Buccaneer/F-111 as TSR2 Alternatives

[McColm]

The North American A-5A Vigilante was one of the contenders on the so called short list. Many of its innovations made there way onto the TSR-2 and F-111.

As an outsider the A-5A and the TSR-2 look very similar. The A-5B in the iron bombing role could have been marketed better as a 'What if 'with Spey engines and TSR-2 avionics with a carrier deck landing aircraft. Something the F-111 and the TSR-2 at the time couldn't do.

As for the Mirage IV, surely Fairey could have built these under license and Anglosized it.

The Buccaneer is much better suited to fly at 50 feet than 50,000 feet.

Then there is the cost, looking back the Brits could have gone for a mixture of A-5Bs and Mirage IVs as a stop gap.

[SPINNERS]

Canberra replacement? Buccaneer! Simples!

Being serious, it was shameful that some RAF strike/attack Canberra squadrons had to wait until 1972 to get a replacement. With a bit of effort, they could have all re-equipped with Spey-Buccaneers in 1964.

[Zen]

Hmmm....

When looking at this whole business several things strike me.

To get the systems to perform the TSR.2 mission into a plane without pushing the limits really required a bigger aircraft. The size and power requirements alone seem to dictate that.

GOR.339 and later OR.343 is rather problematic itself in combining high altitude high speed for the recce and high altitude bomber missions with low level strike and attack. The figure of 1000nm was questioned by the industry at the time, and the earlier 600nm figure seems far more achievable.

Does this not rather suggest that the low level bomber B.126T and accompanying OR.314 is both of the size to achieve the task and the size to carry the systems for the longer range low level mission?

But in terms of a cheaper Attack and 600nm ROA Strike type, Vickers Supermarines Single Engine Type 571 is surely the logical choice for that mission. With a variant of Hawkers P1121 a rational alternative. No need for the NMBR.3, F4, or Jaguar under such circumstances and likely achievable by the mid 60's.

And then if we look at the high altitude and high speed recce, assuming we're not looking at performance in the region of R.156T (and OR.330), then the Fairey Delta III-bomber variant, would seem the ideal.

In effect the TSR.2 is trying to fullfill the tasks that really ought to have been seperated out to three seperate aircraft.

By trying to squeeze all that into one machine the risks of failure and cost escalation could not be avoided.

[elmayerle]

The North American A-5A Vigilante was one of the contenders on the so called short list. Many of its innovations made there way onto the TSR-2 and F-111.

As an outsider the A-5A and the TSR-2 look very similar. The A-5B in the iron bombing role could have been marketed better as a 'What if 'with Spey engines and TSR-2 avionics with a carrier deck landing aircraft. Something the F-111 and the TSR-2 at the time couldn't do.

Actually, the engine change for the A-5B would've been the most problematical unless you had an engine that could fit the exact envelope of the J79.  The reason for this is the spindle frame, carrying the spindles that the all moving tails rotate on, is one massive machined forging and would have been an expensive redesign to enlarge the engine bay openings for other, larger, engines.  I have it on good authority (someone who was in NAA-Columbus Advanced Design at the time) that NAA's reluctance to change that frame killed more than one proposed derivative.  The only reason the 3-engined interceptor derivative was reasonable as the third engine using the hole through that frame normally used by the linear bomb bay.