- Joined
- 27 March 2006
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- 1,311
Not wanting to derail the thread, but were there any plans or studies to give the Vigilante a more conventional weapons bay?
BAC TSR2
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,387
- Reaction score
- 1,216
Indeed. The point is about standardizing format within our own personal database. That is under our control and the benefits are immediate. Trying to organize the rest of the world is not.
- Joined
- 26 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 2,705
Tyres and tarmac.
- Joined
- 26 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 2,705
There's also the small matter of each publisher's style guide. Eg Key books and Key mags different approach to NATO reporting names.
Probably more down to individual editors in the former case.
Chris
Maybe there is a clue in subsequent developments. There was a twin rack developed for Tornado, which were then carried one behind the other on each pylon.
I imagine the layout of the bombs would be the same (two bombs side by side with another two side by side behind). But the actual mechanism of attaching them to the pylon in that arrangement will presumably remain unknown (if indeed no work was authorised on the matter).
Come to think of it I'm struggling to come up with any existing rack (short of the massive ones used on the B-52) which would allow 4 x 1,000 lb bombs to be carried on a wing pylon. The American MER rack held 6 x 500 lb bombs (apparently 1,000 lb ones are to long to fit in tandem on it - but I haven't properly looked into it) and the Tornado carried 4 x 1,000 lb bombs on the shoulder pylons which were fixed to the fuselage.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,327
- Reaction score
- 7,517
I suspect a twin tandem beam would have been feasible given the space under the wing - but any asymmetric hang-ups would have been a nightmare!
As I've said in another thread, there is no doubt about it - the TSR.2 would have been in A&AEE and CTTO hands well into the 1970s clearing all these weapons releases with the various pylons and adapters in all configurations (asymmetric loads etc.).
As I've said in another thread, there is no doubt about it - the TSR.2 would have been in A&AEE and CTTO hands well into the 1970s clearing all these weapons releases with the various pylons and adapters in all configurations (asymmetric loads etc.).
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 6,030
- Reaction score
- 4,899
Ah, they did look at the A3J Vigilante and didn't like the lack of conventional payload. Makes sense.
I'm picturing a larger version of the SDB pallet.
- Joined
- 20 January 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 920
Joe #191: " An early A3J-1 Vigilante was examined by Vickers design staff at Boscombe Down, the engineers notably being impressed by the types panel accessibility". Neither V-A nor RAF's orphan Central Servicing Devt. Est/Swanton Morley digested much: the recent RAeS Cosford Conference has a guess of 80 maintenance man-hours per flight hour: F-111K thought to be 35.
Can we can the canard (Ha!) that Mountbatten killed TSR.2's export prospects. There never were any. Oz had no option but to cross-operate with whatever McNamara was to deploy in SE Asia. RAAF Staff Jollies to fun cities were to try to squeeze a good DoD deal. No other Ally needed long-range penetration.
Ditto to can his yen to kill TSR.2. No. He cared only to convert Min.Def. Sandys from his post-Suez perception that Strike carriers were (to quote PRC re CVF): nice target practice. That he did and Sandys bought 50 NA.39, 10/9/58. Later as CDS he had no power to tell CAS what his NATO-Area Strike type should be: he could of course promote mobile sovereign bases for East of Suez, WE177A on Buccaneer S.2.
Canberra was multi-role, one for all, so when US Mutual Security funds dried for any follow-on production, and when Sandys failed to extract US Mutual Weapons Devt. Prog. $ for TSR.2 (as he did for NA.39), £ must buy the whole Defence budget, so down it must go.
New Ministers 17/10/64 inherited 50 materials sets on order (1 flown) towards ever-decreasing schemes down to 100-ish, with no RAF enthusiasm: CAS had told Minister Thorneycroft he did not want it - in NATO, F-4D+US Bombs, please; NEAF/FEAF...don't really know.
So the new Ministers took F-4D; Min of Aviation caused that to be fewer Spey/F-4M/US Bombs + a wing of P.1127(RAF) for Central Front.
PM Wilson then offered BAC unprecedented Prime Contractor scope to deliver the 50 for NEAF/FEAF, Red Beard until AWRE could load out some SSBNs, then WE177A. GR Edwards told Vickers Board (after chop) that he had offered a no-profit deal, but declined the ceiling sum PM offered, which was more than McNamara offered for 50 F-111K - on credit.. So GRE killed TSR.2. He dared not take the route Lockheed in 1971 would take on C-5A and threaten bankruptcy when the money ran out: he knew that would not work.
