To their eternal shame......

[Kenton]

This seems to have shifted into a debate on the Falklands war and which of the services "won" it - that was not my intention. The question of whether we should have defended the Falklands is not one for RMWeb, far too political and as I stated too recent a memory for all those involved.

 

The debate I was trying to add to was that the TSR2 had no real function. We did not need it then or later. Just who were we supposed to attack and bomb with it?

[PaulRhB]

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.

Bear in mind though that it was developed and worked well on Tornado, and how about the hangar of Chinook that were unflyable as the MOD didn't make sure they were supplied with the full software for the avionics? They took a proven design and made it look like a unproven prototype!

[BlackRat]

Every other war and conflict since has been a war by proxy.

 

Really, tell that to those on sea, land and air, incoming is never by proxy, no matter which way it going.

[PaulRhB]

Just who were we supposed to attack and bomb with it?

Anywhere required in the Eastern Bloc, the F111 that Austrailia bought instead, due to a massively subsidised deal, and the US airforce used was the direct contemporary and that lasted into the 1990's so TSR2 would have easily filled that role. If you want proof then look up what a disaster the early ones of those were!

Then they realised that due to missile advances, they thought wouldn't catch up, that it could only hope to get there by flying all the way knap of earth which made it suicidal for the crew as soon as they popped up to deploy the weapon!

The TSR2 wasn't the waste you make it out to be as like many other prototype aircraft of the period it's good features were used in later designs. TSR2 was mainly doomed by a crowbar association of companies without any clear leader making their own thing then trying to get them to work together later, that it got to such a good airframe is a miracle in itself.

As far as I can see from reading about our aviation industry selling the rights to the Harrier design then buying back a US plane which carries around an extra engine that's useless to it for 90% of the time seems far more of a waste of intellect and technology.

If you want a modern equivalent to the cost disaster of a project then F35 seems to be following the path of the TSR2 quite nicely due to commitees promising things without consulting, or quite possibly overenthusiastic salesmen ignoring, the engineers.

[RhBBob]

At the risk of going off-topic, or worse, back to square one, the English Electric P1 Lightening aircraft stayed in service for so many years from 1954 (replacing the Hawker Hunter !) because we couldn't develop anything to improve on it !

 

I suspect someone will say that we little islanders failed to notice that the game had changed to the present exercise of close support for ground forces; older readers may remember way back when both the USSR and the USA had army airforces using aircraft only for ground support. Since we sold the Harriers to the US perhaps nothing has changed here !!

[cctransuk]

If all vestiges of the project were destroyed - what have I seen at IWM Duxford?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[PrestburyJack]

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford

 

Quote from their website: "The Royal Air Force Museum Cosford ............ this is the only place in the Midlands where you can get close to so many breathtaking aircraft for free.

Over 70 aircraft of international importance are housed in three Wartime Hangars and within the National Cold War Exhibition. See ...... In Test Flight, there is the TSR2........."

"By 31 March 1965 XR219 had completed twenty-four flights, and a second, the aircraft you see here, was to join the programme."

[Downendian]

This seems to have shifted into a debate on the Falklands war and which of the services "won" it - that was not my intention. The question of whether we should have defended the Falklands is not one for RMWeb, far too political and as I stated too recent a memory for all those involved.

 

The debate I was trying to add to was that the TSR2 had no real function. We did not need it then or later. Just who were we supposed to attack and bomb with it?

Hmm Kenton concedes defeat on his Falklands stance

Back to TSR2.

I think the point is a lot was learnt from the project and was fed into the Tornado. That was used to attack and bomb wasn't it I recall?

 

Neil

[PaulRhB]

If all vestiges of the project were destroyed - what have I seen at IWM Duxford?

and all the papers and info that Tim McLelland used for his superb book that really takes off the rose tinted specs and lays the whole sorry project bare. He even supports the incoming governments reasoning

[Kenton]

Hmm Kenton concedes defeat on his Falklands stance

 

No, far from it. Just simply not the time or place for what is, should be, a political debate.

[Bernard Lamb]

If all vestiges of the project were destroyed - what have I seen at IWM Duxford?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

When all the airframes were to be destroyed a 50% survival rate into preservation is rather good.

 

Bernard

[Downendian]

<p>As I intimated in my first post.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

What an excellent idea Kenton, avoiding any political issues - back on topic.

Neil

[Adrian]

When all the airframes were to be destroyed a 50% survival rate into preservation is rather good.

Rather better than the Nimrod MRA4.

[Black Sheep]

 

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.

 

and sometimes, you have the ideal tools for the job, other times you have to send what you can, the Falklands conflict sounds like the latter, the 'boots on the ground / deck' did a great job with the kit they had, that is not in dispute,

 

would the conflict have been resolved quicker had it happened some years earlier when Ark Royal and Eagle were still in service? a full carrier with F4 fighters and Buccaneer strike aircraft onboard?

 

Different kit allowing for different tactics

we'll never know.

[Adrian Wintle]

When all the airframes were to be destroyed a 50% survival rate into preservation is rather good.

