BAC TSR2

[red admiral]

It was a lot of aeroplane to deliver not very many iron HE bombs around a target, if it could find it, and if it wasn't shot down along the way.

 

[uk 75]

If Buccaneer S2 had appeared earlier rather than the disappointing Buccaneer S1 the RAF might have been less critical. After all they grew to like it once they had it.
Tornado started like as MRCA ("Must re-furbish Canberra again"). Apart from range the Fin was TSR2.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

If a more co-operative spirit had existed between the RAF and RN then there would have been the trust in the S2 and then maybe the longer range TFR capable Buccaneer Tactical Strike & Rec mk 3 for both services ...... together with a P1121 or P1116 based fighter to boot.

The fact the seniors in both services were quite happy to frequently knock chunks out of each other budget, sometimes for little more than devilment, was probably more important than any technical deficiencies.

 

[Pirate Pete]

If a more co-operative spirit had existed between the RAF and RN then there would have been the trust in the S2 and then maybe the longer range TFR capable Buccaneer Tactical Strike & Rec mk 3 for both services ...... together with a P1121 or P1116 based fighter to boot.

The fact the seniors in both services were quite happy to frequently knock chunks out of each other budget, sometimes for little more than devilment, was probably more important than any technical deficiencies.

It may be a simplistic viewpoint, but I think the 'worst' of the "knocking chunks out of each other" may have been precipitated by the infamous 1957 Defence Review.
The R.A.F. lost quite a few aircraft projects, The Army lost out badly with the end of National Service (I thing I am right in saying that they suffered the most of the three services from this), whilst the Navy came out relatively unscathed, thanks in part by Mountbatten's combination of political manoeuvring and insistence that the Naval Staff took a more pragmatic approach to their projects.
Mountbatten is frequently quoted as making statements about just how many Buccaneers could be bought for a TSR-2, so the R.A.F. had little option but retaliate, bearing in mind the writing was on the wall as far as their losing the Nuclear Deterrent role. The Airforce Staff were far more politically astute, and they very carefully never made a 'frontal' attack on the Navy, but managed to put forward better arguments in Committees, whereas the Navy in effect (and this REALLY IS over simplification) kept saying "well, we are the Navy so it should be so-and-so". The Navy case became even worse with the side-lining of Mountbatten and his subsequent retirement.

 

[zen]

RAF had been throwing attacks at the NA.39 Buccaneers stating it was cheaper to develop the Scimitar.
Obvious flaw being the RAF not opting for Scimitar variants for ground attack and MRI at that time. Which could have given much needed cost savings and breathing room to decide on NMBR.3.....

 

[robunos]

Regarding TSR.2 vs. Buccaneer, it's always been my understanding that the main thrust of the Navy's argument was 'Yes, you can buy six Buccaneers for the price of one TSR.2, but in order for those Buccaneers to do what the TSR.2 can do, you also need to buy an aircraft carrier and it's escorts and support ships, in other words MOAR SHIPS!, which is what we really want . . .'

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

As Hood has rightfully pointed out over in this thread, and in the thread I posted about the V-Bombers earlier this week, the TSR-2 was heavily reliant on technologies that would have quickly become obsolescent by the 1970s, such as analogue computers and turbojets such as the Bristol Olympus. How would this have affected the aircraft had it entered service? How hard would it have been to replace the avionics?

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://sobchak.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/cutaway-bac-tsr2/
https://www.pinterest.jp/bradbeyerle/aircraft-cutaway/

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://www.goodfon.com/wallpaper/bac-tsr-2-jet-art-airplane-aviation.html
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/492520-bac-tsr2-the-last-british-bomber/
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/xJ20EY
https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/bac-tsr-2

 

[blackkite]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PSvAoy88yU

 

[CJGibson]

Regarding TSR.2 vs. Buccaneer, it's always been my understanding that the main thrust of the Navy's argument was 'Yes, you can buy six Buccaneers for the price of one TSR.2, but in order for those Buccaneers to do what the TSR.2 can do, you also need to buy an aircraft carrier and it's escorts and support ships, in other words MOAR SHIPS!, which is what we really want . . .'

cheers,
Robin.

