To their eternal shame......

[shortliner]

[The Stationmaster]

Alas a very sad story and one which sent the message to the teenage me that Govt was no longer interested in the defence of our country or in developing and nurturing high skill based industries. One of the interesting facts about the TSR2 was the RAF programme for training the pilots which intended that they would first be qualified on the Lightning for a period of supersonic flight training then move on to the TSR2, Says something about the TSR2 if the Lightning was seen as the training move for flying it!!

[PhilH]

But (there's always a but)...if the UK had got this thing then it's doubtful if the Tornado programme would have been initiated which turned into a far more versatile aircraft than the TSR2 could ever have been.

 

We'll never know if the TSR2 would have performed its intended roles successfully so it all remains hypothetical.

[The Stationmaster]

But (there's always a but)...if the UK had got this thing then it's doubtful if the Tornado programme would have been initiated which turned into a far more versatile aircraft than the TSR2 could ever have been.

 

We'll never know if the TSR2 would have performed its intended roles successfully so it all remains hypothetical.

Apparently although it flew the development of a lot of the advanced radar fit was never finished - the terrain following sysem reportedly was never completed and was a long way from reaching that state.

[PhilH]

Govt was no longer interested in the defence of our country or in developing and nurturing high skill based industries

 

Those two aren't necessarily mutually beneficial. This country has a history of buying aircraft to prop up industry in this country (not a bad thing) which aren't particularly good at the roles for which they were intended (which is a bad thing)

 

This carries on to this day - the Lynx, which in its AH7 form can barely lift itself in hot conditions (they should have bought the American UH-60 Blackhawk) and the Merlin, again a helicopter which should be a useful tool but one whose performance is severely compromised in less than ideal conditions.

 

This state of affairs seems likely to carry on with the Wildcat, the Army's new generation helicopter. Myriad problems and a growing doubt as to whether its capabilities will be anything like they should be.

[shortliner]

Interesting that it needed a lightning to be a "chase plane" to keep up with it - I was fortunate enough to see it fly!

[PaulRhB]

If you want a good balanced story of TSR2 then Tim McLellands book is probably the best at present.

Amazing similarities to Concorde in it's spiralling project costs but as a military aircraft probably more relevant but lacked the penalty for cancelling that protected Concorde.

Basically a very good aircraft as it stood which was cancelled because the Govt. imposed company was incredibly wasteful and the new Govt couldn't afford it to keep spiralling on. The Buccaneer could cover the ground strike role while missiles had made it's higher level role redundant. Shame cancellation came at the point where it was pretty close to being sorted but as said above a lot of the lessons were used for Tornado.

Ahead of it's time and promised superb performance compared to the Lightning but too expensive for the cash strapped times much like the fiasco over the carriers and F35 today!

[Kenton]

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? Especially when viewed through distinctly rose-tinted glasses.

 

All a bit of a dream machine IMO, and for what purpose?

[PaulRhB]

All a bit of a dream machine IMO, and for what purpose?

It had a purpose when it started, just overtaken by missile technology due to the protracted project time.

 

[Kenton]

It had a purpose when it started, just overtaken by missile technology due to the protracted project time.

 

I remain unconvinced. Just who were we about to declare war on? Or were we just trying to upstage Europe/USA/USSR or some other tin pot country. I lived through the late 50's and 60's and have never been convinced that the stones we could throw at our enemies have ever been more use than theirs. The money could have/should have been better used elsewhere.

[PhilH]

However big the stones might be it's naive to think that you don't need them.

 

I enjoy reading your take on things Mike, you seem to live in a, well, let's call it a different world.

[asmay2002]

I remain unconvinced. Just who were we about to declare war on? Or were we just trying to upstage Europe/USA/USSR or some other tin pot country. I lived through the late 50's and 60's and have never been convinced that the stones we could throw at our enemies have ever been more use than theirs. The money could have/should have been better used elsewhere.

 

You may not have noticed but this country has been involved in several wars since the 1960s.

[Kenton]

However big the stones might be it's naive to think that you don't need them.

 

There is a big difference between casting your own stones at great and unrealistic expense for something that will never happen, and buying your stones ready built or even hiring someone else to throw them on your behalf. A point you made well regarding helicopter procurement in the post above. The trouble is we never seem learn by these futile projects. The MoD today is no better directed or visionary than it has been.

[PaulRhB]

I remain unconvinced. Just who were we about to declare war on?

That's fine to say with hindsight but how about if you were a politician then surrounded by Cold War paranoia? Most of the cold war was bluster but the whole point is they weren't sure.

 

The money could have/should have been better used elsewhere.

You can say that about any war machine, but then something like the Falklands bites you in the A** when some other tinpot regime thinks you won't or can't respond. Unfortunately until you come up with a solution for greed and hunger for power over others such things are the compromise.

Good luck, then we could spend it on our trains!

