Buccaneer/F-111 as TSR2 Alternatives

[rickshaw]

Interesting link.  I suspect what would have happened would have been a program to replace the computer with a fully digital one.  My question is this.  The F-111 has an approximately similar design time-frame and was designed to an approximately similar specification.  Were their avionics so different?  Yet the F-111 succeeded whereas you're suggesting the TSR2 was a non-starter from the beginning.

I don't know enough about the details of the F-111 avionics to answer that. The author states in that link that during the development period, they got their first look at a next-generation digital computer, but it was still too big and not rugged enough for the job. My impression from reading it is that the people specifying the original hardware didn't understand the performance requirements of the "software": maybe it would have been doable with more DDAs, but then how much bigger would that have made the already huge TSR.2 avionics bay? This all reinforces my impression that the requirement wasn't really achievable until the late 1960s.

True.  I also must admit I don't know enough about the F-111's avionics.  However, it was designed from the start to perform the same role as the TSR.2 and as far as I understand managed to do so.  It was deployed to Vietnam quite quickly after introduction and flew quite difficult missions. low-down and fast into North Vietnam with a reasonable casualty rate IIRC.  The Americans were working with the same generation, more or less of computers as the British.  I do know that the original systems were analogue, not digital.  Yet they managed to make it work.  I'm just asking how they managed it while the British couldn't.  Perhaps they didn't waste their time on the same Verdan computer system but chose something else?

The only experience they benefited from was General-Dynamics fixing the wing carry through boxes, which unfortunately had a distressing tendency to fail during the prototype testing.  The RAAF refused to take delivery of its aircraft until that had been fixed and leased, in the meantime F4Es in the Fighter-Bomber role.  Essentially, the aircraft they received were the same aircraft they had ordered.  They lasted them very well, until the decision was made to remanufacture them back to zero hours (and update the avionics to digital).  This was done and they continue to serve, being due for retirement in IIRC 2012.  Their loss is much regretted and their temporary replacement by F/A-18Es has been subject to much debate downunder.

The RAAF F-111s were in storage from 1968 to 1973, a period during which the USAF absorbed and learnt to deal with many of the aircraft's huge avionics reliability/serviceability issues. Are you suggesting that the USAF didn't pass that experience on to the RAAF when they trained their maintainence and logistics crews? Why on earth wouldn't they?

No, I am not suggesting that.  What I am pointing out is that the aircraft that the RAAF took delivery of were essentially, apart from the wing carry-through box strengthening the same aircraft they ordered in 1965 as far as avionics went.  Yet their experience was, for the most part, quite good with them.  Therefore again I have to ask, what did the yanks get right that the poms didn't?

IIRC RAAF F-111s have been upgraded on a number of occasions since their introduction: how much of the RAAF's good opinion of them is post modernisation when they (and the USAF ones) have benefitted from the introduction of later generations of electronics?

They received minor upgrades until their late 1990s remanufacture and refitting with digital systems.  Essentially for most of their lives they flew with the same 1950s-early 1960s avionics they were sold to the RAAF with.  The only major addition was the PAVE-TACK system which was procured in IIRC the early 1980s and that was only for about 9 aircraft, if I remember rightly.  Most of the good opinion was formed in the pre-digital avionics period.

[daniel_g]

I'm no expert, but from what I've read, the systems of the F-111 weren't 'integrated' i.e. they could not talk to each other, so would have to alert the pilot/navigator who would take an action.

Despite the Buccaneer being an excellent aircraft that could probably fly the TSR2's mission, it's systems weren't up to the job to be able to fly with the automation and accuracy of the TSR2 requirement.  The Buccaneers mission was pretty much to take off from Ark Royal/Eagle in North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean, detect and then and then drop nuclear weapons on Sverdlov class cruisers.  The secondary task was attack Murmansk/Arkangel.  The Blue Parrot radar was therefore designed to detect a battleship the size of an Invincible Class carrier with a 'billiard table' as the background.  A considerably easier task than navigating across Eastern Europe with all the associated radar clutter from natural features and man made objects.