 

Bernard

 

Significantly better than we managed with the Avro Arrow, a project that has a lot of parallels with the TSR.2, cancelled in 1959. The largest piece left is a nose section.

 

Some unknown aerospace(?) company was proposing resurrecting the Avro Arrow ('updated to modern specifications') as a cheaper* replacement for the proposed Canadian F-35 (CF-18 replacement). They managed to get a well respected former General (who should know better) to stump for them... The knowledgable members of the public laughed...

 

*somebody obviously had no concept of the costs of aircraft develoment these days.

 

In more reasonable news, there is a company in Canada that bought the tooling for the older De Havilland Canada products and is in the process of building upgraded Twin Otters and the like. It is proposing replacing the retiring DHC.5 Buffalo SAR aircraft with new-build Buffalos.

 

Adrian

[PaulRhB]

and sometimes, you have the ideal tools for the job, other times you have to send what you can, the Falklands conflict sounds like the latter, the 'boots on the ground / deck' did a great job with the kit they had, that is not in dispute,

 

would the conflict have been resolved quicker had it happened some years earlier when Ark Royal and Eagle were still in service? a full carrier with F4 fighters and Buccaneer strike aircraft onboard

we'll never know.

Well I think the kit we had, the Harrier, proved itself pretty well. The Argentinians pilots were told to avoid contact with them after the first few clashes, that's from an interview with a senior AAF pilot. They may not have had the capacity of the bigger jets but they sure had the psychological advantage from their performance.

[Happy Hippo]

If all vestiges of the project were destroyed - what have I seen at IWM Duxford?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I don't know John, but if you care to go to the RAF Museum at Cosford, there is a TSR 2 sitting in the experimental aviation hanger. And it dwarfs all the 4 engined WW2 bomber/transports on display. It is a massive aircraft and was suitable only for low level, fast penetration to deliver it's nuclear payload.

 

Somebody has been telling porkies about all the prototypes being destroyed.

 

An interesting fact a bout TSR 2 is that when it was cancelled the plan was to buy the F111 from General Dynamics, but the canny Americans, sensing a cancellation in the offing, decided to write a small clause into the contract that in the event of it being cancelled, the payment required was 105% of the original contract, which the govt of the time ignored and cancelled. So we paid more for not having the 50 airframes.....hence the reason the Aussies got them at a knock down price.

 

Regards

 

Richard

[Adrian Wintle]

Well I think the kit we had, the Harrier, proved itself pretty well. The Argentinians pilots were told to avoid contact with them after the first few clashes, that's from an interview with a senior AAF pilot. They may not have had the capacity of the bigger jets but they sure had the psychological advantage from their performance.

 

The Harrier had the advantage of radar and more sophisticated missiles, as well as the AEW Seakings. The Argentine AF and Navy pilots were limited by the range from the mainland, which involved having to tank and being load-limited. The A-4s and Mirage 5 couldn't carry air-air missiles without sacrificing bombloads.

 

Fixed-wing assets flying off the Ark Royal would have allowed interception of raids at a longer range, likely reducing the number that made it to the fleet and/or the islands. Whether intensive fixed-wing operations off a single deck could have been maintained at the intensity of the VSTOL operations off multiple decks is a good question, though.

 

Adrian

[Black Sheep]

The Harrier had the advantage of radar and more sophisticated missiles, as well as the AEW Seakings. The Argentine AF and Navy pilots were limited by the range from the mainland, which involved having to tank and being load-limited. The A-4s and Mirage 5 couldn't carry air-air missiles without sacrificing bombloads.

 

Fixed-wing assets flying off the Ark Royal would have allowed interception of raids at a longer range, likely reducing the number that made it to the fleet and/or the islands. Whether intensive fixed-wing operations off a single deck could have been maintained at the intensity of the VSTOL operations off multiple decks is a good question, though.

 

Adrian

 

The Argentine fast jets were confined to the mainland due in part to the Black Buck raid by the Vulcan bomber, but also, after RMS Conqueror had torpedoed an Argentine ship their fleet stayed well within Argentine waters, fog prevented us from taking their aircraft carrier a couple of days before Conqueror struck.

 

Well I think the kit we had, the Harrier, proved itself pretty well. The Argentinians pilots were told to avoid contact with them after the first few clashes, that's from an interview with a senior AAF pilot. They may not have had the capacity of the bigger jets but they sure had the psychological advantage from their performance.

 

Indeed, the kit we had did indeed prove very capable, as did the men using it, I was more referring to the fact that Ark and Eagle's squadrons had a much longer range giving the option to keep the carriers further away from the fighting, allowing them to both protect the fleet and mount attacks elsewhere, especially since the Buccaneers could provide in-flight refuelling for themselves. It is true that the technology employed would not have been as up-to date as the Harriers, I guess I'm pondering what might have been had the older vessels been upgraded instead of replaced as for me, on paper, the older carriers have more versatile firepower and longer range.

[Bon Accord]

As an addition to the above, it's worth remembering that had the conflict occurred a few years earlier when the previous Ark was around, then we'd have also had a commando carrier (Bulwark) and two helicopter cruisers (Tiger & Blake) available. Those three ships would have made an enormous difference in the operation to retake the islands, and the result may have led to a far different future for the RN. Of course if it had happened in the late 70s, then it has been suggested that the PM of the day may not have been prepared to go to war.