Speaking of the 'one of these or five of those' story...

Has anyone ever seen Mountbatten's famous playing cards?
Is the story true (given Mountbatten's talent for bigging himself up)?
What was its provenance?
Is wrestling fixed?

Chris

 

[Anderman]

The TSR.2 was powered by a variant of the Olympus turbojet, how would the combat range increased if it would be powered by a turbofan like the conway or spey variant.
IIRC the bucaneer s2 had a much larger combat range then s1 variant.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The TSR.2 was powered by a variant of the Olympus turbojet, how would the combat range increased if it would be powered by a turbofan like the conway or spey variant.
IIRC the bucaneer s2 had a much larger combat range then s1 variant.

The Medway was considered early on in the design process.

 

[robunos]

Has anyone ever seen Mountbatten's famous playing cards?
Is the story true (given Mountbatten's talent for bigging himself up)?
What was its provenance?

I read that it was photographs, that he would produce from his briefcase with a flourish onto the table . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Anderman]

The TSR.2 was powered by a variant of the Olympus turbojet, how would the combat range increased if it would be powered by a turbofan like the conway or spey variant.
IIRC the bucaneer s2 had a much larger combat range then s1 variant.

The Medway was considered early on in the design process.

I read that on Wikipedia but my main question is how much more range would a turbofan given the TSR.2 fuel capacity stay the same.

The german Wikipedia states the the range nearly double for the Buccaneer after the switch to RR Spey turbofans.

Blackburn Buccaneer – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Remember a lot of the Buccaneer’s S2 range improvement came from a larger fuel uplift;- maybe up to 5000lbs more than the S1. Part of this was due to the big increase in engine power thus being able to accelerate safely off the carrier deck (a significant S1 limitation). And both S1 and S2 had aerodynamic’s optimised for the same speed range.

TSR2 with Medway at approx the same thrust ;- Yes an increased range but wave bye bye to the Mach 2 low level cruise, (Mach 2 maybe in a dive), now the low level cruise would be say Mach 1.2 especially with an enlarged but partially variable intake. A fully variable intake would be essential to restore high Mach cruise (Concorde/Tornado) but adds mass which knocks down fuel load assuming it’s take off is mass caped. If unoptimised, intake drag would increase quite a bit, and the small wing area (Supersonic optimised) would impede the range increase to a lot less than that of the Buccaneer, maybe as little as 5-10%. The analysis is a bit more complex still because turbofan’s are quite thirsty at both high altitude and high Mach number ie the transit part of the profile .

 

[red admiral]

Looking at the uninstalled SFC figures I'd estimate 15-20% better range for Medway vs Olympus as the SFC difference will decrease with higher speed and use of reheat. No thrust increase so can't carry a heavier fuel load.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Australian TSR.2 requirement

NAA A4940, C3852
Selection of a Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft as replacement for the Canberras of the RAAF [F4C and RF4C, Mirage IVA, RA5C, TSR2, TFX (F111), bomber, fighter] [392 pages]

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

Selection of a Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft as replacement for the Canberras of the RAAF [F4C and RF4C, Mirage IVA, RA5C, TSR2, TFX (F111), bomber, fighter - includes 'Report of the Evaluation Team on a strike/ reconnaisance aircraft for the RAAF, Department of Air, August 1963', and photographs of the final assembly of the first aircraft] [83 pages]

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

 

[Yellow Palace]

Is the name "Eagle" for the BAC TSR-2 speculation and/or enthusiast invention? Is there a possibility that the TSR-2 might have been given a "V" name and have been part of the V-bombers since it could deliver tactical nuclear weapons? Would the aircraft's designation have been GR.1 for "Ground attack/Reconnaissance"? TSR.1 for "Tactical Strike/Reconnaissance" Mark 1 or SR.1 for "Strike/Reconnaissance" Mark 1? Do I understand correctly that TSR-2 was a designation given by BAC to the aircraft? Or would the aircraft have been given the designation TSR.2 by the Ministry of Defence?

Very belatedly... my guess is RB.1, based purely on the fact that the aircraft was built to Air Ministry Specification RB.192. In most cases of a service aircraft built to such a specification, the role prefix has corresponded to that of the specification.