Can we can the canard (Ha!) that Mountbatten killed TSR.2's export prospects. There never were any. Oz had no option but to cross-operate with whatever McNamara was to deploy in SE Asia. RAAF Staff Jollies to fun cities were to try to squeeze a good DoD deal. No other Ally needed long-range penetration.
Ditto to can his yen to kill TSR.2. No. He cared only to convert Min.Def. Sandys from his post-Suez perception that Strike carriers were (to quote PRC re CVF): nice target practice. That he did and Sandys bought 50 NA.39, 10/9/58. Later as CDS he had no power to tell CAS what his NATO-Area Strike type should be: he could of course promote mobile sovereign bases for East of Suez, WE177A on Buccaneer S.2.
Canberra was multi-role, one for all, so when US Mutual Security funds dried for any follow-on production, and when Sandys failed to extract US Mutual Weapons Devt. Prog. $ for TSR.2 (as he did for NA.39), £ must buy the whole Defence budget, so down it must go.
New Ministers 17/10/64 inherited 50 materials sets on order (1 flown) towards ever-decreasing schemes down to 100-ish, with no RAF enthusiasm: CAS had told Minister Thorneycroft he did not want it - in NATO, F-4D+US Bombs, please; NEAF/FEAF...don't really know.
So the new Ministers took F-4D; Min of Aviation caused that to be fewer Spey/F-4M/US Bombs + a wing of P.1127(RAF) for Central Front.
PM Wilson then offered BAC unprecedented Prime Contractor scope to deliver the 50 for NEAF/FEAF, Red Beard until AWRE could load out some SSBNs, then WE177A. GR Edwards told Vickers Board (after chop) that he had offered a no-profit deal, but declined the ceiling sum PM offered, which was more than McNamara offered for 50 F-111K - on credit.. So GRE killed TSR.2. He dared not take the route Lockheed in 1971 would take on C-5A and threaten bankruptcy when the money ran out: he knew that would not work.
Last edited:
Apparently TSRII is also a variation on the name. Seems the Aussies came up with that one.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,637
Alertken Thank you for laying bare various TSR2 myths.
So the Valiant/Canberra role with B43 was transfered to the F4 and the 50 TFX with WE177 for the Far East became the F111K order.
The 48 Vulcan B2 left after Blue Steel is out of service by 1970 are initially split between UK and Cyprus. The Heath government temporarily gave them a Far East reinforcement role.
Replacing the F4 in RAFG and 38 Group Air Support Command falls to Jaguar after the Heath Government 1970 White Paper. Was this planned sooner or was AFVG the envisaged F4 replacement.
Looks clear that TSR2, (and 1154/681) would have died even if the Tories had squeaked home in 64. F4 and C130 should probably have been chosen earlier.
Does Jaguar ever csrry B43?
So the Valiant/Canberra role with B43 was transfered to the F4 and the 50 TFX with WE177 for the Far East became the F111K order.
The 48 Vulcan B2 left after Blue Steel is out of service by 1970 are initially split between UK and Cyprus. The Heath government temporarily gave them a Far East reinforcement role.
Replacing the F4 in RAFG and 38 Group Air Support Command falls to Jaguar after the Heath Government 1970 White Paper. Was this planned sooner or was AFVG the envisaged F4 replacement.
Looks clear that TSR2, (and 1154/681) would have died even if the Tories had squeaked home in 64. F4 and C130 should probably have been chosen earlier.
Does Jaguar ever csrry B43?
- Joined
- 20 January 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 920
Your Q about US Bombs has been missed by others. It is core to a/c types and numbers.
When Healey committed 17/5/65 to 200 Jags and 175 AFVG he was also dealing with silly-sized RAF bids for F-4s, to settle later as 118. What has not been explored by others is...What AW would Labour buy? The Election Manifesto had defused their CND wing with the formula "(We) are not prepared (to waste) resources on endless duplication of (US) strategic (AW: misheard as: no new UK AW)”. Their first decision was to proceed with 4xSSBNs to patrol from 1969: he was told that meant (4x16x3) 192 warheads plus the maintenance pool. From 2/53, when PM WSC put fission Blue Danube into production, to (30/4/65) MoS had supplied 320 AW to RAF/RN, who on that day had on hand 146, plus 64 US Bombs in RAFG (BAOR had access to 104 US warheads). No way, Jose, could AWRE/ROF do SSBNs, replace US Bombs in RAFG, while meeting a shopping list in 00s for light WE177A on RN Buccs, FEAF F-111K, as NDB, and much more. No new AW?