Getting the aerodynamic package of the TSR2 was an amazing enough feat, but the article on Steve Broadbent's site shows that the systems of the day simply were not capable.  This lack of systems capability seems a lesson not learned with the Nimrod AEW programme?  IMHO, the TSR2 failed for the same reason as the Nimrod AEW.

Regarding the RAAF, the Australian military doctrine of the 1960s/70s was to be a 'policeman' of south east asia.  Unless deployed in theatre, e.g. Vietnam, I'm not sure that the F-111 or TSR2 (or Mirage IV) were the best value for money.  A significant proportion of the cost of the aircraft was the ability to fly low level over land.  Flying from Australian bases, a high altitude longer range aircraft would have sufficed?  So I'm not sure against which criteria the Australians 'value' their F-111s (easy to fly, nice at airshows?  ).  The UK incidentally offered the RAAF 6 Vulcans as a stopgap until TSR2 delivery, however the RAF insisted on having operational control of the planes, so the Australians obviously said no thanks.  An airforce of Vulcans and Phantoms would have been spot on for Australia?

[ChrisF]

I cant wait till joe decides to comment on all this... haha...

[Weaver]

I'm no expert, but from what I've read, the systems of the F-111 weren't 'integrated' i.e. they could not talk to each other, so would have to alert the pilot/navigator who would take an action.

Despite the Buccaneer being an excellent aircraft that could probably fly the TSR2's mission, it's systems weren't up to the job to be able to fly with the automation and accuracy of the TSR2 requirement.  The Buccaneers mission was pretty much to take off from Ark Royal/Eagle in North Atlantic/Arctic Ocean, detect and then and then drop nuclear weapons on Sverdlov class cruisers.  The secondary task was attack Murmansk/Arkangel.  The Blue Parrot radar was therefore designed to detect a battleship the size of an Invincible Class carrier with a 'billiard table' as the background.  A considerably easier task than navigating across Eastern Europe with all the associated radar clutter from natural features and man made objects.

Getting the aerodynamic package of the TSR2 was an amazing enough feat, but the article on Steve Broadbent's site shows that the systems of the day simply were not capable.  This lack of systems capability seems a lesson not learned with the Nimrod AEW programme?  IMHO, the TSR2 failed for the same reason as the Nimrod AEW.

Regarding the RAAF, the Australian military doctrine of the 1960s/70s was to be a 'policeman' of south east asia.  Unless deployed in theatre, e.g. Vietnam, I'm not sure that the F-111 or TSR2 (or Mirage IV) were the best value for money.  A significant proportion of the cost of the aircraft was the ability to fly low level over land.  Flying from Australian bases, a high altitude longer range aircraft would have sufficed?  So I'm not sure against which criteria the Australians 'value' their F-111s (easy to fly, nice at airshows?  ).  The UK incidentally offered the RAAF 6 Vulcans as a stopgap until TSR2 delivery, however the RAF insisted on having operational control of the planes, so the Australians obviously said no thanks.  An airforce of Vulcans and Phantoms would have been spot on for Australia?

I thought the principle reason for the RAAF long-range strike requirement was to stop an invasion fleet as far as possible from Australian shores, because fighting it off on the beaches would be very difficult given Australia's huge coastline:manpower ratio.

If that's correct, then the Bucaneer or the Vigilante would have been good enough for the job.. I suspect the RAAF "love" the F-111 because it's the only game in town for their requirement: exprssing dissatisfaction with it would get it withdrawn with no replacement.

[rickshaw]

I thought the principle reason for the RAAF long-range strike requirement was to stop an invasion fleet as far as possible from Australian shores, because fighting it off on the beaches would be very difficult given Australia's huge coastline:manpower ratio.

No, the principle reason for the RAAF's long-rang strike requirement was to:

1) When initially created at the start of WWII, be part of the RAF's Bomber Offensive against the European Axis powers;
2) Once Japan entered the war, it was to be part of the USAAF's Bomber Offensive against the Japanese;
3) Once the war ended, and the Cold War began, it was to be part of the RAF's retaliation against the fUSSR once the Atomic bombs started dropping on the UK;
4) Once Sukarno came to power, its purpose became, with the purchase of the F-111s to bomb Jakarta and to end his wily designs on, initially New Guinea and then during Konfrontasi, Malaysia.
5) It was only once the overthrow of Sukarno and the end of the Vietnam War that the RAAF started thinking about sinking potential invaders in the "land-sea gap" as it became known.