[The Stationmaster]

It seems to be a common dictum that 'we' design, build or buy things for the last war or - in more recent years - that we try to turn them from one thing to another in the hope of saving money. The Lynx is probably a case in point - designed primarily as a naval helicopter for specific tasks but adapted to military utility role (probably too small in reality) and also as a missile carrying system for military use but a military use solely in the European theatre - don't forget that a batch of civilianised Lynx foisted on somewhere out east under the guise of 'aid' were useless a couple of decades ago). So although we try to maintain an industrial base through military development and production we aren't too clever at doing it properly - often because things are done on the cheap by looking for a so-called multi-role capability.

 

TSR2 was a good example, in some ways, of building for the past but in some respects it probably did still have a role - it just became too expensive to fulfil it. Meanwhile the MoD is developing programmes for unmanned drones - the RAF will soon have a squadron to operate them and they are much cheaper than manned aircraft. But how much use will they be if they have to be used in a situation where the opposition has the means to shoot back at them? Back again to 'fighting the last war' - trouble is it can sometimes be difficult to work out what the next one might be, apart from the fact that our armed forces probably won't be equipped to fight it.

[Adrian]

Meanwhile the MoD is developing programmes for unmanned drones - the RAF will soon have a squadron to operate them and they are much cheaper than manned aircraft.

Actually there is evidence that they may not be any cheaper than manned aircraft. Defence Analysis ran a piece a couple of years ago and the UAVs required more ground staff and operators than a manned aircraft also their loss rate was significantly higher, IIRC somewhere in the region of 1,000 flying hours per airframe loss compared to an F16 on 10,000 flying hours per airframe loss.

[Pacific231G]

Am I the only person to think that in appearance at least the Tornado does seem to bear a more than passing resemblance to the TSR2?

[Kenton]

<p>

That's fine to say with hindsight but how about if you were a politician then surrounded by Cold War paranoia? Most of the cold war was bluster but the whole point is they weren't sure.

 

As I intimated in my first post.

 

You can say that about any war machine, but then something like the Falklands bites you in the A** when some other tinpot regime thinks you won't or can't respond. Unfortunately until you come up with a solution for greed and hunger for power over others such things are the compromise.

Good luck, then we could spend it on our trains!

 

The problem is when that thirst for greed and hunger for power is at home.

 

I wondered how long before the Falklands and other recent wars would come up as an example. As if the TSR2 would have prevented them. Most wars, including them, have been worn (or lost, depending on your point of view) by the boots on the ground. None of them would have even started had the political will of the powers had been involved in sense. The Falklands is a complete anachronism of empire and should have been negotiated away long ago. Now blood has been spilt by both sides we have to play respect and continue for another 25-50years or so before sense really prevails. Every other war and conflict since has been a war by proxy.

 

The real threat to most countries is internal, home grown or externally enabled terrorism. Aircraft carriers and big wing bombers are no solution to that.

 

Taking the Falklands as a good example, Most of our assets were taken out or neutralised by a French made missile, and bombs/torpedoes dropped from an attack fighter. Their cruiser was sunk by a submarine not by an aircraft carrier. The troops were transported by requisitioned cruise ships "protected" by somewhat dated destroyers. Sure the Harrier played an important role but how old was that technology. The war was again won by the brave boots on the ground.

 

We never needed the TSR2 (or most of the expensive projects since). Most of the uproar at the time was about job loss which is a different matter altogether.

 

Actually there is evidence that they may not be any cheaper than manned aircraft.

 

I guess that all depends on the price you place on the "man" in the manned plane - ok I know these things ARE costed but if the end result is the same then the cost of the life of our air crew(s) must come into the equation.

[burgundy]

Apparently although it flew the development of a lot of the advanced radar fit was never finished - the terrain following sysem reportedly was never completed and was a long way from reaching that state.

I think this is exactly the point. The airframe may have looked promising, but the important bits - including the terrain following radar, but not forgetting all the other avionic systems - were never flown. Experience has demonstrated that getting such new items of equipment to work individually can be interesting and then integrating them together into a working system can be a whole step further.

I would not want to flog the analogy too far, but flight of the first prototype of TSR-2 was akin to building a model locomotive - when the real aim was to produce a complete working model railway.

Best wishes

Eric

[Revolution Mike]

None of them would have even started had the political will of the powers had been involved in sense. The Falklands is a complete anachronism of empire and should have been negotiated away long ago. Now blood has been spilt by both sides we have to play respect and continue for another 25-50years or so before sense really prevails. Every other war and conflict since has been a war by proxy.

 

Taking the Falklands as a good example, Most of our assets were taken out or neutralised by a French made missile, and bombs/torpedoes dropped from an attack fighter. Their cruiser was sunk by a submarine not by an aircraft carrier. The troops were transported by requisitioned cruise ships "protected" by somewhat dated destroyers. Sure the Harrier played an important role but how old was that technology. The war was again won by the brave boots on the ground.

 

Nice bit of revisionism there. I won't get into the politics of it for fear of upsetting the mods.

 

It is not our place to "negotiate away" the Falklands any more than it would be if Ireland laid claim to the Isle of Man.