So: obvious next decision, rollover RAFG's US Bombs onto F-4M. (So, 60xB57 opnl. 1/7/70, days after he left Office). Gain UK sovereignty in RAFG with AFVG/WE177B. On 29/6/67 nice Marcel D deleted AFVG; on 16/1/68 Cabinet deleted EoS, so F-111K.
UK AW production workload could now equip RAFG c. '72: so: new+ex-EoS RN Buccs; redefine (most) UK Jags as S: all with WE177B (became C, opnl Bucc 31/12/72, Jag 1/12/75) which could (honestly) be presented as not new. F-4Ms to replace Lightnings and iron Attack.
None of this was a Grand Plan. Much fissile material for WE177s came from salvage and from an SSBN loadout, when someone noticed we could not crew 4 SSBNs. so: no new AW.
So: my A to your Qs: AFVG was to replace AW F-4Ms and NEAF/FEAF reroled Vulcans; no effort to hang US Bombs on Jag. (Italy would do Atlantic NDB, Italy and FRG B61/Tornado, so painful that FRG has just selected F-35A for its AW Task, and not to attempt B61/Typhoon).
When Healey committed 17/5/65 to 200 Jags and 175 AFVG he was also dealing with silly-sized RAF bids for F-4s, to settle later as 118. What has not been explored by others is...What AW would Labour buy? The Election Manifesto had defused their CND wing with the formula "(We) are not prepared (to waste) resources on endless duplication of (US) strategic (AW: misheard as: no new UK AW)”. Their first decision was to proceed with 4xSSBNs to patrol from 1969: he was told that meant (4x16x3) 192 warheads plus the maintenance pool. From 2/53, when PM WSC put fission Blue Danube into production, to (30/4/65) MoS had supplied 320 AW to RAF/RN, who on that day had on hand 146, plus 64 US Bombs in RAFG (BAOR had access to 104 US warheads). No way, Jose, could AWRE/ROF do SSBNs, replace US Bombs in RAFG, while meeting a shopping list in 00s for light WE177A on RN Buccs, FEAF F-111K, as NDB, and much more. No new AW?
So: obvious next decision, rollover RAFG's US Bombs onto F-4M. (So, 60xB57 opnl. 1/7/70, days after he left Office). Gain UK sovereignty in RAFG with AFVG/WE177B. On 29/6/67 nice Marcel D deleted AFVG; on 16/1/68 Cabinet deleted EoS, so F-111K.
UK AW production workload could now equip RAFG c. '72: so: new+ex-EoS RN Buccs; redefine (most) UK Jags as S: all with WE177B (became C, opnl Bucc 31/12/72, Jag 1/12/75) which could (honestly) be presented as not new. F-4Ms to replace Lightnings and iron Attack.
None of this was a Grand Plan. Much fissile material for WE177s came from salvage and from an SSBN loadout, when someone noticed we could not crew 4 SSBNs. so: no new AW.
So: my A to your Qs: AFVG was to replace AW F-4Ms and NEAF/FEAF reroled Vulcans; no effort to hang US Bombs on Jag. (Italy would do Atlantic NDB, Italy and FRG B61/Tornado, so painful that FRG has just selected F-35A for its AW Task, and not to attempt B61/Typhoon).
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,327
- Reaction score
- 7,517
Can confirm, no B43 for Jaguar. They only ever carried WE.177A and WE.177C.
Interestingly, at the recent RAF Historical Society Jaguar symposium, one speaker claimed that although he knew the WE.177A was variable yield, the actual yields of the A and C were never divulged to the pilots.
I've recently read some of the released files on the Jag's nuclear role at Kew.
They didn't bother issuing the pilots with eyepatches, some scientist reckoned the reaction time of a typical blink would be sufficient to save the pilot's retinas from flashes en-route and he should recover full vision within 80 seconds!
The boffins weren't worried about the blast or overpressure from a lobbed WE.177, but they were worried the heat might char the inside of the cockpit if the pilot cocked up his escape manoeuvre!
Presumably the TSR.2's golden canopies might have mitigated some of these issues?
Interestingly, at the recent RAF Historical Society Jaguar symposium, one speaker claimed that although he knew the WE.177A was variable yield, the actual yields of the A and C were never divulged to the pilots.