Selection of a Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft as replacement for the Canberras of the RAAF [F4C and RF4C, Mirage IVA, RA5C, TSR2, TFX (F111), bomber, fighter - includes 'Report of the Evaluation Team on a strike/ reconnaisance aircraft for the RAAF, Department of Air, August 1963', and photographs of the final assembly of the first aircraft] [83 pages]

The detail in there on the planned war role of the RAAF's light bombers and the associated mission profiles is extremely interesting, and really shows the need for range in that theatre of operations. The prospect of suppressing an airfield at a thousand miles radius with only one or two squadrons available must have had some Australian mission planners looking longingly at the buckets of instant sunshine.

It's interesting to see that for all the RAAF's shortcomings about the capability of the TSR2, it's actually cost, schedule, and risk that really killed it as a competitor.

 

[flateric]

May I ask a stupid question
TSR.2, TSR2 or TSR-2?
I presume official documents tend to use all three designations.

 

[Hood]

TSR.2, TSR2 or TSR-2?

You forgot T.S.R.2!


Official documents are only as accurate as the typist who typed them. It's not uncommon to see all of these variations.
Even BAC can appear between documents as BAC or B.A.C.

This is why designation pedantry can be so fruitless because often there is no way of knowing what is the 'official' way actually was because nobody at the time had a clue either.

 

[Yellow Palace]

TSR/2 also apparently gets some use, and may even be the original - though not necessarily authentic or genuine! - name.

 

[dan_inbox]

This is why designation pedantry can be so fruitless because often there is no way of knowing what is the 'official' way actually was because nobody at the time had a clue either.

Absolutely yes. No point in chasing an "official" form.

However, for people like us who keep their own database, it is very important to make a decision on the format we use, and to implement it meticulously in naming our files.
Then applications like Everything (www.voidtools.com) become a very effective help.

This kind of format consistency is also helpful for designation qualifiers, like Mark 3, Mark III, Mk 3, etc. Personally I settled on the format "Mk3", but any format is good as long as we stick to it.

(Format consistency is one of the common techniques between IT management and Intel analysis)

 

[Flame2512]

You forgot T.S.R.2!

T.S.R.2 is the version of the name that is printed on the aircrew manual, maintenance manual, sales brochure, and a report on the aircraft's performance that I've seen.

All of those documents originated from BAC. So I'm leaning towards that being the "official" name from BAC's perspective. Or at least one that they tried to standardise to at one point.

As you say though you could make a strong case for plenty of other names being the "official" one.

 

[Flame2512]

Australian TSR.2 requirement

NAA A4940, C3852
Selection of a Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft as replacement for the Canberras of the RAAF [F4C and RF4C, Mirage IVA, RA5C, TSR2, TFX (F111), bomber, fighter] [392 pages]

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

Selection of a Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft as replacement for the Canberras of the RAAF [F4C and RF4C, Mirage IVA, RA5C, TSR2, TFX (F111), bomber, fighter - includes 'Report of the Evaluation Team on a strike/ reconnaisance aircraft for the RAAF, Department of Air, August 1963', and photographs of the final assembly of the first aircraft] [83 pages]

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

Very Interesting. Thank you.

One thing which caught my eye was this paragraph:


That's the first mention I've seen of two (presumably 1,000 lb) bombs being carried on each wing pylon. Does anyone have any more information about that? I always TSR.2 would only carry a single bomb on each pylon; I assume two bombs would likely have been carried in tandem like on the Jaguar?

 

[Yellow Palace]

That's the first mention I've seen of two (presumably 1,000 lb) bombs being carried on each wing pylon. Does anyone have any more information about that? I always TSR.2 would only carry a single bomb on each pylon; I assume two bombs would likely have been carried in tandem like on the Jaguar?

AFAIK, the inner pylons were planned to take three 1,000-pound bombs on triple ejector racks, but the outer ones could only take one.