Oh, and did I mention that for point 3 and 4, the primary weapon was going to be atomic bombs (which we were either going to develop ourselves, perhaps with British help or later have them magically appear from somewhere else)?  We actually only relinquished our atomic dreaming in 1968 when a conscious decision was made that we'd finally stop chasing that particular chimera.

If that's correct, then the Bucaneer or the Vigilante would have been good enough for the job.. I suspect the RAAF "love" the F-111 because it's the only game in town for their requirement: exprssing dissatisfaction with it would get it withdrawn with no replacement.

Well, Moutbatten tried to sell us the Buccaneer, when he warned the RAAF off the TSR2.   The Vigilante wasn't considered, I don't think.  The USAF tried to sell us the B-47, of all things, despite being out of production and only able to carry nukes.  They sent one downunder on a sales tour in a blatant effort to try and sway the 1964 Federal Election.  What the RAAF wanted as the TSR2.  What they got was the F-111.  The F-111 turned out to be an excellent aircraft, particularly once precision guided weapons became available for it.  The TSR2 had the potential to be the same.

[Weaver]

I thought the principle reason for the RAAF long-range strike requirement was to stop an invasion fleet as far as possible from Australian shores, because fighting it off on the beaches would be very difficult given Australia's huge coastline:manpower ratio.

No, the principle reason for the RAAF's long-rang strike requirement was to:

1) When initially created at the start of WWII, be part of the RAF's Bomber Offensive against the European Axis powers;
2) Once Japan entered the war, it was to be part of the USAAF's Bomber Offensive against the Japanese;
3) Once the war ended, and the Cold War began, it was to be part of the RAF's retaliation against the fUSSR once the Atomic bombs started dropping on the UK;
4) Once Sukarno came to power, its purpose became, with the purchase of the F-111s to bomb Jakarta and to end his wily designs on, initially New Guinea and then during Konfrontasi, Malaysia.
5) It was only once the overthrow of Sukarno and the end of the Vietnam War that the RAAF started thinking about sinking potential invaders in the "land-sea gap" as it became known.

Oh, and did I mention that for point 3 and 4, the primary weapon was going to be atomic bombs (which we were either going to develop ourselves, perhaps with British help or later have them magically appear from somewhere else)?  We actually only relinquished our atomic dreaming in 1968 when a conscious decision was made that we'd finally stop chasing that particular chimera.

So I was basically right, but it got there via a slower evolutionary process.

Well, Moutbatten tried to sell us the Buccaneer, when he warned the RAAF off the TSR2.   The Vigilante wasn't considered, I don't think.  The USAF tried to sell us the B-47, of all things, despite being out of production and only able to carry nukes.  They sent one downunder on a sales tour in a blatant effort to try and sway the 1964 Federal Election.  What the RAAF wanted as the TSR2.  What they got was the F-111.  The F-111 turned out to be an excellent aircraft, particularly once precision guided weapons became available for it.  The TSR2 had the potential to be the same.

The Vigilante definately WAS considered (I don't know how seriously): I've seen NA artwork somewhere of one with RAAF roundels and (I think) Bullpup-Bs under the wings.

edit: found it!

[Thorvic]

The RA-5C was actually the airframe favoured by the RAAF, for the simple reason it was already in service and available for delivery, unlike the other three contenders.

Mirage IV would have needed new engines to meet the range requirements which then made its less favourable as less compatible withe the Mirage IIIO, the mirage IV was also only nuke and recon capable as the AdLA didn't need a conventional role, and this really killed off its export potential as the buyer would have to fund the conventional strike development and testing.

TSR2 was the favoured option but the price quoted included some of the development costs and the V-Bomber stop gap option had too many strings for the the RAAF to accept.