 

Boots on the ground only get there through a combination of naval and air power. Without the aircraft carriers and planes (or some very good air defence) you can't get the troop carriers anywhere near your target and you have no protection for your troops on the ground.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I wondered how long before the Falklands and other recent wars would come up as an example. As if the TSR2 would have prevented them. Most wars, including them, have been worn (or lost, depending on your point of view) by the boots on the ground. None of them would have even started had the political will of the powers had been involved in sense. The Falklands is a complete anachronism of empire and should have been negotiated away long ago. Now blood has been spilt by both sides we have to play respect and continue for another 25-50years or so before sense really prevails. Every other war and conflict since has been a war by proxy.

 

 

Maybe the Falklands was an anachronism - but then the anachronism in that case was one country invading the sovereign territory of another and causing that other country to re-take that territory with the resources it could muster. Those resouurces included the full range of what was needed to put boots on the ground - ships to get them there, ships to protect the transport ships and landing of troops, and aircraft for various tasks but again including force protection.

 

But as a matter of historical fact not many of the warships involved could be in any way regarded as 'somewhat dated destroyers' - with one exception all the destroyers involved had been in commission for 7 years or less although not all of them (or some of the frigates) were well equipped for short range air defence (because that task was the province of carrier based aircraft when they had been designed and built) but those which were so equipped were very effective, and one of them had been in commission for barely 12 months. Indeed the biggest problem with short range AA defence of the ships was a lack of guns with a high rate of fire, faith having been placed instead in missile systems, which in turn in the case of two ships which were sunk had been reduced by 50% at the design stage in order to save money - leaving them with limited capacity to engage multiple targets. Similarly failure to invest in short range systems left some ships vulnerable to missile attack which resulted in the total loss of one warship and damage to another plus the loss of one, very important, cargo vessel.

 

And strange to relate - in the light of your comments - the destroyer which survived a hit by an Exocet missile was one of the oldest involved.

[BlackRat]

This carries on to this day - the Lynx,

 

There's been more than one occasion when personally speaking I have been more than glad to see a Lynx coming to my rescue!

[AndyB]

 

Taking the Falklands as a good example, Most of our assets were taken out or neutralised by a French made missile, and bombs/torpedoes dropped from an attack fighter. Their cruiser was sunk by a submarine not by an aircraft carrier. The troops were transported by requisitioned cruise ships "protected" by somewhat dated destroyers. Sure the Harrier played an important role but how old was that technology. The war was again won by the brave boots on the ground.

 

 

The Falklands war was in the spring of 1982.

The first production batch of Sea Harriers was introduced into RN service in 1979. The first operational squadron was formed in March 1980.

In fairness the "technology" did date from the early 1960s. But there is a great difference between "technology" and "concepts" and getting kit into service in a fully tested, integrated and operational form.

Sorry, I think you seem to be muddling the "age" of technology and the "obsolescence" of technology.

From memory the Harriers have only been scrapped in the last year or so. The VSTOL "technology" lives on.

All the best, Andy

[Bon Accord]

The Falklands is a complete anachronism of empire and should have been negotiated away long ago. Now blood has been spilt by both sides we have to play respect and continue for another 25-50years or so before sense really prevails.

 

If you truly believe that, then I suggest you make that statement in Stanley and see what reaction you get - I don't think I've been to a more 'British' place anywhere, and that includes the UK.

The islanders were (and continue to be) hugely grateful for Operation Corporate and their subsequent liberation, and the notion that we should 'negotiate' their futures away to a country which has absolutely no claim on them or their land is grossly offensive to them.

 

Taking the Falklands as a good example, Most of our assets were taken out or neutralised by a French made missile, and bombs/torpedoes dropped from an attack fighter. Their cruiser was sunk by a submarine not by an aircraft carrier. The troops were transported by requisitioned cruise ships "protected" by somewhat dated destroyers. Sure the Harrier played an important role but how old was that technology. The war was again won by the brave boots on the ground.

 

You fail to realise that if it wasn't for our Harriers taking the fight to the Argentine forces both on the ground and in the air, then most of the 'boots' would have got nowhere near the beach, never mind Stanley, as the troopships, landing ships and stores ships would have been attacked mercilessly. For those "brave boots" lucky enough to advance beyond the beachhead, they would have had little support, as naval gunfire is limited in its range and practicality and it takes time to deploy artillery, especially in the kind of terrain experienced down South.

The Falklands War could not have been won without Invincible and Hermes.

 

These days, expeditionary warfare would be a hugely risky (probably unsustainably so) and normally unwinnable affair without air support, be that rotary or fixed wing, and for that you need some kind of carrier.

[Horsetan]

.....The Falklands is a complete anachronism of empire and should have been negotiated away long ago. ....

 

I'd never come across someone who admitted to voting for Michael Foot's Labour Party. Until now.

 

The real threat to most countries is internal, home grown .........

 

You're doing your best to fall into this category, by the looks of things