 

[TsrJoe]

ML. Aviation twin store carrier (large) could be fitted to underwing pylons
2x Triple stores carrier could be fitted in TSR.2 bomb bay for HE. weapons

 

[Scott Kenny]

I get why people love the TSR2, it's a gorgeous plane. So gorgeous it even got to star in an Anime (Stratos-4), though it was doing weird things like zero-length-launch, high altitude intercept of falling rocks, using nukes. And because anime, with female pilots in compression G-suits, in a motorcycle cockpit. All the fan service!

But aside from National Prestige, is there a reason that they didn't look at the A3J Vigilante? 974 mile combat radius, carrying roughly 1-3x ~2000lb class weapons. Designed as a low level nuclear bomber in 1956, and introduced by the USN in 1961.

 

[Flame2512]

But aside from National Prestige, is there a reason that they didn't look at the A3J Vigilante? 974 mile combat radius, carrying roughly 1-3x ~2000lb class weapons. Designed as a low level nuclear bomber in 1956, and introduced by the USN in 1961.

The government set very ambitious requirements for TSR.2 which the A-5 Vigilante wouldn't have been able to meet, so that would have ruled it out at the start of the programme. By the end of the programme technology had moved on and the F-111 would have been a better option (ignoring price perhaps).

These are the main limitations I can think of for the A-5 compared to the RAF requirements for TSR.2 (based on the A-5C model):

• The internal bomb bay could only be used for a single nuclear bomb (no option to use it for conventional ordnance).
• Therefore any conventional ordnance (or additional nuclear ordnance) must be carried externally at the expense of range.
• The maximum external load is 4 bombs (which would be 1,000 lb in RAF service). That is less than both TSR.2 and Canberra, but I guess not a deal-breaker as the original requirement was 4 x 1,000 lb.
• It's too slow. If I recall correctly the RAF wanted the option of a Mach 1.1 sprint at sea level, but the A-5 tops out at just over Mach 1.0
• It can only reach the required 1,000 nm (HI-LO-HI) if drop tanks are carried on all four wing pylons, limiting it to a single internal nuclear weapon and no conventional option.
• If you carry four conventional bombs externally the HI-LO-HI range drops to less than 600 nm

 

[TsrJoe]

overseas types assessed (on paper) re GOR.339 specification, 1957 ;

Bell D.188 VTO.
Convair B.58 Hustler
Douglas B.66 Destroyer
Republic F.105F Thunderchief
Martin B.68 delta (GOR.154)
North American A3J Vigilante & Retaliator

the assessment study was a comparison as to how the current state of art would match against the GOR.339 specification. (It was noted the NA. A3J came very close)

An early A3J-1 Vigilante was examined by Vickers design staff at Boscombe Down, the engineers notably being impressed by the types panel accessibility. The aircraft was part of a large US.contingient at the Paris Air Salon show.

 

[Flame2512]

AFAIK, the inner pylons were planned to take three 1,000-pound bombs on triple ejector racks, but the outer ones could only take one.

That would make more sense. Not seen any mention of triple racks on the TSR.2 before though. The max load always seems to get quoted as 10 x 1,000 lb.

 

[Yellow Palace]

That would make more sense. Not seen any mention of triple racks on the TSR.2 before though. The max load always seems to get quoted as 10 x 1,000 lb.

Looks like I've misremembered - by March 1965 it was considered that the inner wing pylons could carry four 1,000-pound bombs, for a maximum total load of 16 - one on each outer wing, four on each inner wing, and six internal.

 

[Flame2512]

Looks like I've misremembered - by March 1965 it was considered that the inner wing pylons could carry four 1,000-pound bombs, for a maximum total load of 16 - one on each outer wing, four on each inner wing, and six internal.

Cool. That would line up with AVIA 65/2331 which lists the maximum payload of TSR.2 as 16,000 lb. I thought that was a mistake / typo when I first read it as it seemed so far off from the 10,000 lb figure I'd seen quoted anywhere else.

Where did that information come from? I don't suppose there is any indication of what form such a loadout would take?

 

[Yellow Palace]

Cool. That would line up with AVIA 65/2331 which lists the maximum payload of TSR.2 as 16,000 lb. I thought that was a mistake / typo when I first read it as it seemed so far off from the 10,000 lb figure I'd seen quoted anywhere else.

Where did that information come from? I don't suppose there is any indication of what form such a loadout would take?