The F-111C was eventually selected on simple cost grounds as GD excluded the development cost in its initial pricing. Of course the unit price rocketed as development matured, which led to the RAF withdrawing from the type, but the RAAF were then too tied in to the deal and had no viable alternatives by then.
(theres a nice letter from the Aussie PM to the Brit PM apologising for not going with TSR2 and why they decided on the F-111).

G

[MAD]

I've always been pleased that the RAAF never invested in the Dassault Mirage IV.
As I think it would have been very limited in both conventional capability and through-life upgrades – regardless of engine changes.
At the end of the day I can not but help but wonder how much the ADF as a whole had learned from the F-111 / TSR.2 issue.
After all we have had a bit of a history of buying the shiny aircraft, which are presented to us as manufactures desktop models, with big and great marketing spills, which more often than not cost us greatly in additional costs, delays in in-service entry and capability – all this usually compounded by inflation blow outs!

Examples of this are the F-111, the F/A-18A Hornet (still think we should have gone the F-18L!!), B737/Wedgetail, Eurocopter Tiger (still think the A129 Mangusta International would have been a better choice!), Collins Class subs, M60 GPMG and of course the F-35 JSF

I completely understand some of the ADF's logic of attempting to gain state-of-the-art technology and the proposed capability it is meant to offer to gain advantage for a small defence force.
But are the headaches and blow out cost all worth it?
And after all these delays and blowouts the brass would have to say the platform/weapon system is great and worth the wait and additional costs!

Well that's my thoughts


M.A.D

[rickshaw]

Very interesting analysis at this page from Flight Magazine - http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1961/1961%20-%201761.html

Mirage IV was the favourite, followed by the Vigilante followed by the TSR2 and surprisingly, the B-58, which was a rank outsider but one I'd never heard.

As for the RAAF choices over the years, that 1961 analysis still holds true today - "It should also be remembered that defence decisions in Australia are not always taken on military grounds."   Politics plays the supreme role and that is sometimes the reasons why certain decisions go certain ways in the field of procurement.  The F/A18 was a compromise between the F-15 - which was considered too complex and expensive and the F-16 which was considered too cheap and uncomplex.   The Tigre was again a compromise between what the Army wanted (the AH-64) and what they needed (the A-129).  Interestingly, the Collins like the F-111 gets bagged a great deal but has the potential to also to turn out a winner.  Wedgetail, likewise.

The M60 GPMG, ah the bane of my life when I was an infantryman.  You know it was eventually replaced by the same weapon which had beaten it in the competition held in 1960?  Only took 30 years to do it.   

[rickshaw]

Out of a matter of interest, does anybody have a 3 view scale drawing of the proposed Blackburn alternative to the TSR2, the B108?

[TsrJoe]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,620.15.html

[rickshaw]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,620.15.html

Thanks but neither proposal - B103 or B108 appears substantially different to the normal Buccaneer.  I seem to remember seeing a diagram which had tandem wheels for the maingear and a substantially longer fuselage.

[daniel_g]

Supersonic Buccaneers...

B108 - OR.339 proposal
B109 - B108 lengthened by 8 feet, air intercept proposal for canadian airforce
B111/B112 - Spey powered air intercept proposals to the RAF/FAA
B113 - B111 air intercept proposal to the RAAF
B117 - B112 with 30% greater wing area for higher altitude naval interceptor
B129 (P140) - tandem undercarriage mach 2.0 naval interceptor (proposal satisfied by phantom)
P150/P157 - 1968 tandem undercarriage mach 2.0 IDS to AST396/403 in service 1981

The TSR2 era proposal was a very modest (visually) evolution of the Buccaneer.  The larger tandem plane you might have seen was more of a Tornado contemporary that had incorporated the wing, fuselage and undercarriage evolutions of the preceding 10 years.

[rickshaw]

Appears I was thinking of the P150.  I found this on the web some time ago (not sure where) and just refound it on my harddrive.



I'm hoping to build a model of one but really need the dimensions, in order to scale the drawing.  Does anybody have any idea of them?

[daniel_g]

British Secret Projects suggest 6 ft (1.82m) longer than the standard buccaneer, Roy Boot (the guy who was pretty senior in the design team) suggests 8 feet longer than the standard Bucc!!