Australian what-if

[JC Carbonel]

the second part of the Le Fana TSR2 story tells the Australian, not only were interested in TSR-2 but asked for the loan of a Vulcan squadron "to wait" until the TSR-2 arrived. The British government said OK as long as the Vulcans are operated by RAF personnel which the Australians refused. The US countered by offering Vigilante and finally the RAAF ended with F-111

JCC

[Martin H]

That would explain Lee's RAAF Vulcan  at the 2003 Nationals  

[Sisko]

Apparently an Australian delegation went to the UK with plans to buy the TSR2 but after meeting with some government officials they decided not to. I don't know what was said but if the Aussies had decided to buy maybe the TSR2 would have been saved.

[Martin H]

I belive some one by the name of Mountbatten had something to do with it, Im told his party trick was to produce 4 models from his breifcase, 1 TSR-2 and 3 Buccaneer's, and he would take great plaesure in pointing out that 1 TSR cost the same as 3 bucc's.  
He was one of the main opponants to the TSR-2, as he felt the money would be better spent on another cancelled project....CVA-01.

[Captain Canada]

after meeting with some government officials they decided not to. I don't know what was said but if the Aussies had decided to buy maybe the TSR2 would have been saved.

They probably said "don't bother, we're going to cancel it anyway "

Bastards......

 

[nev]

And didn't the Aussies use Canberras in 'nam?  

RAAF Vulcans on night interdiction missions over Laos anyone?

[Bryan H.]

Ooh!  Aussie R/A-5's.    Think of all the cool schemes...  Originally delivered, gull grey over white.  Then the night SEA scheme, dk. green, med. green & tan over black, then low-viz grey, then a variation of the TPS camouflage.  Additionally, there are also the orange & white test scheme and the wraparound Aussie outback scheme (currently on their UH-60's & C-130's.)  Think of the planned modernization programs w/ new engines, avionics & electronics in the late 1970's then again in the mid 1990's.

Lots of potential with Aussie Vigilantes!

Bryan

[elmayerle]

Ooh!  Aussie R/A-5's.    Think of all the cool schemes...  Originally delivered, gull grey over white.  Then the night SEA scheme, dk. green, med. green & tan over black, then low-viz grey, then a variation of the TPS camouflage.  Additionally, there are also the orange & white test scheme and the wraparound Aussie outback scheme (currently on their UH-60's & C-130's.)  Think of the planned modernization programs w/ new engines, avionics & electronics in the late 1970's then again in the mid 1990's.

Lots of potential with Aussie Vigilantes!

One of the "obvious" upgrades would be to replace the J79's with either advanced F404/F414 engines or PTW1120 engines as tested by Israel in the Phantom (I rather like the Pratt option, simply because it appears to be a very simple change).  Of course, using the aero shape of the recce "canoe" for other purposes gives you an ECM Vigilante among other variations.

[Bryan H.]

Of course, using the aero shape of the recce "canoe" for other purposes gives you an ECM Vigilante among other variations.

If I recall correctly, the original internal bomb bay of the A-5 was somewhat gimicky.  In addition to ECM/EW or photo recon gear, perhaps you could expand it and install some sort of rotary internal bomb bay to replace the original internal bomb bay.  You also use the canoe for radar/SLAR recon gear.  Any more ideas???

Bryan  

[overscan]

It was photographs Mountbatten carried, and he used to slap down 5 photos of Buccaneers and a single TSR2 photo and say "Five of one or one of the other at the same cost".

Mountbatten followed shortly after Sir George Edwards made a trip to sell TSR.2 to Australia and told the Australians he doubted TSR.2 would ever be built on cost and complexity grounds. To be fair, he was right on that one

Sir Solly Zuckerman, the government's chief scientific advisor, is reported to have looked at TSR.2 and said "there is more technology in the little finger of one Professor from MIT than in the whole of British industry".

With friends like those....

[overscan]

So, if you had a choice of 50 Buccaneers or 10 TSR2s for your airforce, what would you choose???

[elmayerle]

Of course, using the aero shape of the recce "canoe" for other purposes gives you an ECM Vigilante among other variations.

If I recall correctly, the original internal bomb bay of the A-5 was somewhat gimicky.  In addition to ECM/EW or photo recon gear, perhaps you could expand it and install some sort of rotary internal bomb bay to replace the original internal bomb bay.  You also use the canoe for radar/SLAR recon gear.  Any more ideas???

Gimicky is an understatement, to the best of my knowledge, NAA never did get ti to work properly.  You can't do too much to it because a lot of the what became faring after of the warhead proper when it dropped served as fuel tankage during hte first part of flight.  Addtionally, any real enlargement would require altering a rather major forging, the spindle frame that all the tail surfaces hinged on (that the center hole for the bomb was also big enough to accomodate a J79 was one reason they could do the proposed 3-engined version).  Now, if at the same time you were enlarging the engine bays, you might could justify such a change, but it'd be tricky.  I'd prefere to use the space strictly as internal fuel and put weaponry on the wing hardpoints.  I can see the canoe being used to fair in various EO systems (like Pave Tack) for precision attack.  Considering that a Vigilante is one of only two combart aircraft able to go supersonic at sea level that could be most interesting.

[Bryan H.]

Perhaps for you could do what you can't do with the F-111; carry the Pave Tack (or other laser targeting device) AND the internal Vulcan cannon.  I'm not sure if the cannon is really useful but if it's not perhaps you can fit the Pave Tack & an abbreviated photo recon package or ECM/EW equipment.  The canoe looks big enough.  How much can the wing pylons carry?  Maybe you could have some semi-conformal fuselage pylons like on the F-15E to increase the payload.  

Bryan

[elmayerle]

Perhaps for you could do what you can't do with the F-111; carry the Pave Tack (or other laser targeting device) AND the internal Vulcan cannon.  I'm not sure if the cannon is really useful but if it's not perhaps you can fit the Pave Tack & an abbreviated photo recon package or ECM/EW equipment.  The canoe looks big enough.  How much can the wing pylons carry?  Maybe you could have some semi-conformal fuselage pylons like on the F-15E to increase the payload.  

I don't know about the semi-conformal carriage, but I don't think it would be impossible.  I don't see why either combiantion of Pave Tack/Vulcan or Pave Tack/ECM or mini-recce package would be impossible there, though the ammo storage for the Vulcan would get "interesting".

The wing pylons are all capable of carrying goodly loads since they are all set up for large drop tanks.  I've seen one pic of the A3J-2/A-5B prototype with a MER on each of the four wing pylons.

[Bryan H.]

I don't know about the semi-conformal carriage

I'm just referring to the way that (on the F-15E) laser-bombs look snuggly attached to the corners of the fuselage or conformal fuel tanks because of the really short pylons.  It just looks like a good way of carrying a little more without creating too much additional drag.

Bryan