British-American TSR.2/F-111

C

Cjc

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
15 October 2021
Messages
283
Reaction score
227
It gust sort of strikes me that the orgonal usaf SOR 183 and the British GOR.339 are remarkably similar (really the American one gust haveing more aggressive requirements then Britain) which makes me wonder if there was a way to create a joint project out of them. Instead of tfx
McNamara has a joint project with a different country which based on the mbt-70 he would jump at. With the Main issue I'm seeing, that the British requirement came 4 years earlier then the American one (even though both ended up haveing first flight within months of each other), so ithere something would have to happen to the f-105 to get the usaf to not like it as much, or Britain would have give up 4 years of work.
 
The F.105 was actually one of the types looked at in 1957 as a possible interim type to fulfil GOR.339 (also noted, ref. Flying Review International, November 1963, 'Republic F.105F Thunderchief, interim type for RAF.')
 
Last edited:
TsrJoe said:
The F.105 was actually one of the types looked in 1957 at as a possible interim type to fulfil GOR.339 (also noted, ref. Flying Review International, November 1963, 'Republic F.105F Thunderchief, interim type for RAF.')
Click to expand...
The political lobbying for the F-105 as a) alternative/interim type to TSR.2 and B) as a trainer for TSR.2 is discussed in Typhoon to Typhoon, which is a book wot I wrote.

Chris
 
It is perhaps ironic that even before TSR2 flew the RAF were looking at Swing Wing replacements.
Eventually two wings of F111 served in the UK at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath.
RAF F111s would have served alongside them.
Not sure how TSR2 would have performed better.
 
TsrJoe said:
The F.105 was actually one of the types looked in 1957 at as a possible interim type to fulfil GOR.339 (also noted, ref. Flying Review International, November 1963, 'Republic F.105F Thunderchief, interim type for RAF.')
Click to expand...

And in reverse, WS-302A & Martin XB-68 (unfortunately canned early 1957) would fit TSR-2 like a glove. AFAIK, WS-302A cancellation was one early step along the road that led to the F-111A.

Martin XB-68 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

See attachement. Left is XB-68, right is TSR-2. Pretty close !

Where it would get quite funny would be if the Canadians proposed a Strike Arrow as a competitor. Think that silly ? Remember that the previous USAF light bomber requirement got the USN Skywarrior turned into the B-66 Destroyer. And before it the B-57 was the Canberra having triumphed from... a strike CF-100.

Now that would be even more interesting, if history repeated and we got a Vigilante vs TSR-2 vs Arrow USAF competition to fill the "supersonic bomber" gap between the F-105 and the B-58.
 

Attachments

  • Capture d’écran 2022-07-16 103622.png
    Capture d’écran 2022-07-16 103622.png
    93.6 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
GOR.339, OR.343, TSR.2 design proposals …

Interim design proposals and studies, 1957 ;

Blackburn B.103A, NA.39 Development
DeHavilland DH.110 Vixen Development
English Electric P.18, Lightning development
Fairey F.155 development
Gloster, Thin Wing Javelin Development
Hawker P.1121, single & 2 seat ‘Hurricane’ Development
Vickers Supermarine Type 565, 2 seat Scimitar Development

Proposed overseas types to fulfill GOR.339 specification, 1957 ;

Avro Canada ‘GOR.339’ Arrow Development ? (unconfirmed)
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 Vigilantie & Retaliator

GOR.339 design submissions, 1957/58 ;

Avro 739
Blackburn B.108 Buccaneer Development
Boulton Paul ‘GOR.339’, 76 deg. delta, fan lift (P.133 Development)
Bristol Type 204
DeHavilland ‘GOR.339’
English Electric P.17 'Thunder' (later with Shorts PD.17/P.17D, 1958)
Fairey ‘GOR.339’
Folland (SR.) ‘GOR.339’, 50 deg. delta, deflected Jets (SR. P.202 Development ?)
Gloster ‘GOR.339’
Handley Page ‘GOR.339’
Hawker P.1129
Hawker Siddely/Avro ‘GOR.339’, joint P.1129/739 Development, 1958
Short PD.23
Vickers Supermarine Type 571, 2x submissions, 571/1, 571/2
Vickers (Wallis) ‘GOR.339’ Swallow Development

RAE. Low Altitude Slender Delta studies, 1957
RAE. Nuclear Powered Tactical Bomber, 1957 (derived from above studies)
Cranfield 1958 project (concept design based upon GOR.339)

OR.343 design submission ;

Vickers Armstrong/English Electric Type 571 (571/2/P.17A Dev.)
 
Last edited:
The British examination of US tactical Strike aircraft was that they had paid insufficient attention to the issues of low level flight.

That said the F105 Thunderchief has much merit. But it costs dollars.
 
Wasn't one of the type 571 proposal broadly similar to a F-105 ? (a huge one engine supersonic bomb truck)
 
Only Type 571 single engine study I know of was the RB.142 engined 571/1 'small aircraft', although I am sure there were other single engined parameter studies too.
The Hawker P.1121/1129 designs were very much in the vein of the F.105 in size and capability
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1657974546129.jpg
    FB_IMG_1657974546129.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 90
  • FB_IMG_1657974569985.jpg
    FB_IMG_1657974569985.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 80
  • FB_IMG_1657974577401.jpg
    FB_IMG_1657974577401.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 88
That's the one I remembered... 571/1 then. But the RAF obviously wanted two engines, as bitterly found by Hawker with their 1120-serie of proposals.
 
uk 75 said:
It is perhaps ironic that even before TSR2 flew the RAF were looking at Swing Wing replacements.
Eventually two wings of F111 served in the UK at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath.
RAF F111s would have served alongside them.
Not sure how TSR2 would have performed better.
Click to expand...
IIRC the TSR2 avionics were more suited for the European Theater.
 
starviking said:
uk 75 said:
It is perhaps ironic that even before TSR2 flew the RAF were looking at Swing Wing replacements.
Eventually two wings of F111 served in the UK at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath.
RAF F111s would have served alongside them.
Not sure how TSR2 would have performed better.
Click to expand...
IIRC the TSR2 avionics were more suited for the European Theater.
Click to expand...
US F-111s had to be routed around rainstorms due to the poor performance of their Ku-Band Terrain-Followingband Attack Radars.