I've recently read some of the released files on the Jag's nuclear role at Kew.
They didn't bother issuing the pilots with eyepatches, some scientist reckoned the reaction time of a typical blink would be sufficient to save the pilot's retinas from flashes en-route and he should recover full vision within 80 seconds!
The boffins weren't worried about the blast or overpressure from a lobbed WE.177, but they were worried the heat might char the inside of the cockpit if the pilot cocked up his escape manoeuvre!
Presumably the TSR.2's golden canopies might have mitigated some of these issues?
- Joined
- 26 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 2,705
- Joined
- 20 January 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 920
Mushroom Style of Management: keep them in the dark and feed them on (manure).
(we plan for UK stores in all MBF by 6/61 {to be 1/4/62} as US’ Bombs had) "only ½ the nominal yield (expected (Mk.5’s) advantages (cf. R.Beard) now seem to be much smaller. (12/60 policy of) use of US bombs (we believed they) were (in) MT class. But it had been established (they are in kT) range” Wynn,RAF Nuc Deterrent Forces, Pp.266/270:
So, wef 2/7/59 all TBF, wef 10/58 much MBF, 10/59 all RAFG carried unknown yield! Rhodes,DarkSun,P567: USAF Gen LeMay ,’55 denied UK's “real need to know” his targets, so we had no idea whether we were sole asset on a target, or were there to make the rubble bounce!
Not just in UK. USAF/USN were denied custody, so housekeeping maintenance of AW, which remained under civilian AEC custody until Ike's accession to the White House: "too complex for conscript armourers". USAF Bombs in UK had no "nuclear capsules" until mid-54.
(A&SPower Jnl,winter.2004; C.Finn/PD.Berg,Strategic Air PowerCo-Opn.in (Cold War), Pp.19/30/B-6
.
(we plan for UK stores in all MBF by 6/61 {to be 1/4/62} as US’ Bombs had) "only ½ the nominal yield (expected (Mk.5’s) advantages (cf. R.Beard) now seem to be much smaller. (12/60 policy of) use of US bombs (we believed they) were (in) MT class. But it had been established (they are in kT) range” Wynn,RAF Nuc Deterrent Forces, Pp.266/270:
So, wef 2/7/59 all TBF, wef 10/58 much MBF, 10/59 all RAFG carried unknown yield! Rhodes,DarkSun,P567: USAF Gen LeMay ,’55 denied UK's “real need to know” his targets, so we had no idea whether we were sole asset on a target, or were there to make the rubble bounce!
Not just in UK. USAF/USN were denied custody, so housekeeping maintenance of AW, which remained under civilian AEC custody until Ike's accession to the White House: "too complex for conscript armourers". USAF Bombs in UK had no "nuclear capsules" until mid-54.
(A&SPower Jnl,winter.2004; C.Finn/PD.Berg,Strategic Air PowerCo-Opn.in (Cold War), Pp.19/30/B-6
.
Last edited:
SeaslugMk2
'Curator' of the Seaslug website.
I am a volunteer guide in the Museum of Communication* in Burntisland** in Scotland. The museum, bizarrely perhaps, has the radar out of the TSR 2. Yesterday I managed to get some photos of it.
*It is only open to the public on Wednesdays and Saturdays, May to September.
**It's not an island, and it isn't burnt.
SRJ.
*It is only open to the public on Wednesdays and Saturdays, May to September.
**It's not an island, and it isn't burnt.
SRJ.
SeaslugMk2
'Curator' of the Seaslug website.
Three more images for your delectation. The museum also has an AI23 (I don't know which sub-model) and an RN 'double-cheese' antenna but they are at the back of one of the storerooms and I can't get to them...yet.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,637
Alertken
SACEUR appeared to set great store by the Valiant wing at Marham as a theatre delivery system for B43 weapons.
What happens next to these weapons when the Valiants are withdrawn?
Are the 48 Vulcan B2 with WE177 after 1970 a substitute or additional to this capability.for NATO SACEUR?
Did SACEUR ask for TSR2 and/or F111K to take on this theatre role with B43 or WW177?
I have always thought that NATO's requirement for UK TFX (TSR2/F111K) has never been discussed. This is odd as SACEUR always comments on narional defence contributions.
SACEUR appeared to set great store by the Valiant wing at Marham as a theatre delivery system for B43 weapons.
What happens next to these weapons when the Valiants are withdrawn?
Are the 48 Vulcan B2 with WE177 after 1970 a substitute or additional to this capability.for NATO SACEUR?
Did SACEUR ask for TSR2 and/or F111K to take on this theatre role with B43 or WW177?
I have always thought that NATO's requirement for UK TFX (TSR2/F111K) has never been discussed. This is odd as SACEUR always comments on narional defence contributions.
- Joined
- 20 January 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 920
MBF: RAF Medium Bomber Force {V-Bombers}; TBF: RAF Tactical Bomber Force (here, AW wef '59); SMF: RAF Thor Missile Force; SIOP: USAF/SAC+USN/SSBN(+MBF) Single Integrated Operational Plan; SSP: NATO Saceur's Scheduled Strike Program (unkto me: how these 2 meshed for deconfliction).
Sources: academic Works by P.Hennessy, R.Moore, K.Stoddart, M.Jones, H.Wynn, J.Walker/RUSI, laid by me against A/c and Squadron published data: that required some extrapolation, even assumptions, so is open to your flak. The politics come from Memoirs and narrative Histories. Forum Member bri has nuclearweaponsinfo which must be digested before delving deeper into UK AW: all there is Evidenced.
Sources: academic Works by P.Hennessy, R.Moore, K.Stoddart, M.Jones, H.Wynn, J.Walker/RUSI, laid by me against A/c and Squadron published data: that required some extrapolation, even assumptions, so is open to your flak. The politics come from Memoirs and narrative Histories. Forum Member bri has nuclearweaponsinfo which must be digested before delving deeper into UK AW: all there is Evidenced.
25/3/57: PM Mac+Pres Ike: Bermuda, Defense Collaboration Agt, so:
24/7and 8/8/57: UK/US CAS MoU, AW ops.
2/7/59: TBF opnl. on Mk.7, 48 Bombs at Coningsby, 48 SSP targets, 4 Sqdns Canberra B.6 (though K.Darling,RAF Strike Command, C’mate, 2012, P.32 has only 9/12 Sqds (so 32 a/c) LABS-capable).
8/60: RAF in SIOP Joint Planning Staff/Omaha, so MBF (and Thor SMF) in:
1/7/61: SIOP-62
13/7/61: SSP becomes 24 Valiant, ea. 2xMk.28; 1/ 4/63: 2xB-43
23/5/63: all UK-based AW is assigned to Saceur ("save where supreme national interests are at stake" A.Pierre,Nuc.Politics,OUP,72,P.291)
Cracked wing, so grounding of Valiant was 9/12/64 (QRA to 26/1/65). PM Wilson+SoS/Def Healey were in DC talking Defence and $ to LBJ and SecDef McNamara. Maybe PM asked Healey where the wing of TSR.2 was designed. Supremely ill-timed when F-111K was on offer, McNamara talking of buying 3,000.
Marham's B-43s went into USAF/SAC, USAFE inventory (inc the F-100D Wings). PM saw this as "an opportunity for a financial saving".
What we (I) don't know is the practical effect of moving MBF 23/5/63 from SIOP to SSP. Almost exactly when Valiant bade farewell so did USAF/SAC's B-47E rotations through UK (last left 31/3/65), Spain, Morocco, with activation of Minutemen 1A ICBMs. Academic Studies trace erosion of UK AW targets from >100 to, eventually, Moscow. Some have asserted not dual- but multiple-targeting, USN/USAF/RAF.
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 5,925
Hi!
www.facebook.com
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
Attachments
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 5,925
Attachments
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 5,925
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,300
- Reaction score
- 5,925
Colonial-Marine
UAVs are now friend, drones are the real enemy.
- Joined
- 5 October 2009
- Messages
- 1,197
- Reaction score
- 712
The TSR.2 thread in the alternate history section got me looking more into the whole TSR.2 story, it's rather interesting to say the least. Wikipedia makes that claim that "later variants would have been fitted with variable geometry wings" but is there any proof to this? From my understanding variable geometry configurations were considered by some of the companies submitting proposals but I don't think any of the final offerings featured that. Given the pressure to cancel the program, and the problems on the prototypes still being resolved, I can't imagine BAC was putting much work into future variants at that time. And suggesting such a major change like that? I don't think that would have won the program any more supporters.
Similar threads
-
-
1981 TSR.2 Revival? "Tornado Style Intakes?"- Started by TinWing
- Replies: 13
-
-