Of course the ironic thing is that if the Argentinians hadn't invaded for another year or two, then Operation Corporate would have been impossible, as a large number of the key ships required would have been decommissioned/sold off/broken up and the crews elsewhere - something that would apply equally to the Royal and Merchant navies. Plus the psychologically important Black Buck raid would have been an impossibility as the scrapman would have got to several essential bits and pieces beforehand.

[AndyB]

Erm, doesn't this speculation of what might have happened had the invasion happened at a more convenient moment in history slightly miss a couple of points?

1. They invaded because all we had was an ice patrol craft. Had we had a sufficiently sized navy to patrol in greater strength more often and more widely then that would probably have deterred them in the first place.

2. Assuming 1 above, being prepared for war tends to deter the actuality of it?

 

Thinking back to he OP I remember a number of the old lags at Farnborough cursing Dennis Healey for his role in scrapping TSR2. "I'll never vote Labour after what he did...."

 

And maybe whilst thinking about whether projects that get cancelled are a complete waste of time and resource, I have to say that in my experience we add to the collective body of scientific and engineering knowledge which ever way it goes.

 

Speaking personally my current work draws on knowledge gained going back to just after WWII. Still applicable to present day conflicts. For my 2 pennies the ultimate sin is to forget the knowledge gained by past generations. It was hard won, so respect it.

 

Andy

[62613]

Erm, doesn't this speculation of what might have happened had the invasion happened at a more convenient moment in history slightly miss a couple of points?

1. They invaded because all we had was an ice patrol craft.

Andy

 

IIRC, Endeavour was slated for sale, as was Invincible; in the latter case, the deal had been struck. This was taken by the Argentine government as a sign that UK had lost interest in it's remiaining overseas territories. Their big mistake was not waiting for a further six months.

[PrestburyJack]

If all vestiges of the project were destroyed - what have I seen at IWM Duxford?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I don't know John, but if you care to go to the RAF Museum at Cosford, there is a TSR 2 sitting in the experimental aviation hanger. And it dwarfs all the 4 engined WW2 bomber/transports on display. It is a massive aircraft and was suitable only for low level, fast penetration to deliver it's nuclear payload.

 

Somebody has been telling porkies about all the prototypes being destroyed.

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

Please see my earlier post:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford

 

Quote from their website: "The Royal Air Force Museum Cosford ............ this is the only place in the Midlands where you can get close to so many breathtaking aircraft for free.

Over 70 aircraft of international importance are housed in three Wartime Hangars and within the National Cold War Exhibition. See ...... In Test Flight, there is the TSR2........."

"By 31 March 1965 XR219 had completed twenty-four flights, and a second, the aircraft you see here, was to join the programme."

[Kenton]

Their big mistake was not waiting for a further six months.

 

Galtieri just didn't have that luxury of time. Only in power for a short period and being highly unpopular he needed the political boost and popularity/distraction that the recovery of the Falklands/Islas Malvinas would bring. What most people in the UK do not understand is the way this is viewed by the Argentinians. The war was politically convenient for both parties, the difference was that Galtieri and his generals completely misread the potential response of Thatcher.

 

The problem of the Falklands has not mysteriously gone away, it will remain as a thorn in relations with Argentina and the rest of South America until it is properly resolved. It remains a vestige of Empire that has no place in the modern world. Who knows what might happen in the fragile democratic balance of power in Argentina, although possibly slightly better positioned to defend the islands now, I don't think we would be able to sustain a concerted effort by the Argentinian forces or to mount such a reinvasion. The world stage has changed quite a bit since the 80's and I'm not so sure it would be viewed so lightly.

[Bon Accord]

By saying the Falklands as a BOT has no place in the modern world you're effectively saying the (pro UK) inhabitants have no place there either. Many of those who live there can trace their family history back 170 years to the original settlers - lets remember that prior to the UK arriving permanently and a few brief flurries of occupation by various powers, there was no 'indigenous' population on those islands.

By modern terms there is now an indigenous population living there, and whilst they wish to remain a British Overseas Territory then is that how things should stay, regardless of just how anachronistic it may seem to a few individuals.

The FI may be a 'thorn in the side' to UK/Argentinian diplomatic relations but that's a price that must be paid - they need our trade more than we need theirs (it's interesting just how much Argentine trade with Iran has grown in the past few years).

The increasing rhetoric from BA in recent years makes for an interesting comparison to the events preceding April 1982 - an Argentine Govt somewhat unpopular with an economy rapidly going down the toilet and inflation at 25%, so as a convenient and guaranteed diversionary tactic the President rattles a popular sabre. Deja vu?

 

Thankfully there is little prospect of an Argentine invasion in the medium term - the Argentine military has been decimated with much of their remaining equipment seriously dated, there is also a permanent British military presence on the Islands and more available should the panic button have to be pressed.

 

I wonder how our European and North Atlantic neighbours might feel about the UK claiming the Faroe Islands and launching an attention diverting diplomatic war with Denmark?