The X-Band Ferranti Strike Radar was explicitly selected in preference to a US Ku-Band radar because of its better performance in poor weather.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
starviking said:
uk 75 said:
It is perhaps ironic that even before TSR2 flew the RAF were looking at Swing Wing replacements.
Eventually two wings of F111 served in the UK at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath.
RAF F111s would have served alongside them.
Not sure how TSR2 would have performed better.
Click to expand...
IIRC the TSR2 avionics were more suited for the European Theater.
Click to expand...
US F-111s had to be routed around rainstorms due to the poor performance of their Ku-Band Terrain-Followingband Attack Radars.

The X-Band Ferranti Strike Radar was explicitly selected in preference to a US Ku-Band radar because of its better performance in poor weather.
Click to expand...
Thats were I would imagine the joint comes in, maybe with rolls royce making a alternative engine and ferranti making the avionics with the us making the structure.
 
A F-111K with the F-4K afterburning Spey(s), now that would be something. While the RB.168 Spey had its own issues, they were never as disastrous as freakkin' TF30 (AFAIK).
And if that can help the case of a TF41 F-111 on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - the better. Also applies to the F-14, as the offspring of the F-111B.
 
When TSR.2 was chopped, 6/4/65, the sponsor of bereft UK Aero Industry, Roy Jenkins, MoA, won Study funds for Spey 36/F-111K. SecDef McNamara professed interest, as F-111K Offset 27/9/65 putting Spey as Allison TF41 in A-7D. Sec of State Defence Denis Healey saw it as time/cost risk (he was enraged at BAC/RR peddling Spey/Mirage IVK). TF30 was on F-111K at canx. (By then Chancellor) Jenkins' greater imperative was to secure DoD F-111K fixed (=TF30) prices.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
A F-111K with the F-4K afterburning Spey(s), now that would be something. While the RB.168 Spey had its own issues, they were never as disastrous as freakkin' TF30 (AFAIK).
And if that can help the case of a TF41 F-111 on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - the better. Also applies to the F-14, as the offspring of the F-111B.
Click to expand...
I thought the tf-30 did fine on the f-111, they only started having issues when you try to maneuver hard with them, which they were never designed for.
 
Idk, I've heard of ill-designed air intakes (triple plow - countless numbers) and also that the TF30 with or without the F-111 had an... appetite for compressor stalls.
 
alertken said:
When TSR.2 was chopped, 6/4/65, the sponsor of bereft UK Aero Industry, Roy Jenkins, MoA, won Study funds for Spey 36/F-111K. SecDef McNamara professed interest, as F-111K Offset 27/9/65 putting Spey as Allison TF41 in A-7D. Sec of State Defence Denis Healey saw it as time/cost risk (he was enraged at BAC/RR peddling Spey/Mirage IVK). TF30 was on F-111K at canx. (By then Chancellor) Jenkins' greater imperative was to secure DoD F-111K fixed (=TF30) prices.
Click to expand...

That's fascinating, thanks for sharing. Made some sense, it kind of brought together a) Phantom b) A-7 and c) F-111 - around the same engine.
Somewhat ironically, rolling Speys into the F-111 airframe might have been a touch easier than the troubled F-4K - for the reason that Spey, as an early turbofan was closer from a TF30 than a J79 (airflow: turbofan vs turbojet. Also physical size and weight).

Same for the issue that plagued the F-4K, related to the Spey itself: works better at low level than J79, but poorer at high altitude. For a Phantom multirole fighter, that's annoying. But for a F-111 low level striker, that's not a problem. Bottom line, TF30 and Spey are superficially similar enough, a F-111 won't lose or win much in performance, unlike a Phantom trading its J79s fo Speys.
 
Cjc said:
Archibald said:
A F-111K with the F-4K afterburning Spey(s), now that would be something. While the RB.168 Spey had its own issues, they were never as disastrous as freakkin' TF30 (AFAIK).
And if that can help the case of a TF41 F-111 on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - the better. Also applies to the F-14, as the offspring of the F-111B.
Click to expand...
I thought the tf-30 did fine on the f-111, they only started having issues when you try to maneuver hard with them, which they were never designed for.
Click to expand...
AIUI it was fundamentally designed for subsonic flight with limited manoeuvring - initially, in fact, for airliners. On the F-111 or F6D, that was perfectly fine. On the F-14, not so much.

It would probably have made a perfectly fine replacement engine for the A-3, if anyone had ever wanted one.
 
Would these comparisons have been skewed by Lockheed's propensity for handing out bags of money to senior politicians ??
 
Cjc said:
Archibald said:
A F-111K with the F-4K afterburning Spey(s), now that would be something. While the RB.168 Spey had its own issues, they were never as disastrous as freakkin' TF30 (AFAIK).
And if that can help the case of a TF41 F-111 on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - the better. Also applies to the F-14, as the offspring of the F-111B.
Click to expand...
I thought the tf-30 did fine on the f-111, they only started having issues when you try to maneuver hard with them, which they were never designed for.
Click to expand...
F-111 is rated to 7.33 g. The same as most fighters prior to the F-16.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom