interceptor TSR-2...

[Archibald]

just a question : was an interceptor variant of the TSR-2 studied at one time ? Or is it just a myth ?    

[retro_seventies]

wouldn't have been a patch on this anyway.

*giggles and ducks for cover*

[Geoff_B]

Archie you'll notice from project cancelled that Vickers did propose some multi-capable developments of their initial 571 design under the ER206 for the Navy. However these are from the late 50's.

The TSR2 itself was refined from the 571 & EE P17 designs for the dedicated strike role to replace canberra. It was optimised for fast low to medium level strike at high speed. For an interceptor the TSR2 design is completelty unsuitable for the higher level loiter and can't carry a suitable readar needed for the missiles. The FD-III under F155T was supposed to be the main Interceptor.

G

[Archibald]

Thanks, Thorvic! Hmmmm it seems that Wooksta has heard this question too many times (hey, I'm not responsible for that!).
I know for the multirole 571 (particularly the single-engine variant, we made a thread on the subject with Zen some weeks ago).

Ok, it's pure bollocks, myth and the like. But where does this f...ng myth come ?
To my mind, there's a link with the Arrow cancellation... as Canada and GB are very close, and the two stories quite similar, I have doubts about a fan trying to link the two. Maybe because the CF-105 was an early proposal for the GOR-339, so a fanatic thought that it was logical that the TSR-2 was proposed to replace the Arrow... and rewrote history! This become a myth...

I've found where I saw this legend. At Vector site article on the TSR-2!
http://www.vectorsite.net/avtsr2.html

" Incidentally, in another tiresome irony of the whole situation, the British did propose an interceptor version of the TSR.2, carrying Sparrow and Falcon air-to-air missiles, to the Canadians as a replacement for the cancelled Arrow. The Canadians didn't bite on the idea, which blessedly spared them the pain of being run down twice. "

[Geoff_B]

Thanks, Thorvic! Hmmmm it seems that Wooksta has heard this question too many times (hey, I'm not responsible for that!).
I know for the multirole 571 (particularly the single-engine variant, we made a thread on the subject with Zen some weeks ago).

Ok, it's pure bollocks, myth and the like. But where does this f...ng myth come ?
To my mind, there's a link with the Arrow cancellation... as Canada and GB are very close, and the two stories quite similar, I have doubts about a fan trying to link the two. Maybe because the CF-105 was an early proposal for the GOR-339, so a fanatic thought that it was logical that the TSR-2 was proposed to replace the Arrow... and rewrote history! This become a myth...

I've found where I saw this legend. At Vector site article on the TSR-2!
http://www.vectorsite.net/avtsr2.html

" Incidentally, in another tiresome irony of the whole situation, the British did propose an interceptor version of the TSR.2, carrying Sparrow and Falcon air-to-air missiles, to the Canadians as a replacement for the cancelled Arrow. The Canadians didn't bite on the idea, which blessedly spared them the pain of being run down twice. "

It comes from Bill Gunstons (i think thats the aurthor) Wings of Fame Vol 4 article on the TSR2. This has casued much anoyance to the likes of TSRJOE & Wooksta as the documentation does not match. I know Joe even questioned Bill on the point and he claims to have heard it once in a briefing. I think what probably happened is that one of the pre-cursors for the TSR2, probably one of the original Vickers 571 proposals was offered when the Arrow project went into termination and had nothing to do with actual BAC TSR2. Unfortunately Bill just says the TSR2 so everybody assumes that because he's an Author he must be right withount ever pausing to consider the timeline and realise it must predate the TSR2 and be one of the original proposals instead.

Geoff

[Archibald]

Ok, thanks for the explanations thorvic!
So we have something like
Arrow = 1958
Type 571 = 1958 also
and
Type 571 was a TSR-2 proposal
(and the Arrow had been proposed for the GOR-339...renvoi d'ascenseur as we say in french)
so...
(wrong deduction!)
...the TSR-2 was proposed to replace the Arrow  :dum:  :dum:

[GeorgeC]

Derek Wood, author of Project Cancelled, wrote an article for the 1976 RAF Yearbook in which he WHIF'd some scenarios where the TSR2, SR177 etc had not been scrapped.  In this, he mentioned a 50 aircraft Air Defence Variant purchase, but this was at a time where turning perfectly good bombers into slightly sluggish fighters to hunt Bears in mid-Atlantic was all the rage in the RAF.  I had always thought that this was the origin of the TSR2 interceptor.

I was surprised by Paul Lucas' 3rd MAM article which contained a section on TSR2 as an interceptor which sounded like something from an official document.  However, staff officers are often called upon to write papers on all sorts of options and alternatives.  The RAF were, in 63/64, considering how to replace the the Lightning in about 75, so this could easily have come from a paper on 'future interceptors' which considered all sorts of potential alternatives before discarding them (and picking the one you wanted in the first )  This is a very long way from a serious piece of work, backed by some actual money (!), to investigate a requirement.  

(As it happened this work looked at a VG 'fighter', got rolled into the AFVG and UKVG programmes, became a strike aircraft when TSR2 was cancelled, and was overtaken by the plan to switch the Phantom in an Air Defence role once Jaguar was delivered.  Of course, the UKVG eventually merged into the MRCA programme which included the Air Defence Variant so the circle was complete!)

When I can, I am trawling through the 60s policy work in the UK National Archives and I hope I can turn up the 'interceptor' reference and see what context it was used in.

[retro_seventies]

Ok...

*pauses to compose self*


TSR2 = strike/recce, not fighter, no ifs, no buts.

i get it, really.

BUT...

...if we take the VG TSR2 as the standard late production model, then would that not make a quasi acceptable (with redesigned nose for an long rage AI radar...like foxhunter) interceptor, similar in capability to the Tornado F3?

i understand that the interceptor TSR2 thing is all bunkum and codswallop, but i'm assuming that would only strictly apply to the "standard" plane...with the VG wing (ideal for all and any purpose within reason) and a new nose...it *COULD" be possible...right?

would also make a formidable SEAD bird...and possibly dedicated jammer (in USAF service instead of EF-111...and maybe USN instead of Prowler?)

genuinely not wishing to enrage anyone here, and fully undertstanding where you both are coming from Lee and Geoff...    

[GeorgeC]

i understand that the interceptor TSR2 thing is all bunkum and codswallop, but i'm assuming that would only strictly apply to the "standard" plane...with the VG wing (ideal for all and any purpose within reason) and a new nose...it *COULD" be possible...right?

You would still probably be better off starting with something with more fighter-like aerodynamic qualities - like a house brick

[Archibald]

but the TSR-2 had mach-2 speed and the huge power of it's Olympus....well, that's aparently not enough!  

[Geoff_B]

but the TSR-2 had mach-2 speed and the huge power of it's Olympus....well, that's aparently not enough!

Correct, thats was raw power to push the aircraft fast down low where its design was optimised to operate at its best. The F-111 was the better multirole aircraft as it was intended for both Interceptor and bomber roles thus the engines better suited to loitering.  

[Archibald]

but the TSR-2 had mach-2 speed and the huge power of it's Olympus....well, that's aparently not enough!

Correct, thats was raw power to push the aircraft fast down low where its design was optimised to operate at its best. The F-111 was the better multirole aircraft as it was intended for both Interceptor and bomber roles thus the engines better suited to loitering.

Hmm always thought that the main difference between the TSR-2 and F-111 (with their wings, of course!) was their engines. Difficult to say what was the best solution :
a turbofan optimised for fuel consuption but lacking power (8500 kgp)
or
a turbojet, very powerful (13500 kgp) and much better suited for supersonic flight, but having a big fuel consuption ?

[elmayerle]

Well, IMHO, the better choice would've been a sufficiently powerful turbofan that would give good fuel comsumption in subsonic flight but have the power when needed to sustain supersonic flight.  I'm sorely tempted to refit a 1/72 TSR.2 with the bogus "Spey" exhausts from Revell's old (rather!) 1/48 F-4K as being fitted with suitable afterburning versions of the original Medway for beter range.

[GeorgeC]

Well, IMHO, the better choice would've been a sufficiently powerful turbofan that would give good fuel comsumption in subsonic flight but have the power when needed to sustain supersonic flight.

That was the GR2...    

[Archibald]

What means IHMO ? It's like BTW, IIRC... translation needed!
GR2 ?

I'm sorely tempted to refit a 1/72 TSR.2 with the bogus "Spey" exhausts from Revell's old (rather!) 1/48 F-4K as being fitted with suitable afterburning versions of the original Medway for beter range.

I'm (slowly) discovering the possibilities offered by the "scalorama" concept (I mean, merging different scales to change a small fighter into a medium bomber)  

Once again, around half of the GOR-339 competitors had the RB-142 Medway... I never understood why this promising engine was dropped! A powerful, military turbofan in the late 50's was quite an achievement (wasn't the Medway the first of it's kind ?)...