That's in Damien Burke's TSR.2 Britain's Lost Bomber, which as far as I know is still the definitive work. There's a nice copy of the loadout chart from the brochure in there.

 

[Flame2512]

That's in Damien Burke's TSR.2 Britain's Lost Bomber, which as far as I know is still the definitive work. There's a nice copy of the loadout chart from the brochure in there.

I shall have to re-read my copy. From memory I thought the loadout chart only showed 10 x 1,000 lb. The 16,000 lb loadout as a further development might be in the text though.

 

[Hood]

T.S.R.2 is the version of the name that is printed on the aircrew manual, maintenance manual, sales brochure, and a report on the aircraft's performance that I've seen.

All of those documents originated from BAC. So I'm leaning towards that being the "official" name from BAC's perspective. Or at least one that they tried to standardise to at one point

I would agree that T.S.R.2 is probably the most likely 'official' format as most BAC documents and official documents in the early days of the programme use that format the most.
I think that's due to a hangover of English grammar in that abbreviations tended to have a full stop behind each letter, though that faded off during the 1960s (can you imagine S.E.P.E.C.A.T. !!).

This kind of format consistency is also helpful for designation qualifiers, like Mark 3, Mark III, Mk 3, etc. Personally I settled on the format "Mk3", but any format is good as long as we stick to it.

I do agree, standardisation is nice but nobody can ever enforce every author to use a consistent approach. I try to stick to my own personal format (myself I prefer Mk.3).

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

But aside from National Prestige, is there a reason that they didn't look at the A3J Vigilante? 974 mile combat radius, carrying roughly 1-3x ~2000lb class weapons. Designed as a low level nuclear bomber in 1956, and introduced by the USN in 1961.

The A3J Vigilante linear weapons bay didn’t work which being central to both the aircraft (literally) and its operational systems concept was a bit of a showstopper. I understand that was the reason the USN gave up on it in originally intended bomber role. True, that space could have stuffed with fuel, with buckets of instant sunshine under the wings but then have to put up with loads of external weapons carriage drag into the defended area, whereas external tanked could have been punched off prior to entry.

 

[uk 75]

The role that TSR2 was optimised for was the delivery of WE177 nuclear bombs.
Only the USAF F111s offered a similar range and penetration capability.
The Phantom, Buccaneer, Jaguar, and Tornado squadrons that replaced it all had to be based in West Germany.
Fortunately 48 Vulcan B2 were available until 1982 to carry out TSR2's duties for SACEUR.
TSR2 was not replaced by a similar capability until the USAF deployed a second Wing of F111s in the UK and deployed GLCMs at Greenham Common.
It is somewhat ironic that the TSR2 (and F111K) so associated with East of Suez was a key theatre strike system for NATO SACEUR.

 

[Flame2512]

I shall have to re-read my copy. From memory I thought the loadout chart only showed 10 x 1,000 lb. The 16,000 lb loadout as a further development might be in the text though.

I took at look and at the bottom of page 241 it says the following:

Underwing carriage of HE bombs was more fluid, the situation changing time and time again until, finally, a maximum load of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) was decided upon (six bombs internally and one on each under-wing pylon). The large Martel missile pylons were considered to be strong enough to carry up to four bombs each on multiple ejector racks, which would have given a total bomb load of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) but no work was authorised on this.

I guess that explains why most places state the maximum bomb load was 10,000 lb, while a few documents like the Australian reports and AVIA 65/2331 give higher values.

I do wonder how 4 x 1,000 lb bombs would have been carried on a single pylon. I guess it would have to be a custom bomb rack, similar to the American MER rack.

As no work was authorised on it I guess we will never know.

 

[kaiserbill]

The A3J Vigilante linear weapons bay didn’t work which being central to both the aircraft (literally) and its operational systems concept was a bit of a showstopper. I understand that was the reason the USN gave up on it in originally intended bomber role. True, that space could have stuffed with fuel, with buckets of instant sunshine under the wings but then have to put up with loads of external weapons carriage drag into the defended area, whereas external tanked could have been punched off prior to entry.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but were there any plans or studies to give the Vigilante a more conventional weapons bay?