorde was forced to use high take off and landing speeds due to the lack of compressor air blown wings, allowing high angles of attack, with much lower take off and landing speeds.
(b) Supersonic boom neutralization : TSR2 would have been a suitably sized testbed.
(c) Once Mach 2 flight was developed, Mach 4 would be the next step, allowing Trans Pacific range.
Had the TSR ever made it to production it would, no doubt, have been a national scandal. A vastly expensive piece of kit with a limited role.
It was too limited as primarily a _nuclear_ bomber. The Brits were lucky they were able to get into the Panavia consortium, which produced a combat that was much superior to the TSR.2 with the Tornado, which could carry up to 16,000 lb. of various weapons loads and could operate out of shorter runways, too.
Of coursei it's impossible not to admire Roly Beamont. But some of the received opinion and consensus around the TSR2 goes largely unquestioned and unchallenged. The F111 conspiracy theory is not exactly replete with evidence (although the complete destruction of the airframes and tooling is very odd). And his point about the Falklands seems mildly unhinged.
The Australian experience with the F111 wasn’t a raging success.
Your “received opinion and consensus “ is what exactly ?
@@californiadreamin8423 The received opinion, which seems to be subject to almost no qualification, is that the TSR2 would have been a tremendous success. We don't know that - and it had a lot of systems that were entirely untested (much like the F111). I think that has led to a lot of overclaiming for it.
@@mookie2637 I stick with the assessment of Roland Beaumont who previously was the test pilot for the Canberra, and Lightning.
@@californiadreamin8423 I know who Roly Beamont was. His long and excellent record does not mean that his assessment should go unquestioned - especially with the benefit of hindsight around the development difficulties of similar aircraft and systems.
@@mookie2637 ….whatever.
Would of, could of, should of...
Wahhhhhh.
I have enormous respect for Roly Beamont and his achievements, but he's talking utter rubbish here.
The conspiracy is nonsense, the deal before Denis Healy in 1965 was something like £195 million for maybe 20-30 x TSR.2 by 1971 or for the same money 110 x F-111K by 1969.
If the TSR.2 was chosen, the RAF would be flying a tiny number of unique aircraft with no export potential, no NATO commonality in systems and weapons, the running costs would have been immense. Beamont talks as if the money side of things was unimportant.
The F-111 programme did indeed run into problems, for the British mostly financial. The idea the TSR.2 would not have suffered any more increasing costs between 1965 and 1971 when its original budget had tripled between 1955-1965 is laughable.
Despite its early failures and remedies, F-111 was in squadron service, meeting all its design requirements and serving well in the Vietnam War within ten years of a contract being signed. TSR.2 had just 24 test flights (at low weight, with no avionics, none in full operational mission profile) after ten years of development and required another six years to get into service.
As a result of its long gestation, the TSR.2 was old technology (1955) when it flew (1964) - Beamont keeps mentioning how they had spent ten years making this aircraft only to be cancelled - ridiculous! Reminds me of John Belushi in Animal House when he's expelled "Six years of college wasted!"
TSR.2 was terribly inefficient and obsolete in 1965 - turbojets against the F-111K's turbofans (every nap of the earth supersonic bomber since has used turbofans) skinny low drag, low aspect wing, not a swing wing (every nap of the earth supersonic bomber since used swing wing), we'll never know about the avionics they never even made it to the test bench.
So fuel consumption, stability and avionics - the three things F-111 discovered were the big expensive problems and needed lots of extra development (1968-1970 for the F-111) - and we are to take Beamont's word the much smaller British Aviation industry, with less money, less R&D support would have had no problems getting TSR.2 into squadron service?
He tells us it was pretty much perfect out of the box - yet he mentions problems with the delivery and reliability of the engine, he mentions the landing gear issues "less said the better!" - didn't mention the fuel system was so bad vibration in running two pumps meant only one reheat could be used at a time, didn't mention the aircraft was never flown in its most difficult regime (under 200ft at over M:1), and never had its avionics even close to being fitted - so perfect seems a ways off.
The blame laid on the Labour Government fails to take into account the disastrous policies of the Macmillian and Home Conservative governments before them - The 1957 Defence review which gutted the aviation industry and the subsequent forced amalgamations of the competition companies. They cancelled so many promising aircraft and missiles (FD.2, P.1121, SR.177, F.155T, black Valiant, thin wing Javelin, thin wing Vulcan).
Labour cancelled the TSR.2 and the F-111K and began development of the turbofan, swing wing AFVG which turned into the MRCA, which turned into the Tornado - fifteen years later.
So much spin on this machine.