British Aircraft Corporation TSR2

You got it!

It's certainly true that Britain's military procurement history is pretty grim. But the same ill-advised choices have often been made by other countries too. The US is no better but of course they have the economic ability to absorb mis-spends, whereas we often do not.

If good sense had prevailed, our Government would have forced a purchase of Buccaneers for both the FAA and RAF and the whole TSR2 programme would never have started. This would have been the best solution and also the cheapest. But as ever, the services were incapable of co-operating and the RAF, FAA and Army fought their individual corners in the hope that each would get their "share" of the defence budget. None of them ever stopped to accept that they were supposed to be defending the UK, not fighting amongst themselves for the biggest bite of the proverbial pie. But nothing has changed. Only two days ago a former admiral was claiming that the situation in Libya "proved" that the UK needed carriers and Harriers - completely failing to mention that Harriers would achieve nothing even if we still had them. Even now when the country is almost bankrupt, the services are still compelled to compete against each other, and our politicians simply humour them, as if they were dealing with naughty school boys.

I made my comment about the F111 because, I was told, the design owed much to Barnes Walliss's design called The Swift.

Tim maybe the infighting could be solved by going over to one service called perhaps the Royal Armed Forces? After all Canada did it and it didnt cause any problems.

Not much it didnt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, there's no easy solution and it will probably always be thus. But as things are now, you get the feeling that Trenchard's "100 Year experiment" may well turn out to be just that!

As for F-111, I guess it did owe a little to the swing wing concept developed by Barnes Wallis but no more than the basic concept, and it would be unfair to suggest that the idea of variable geometry was exclusively his. More to the point, he wasn't quite the "hero" that he is often portrayed as being. Okay, the Upkeep bomb was a brilliant concept but even he subsequently admitted that if he'd known how many crews would be lost in order to deliver it, and just how little effect the dams attack actually had on Germany, then he wouldn't have even suggested it. He was also a very significant influence on projects in subsequent years and his eagerness (if not insistence) that he (or at least Vickers) should have control of many projects, led to quite a few expensive dead-ends and cancellations. He was a brilliant designer but he also did a great deal to poison developments too because of his attitude.

I decided to look at Wiki and found thw following: (I got the name wrong)

Swallow was cancelled in the round of cuts following the Sandys Defence White Paper in 1957, and in an attempt to gain US finance to continue the work, details of the project were passed to the USA. No funds for the work were forthcoming from the USA, and Wallis's design ideas were passed over in the UK in favour of the BAC TSR-2 (on which one of Wallis's sons worked) and Concorde. Wallis was quite critical of both the TSR-2 and Concorde, stating that a swing-wing design would be more appropriate. In the mid-1960s, TSR-2 was ignominiously scrapped in favour of the American F-111 – which had swing wings based on Wallis's work which the Americans had received – though this order was also subsequently cancelled

The concept of variable geometry was indeed considered in the UK prior to the adoption of what became TSR2 but in typical Wallis fashion, he continued to claim that a swing-wing design would have been a solution to the UK's requirement for what became a Canberra replacement. However at the time the concept was completely new and putting it into practise would have been more complicated and expensive than even TSR2 was. Weight in particular would have been a very serious issue. It was only the development of TFX (F-111) and lots of American expertise (and money) which enabled the concept to be put into practise. I doubt if Britain could have ever managed it and we certainly couldn't have done at that time. I guess it was typical of Barnes Wallis in that he consistently pursued the notion that his solutions were always best and that Vickers should reign supreme, etc. Brilliant engineer but a tad unrealistic!

canberra;70281 wrote:

Tim maybe the infighting could be solved by going over to one service called perhaps the Royal Armed Forces? After all Canada did it and it didnt cause any problems.

Not much it didnt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going off at a tangent slightly but since we are talking about cancelled projects and Canberra mentioned the North, I give you the Avro Arrow. This is certainlly a subject that arouses great passion out here. I supect that like TSR2 there are facts, and myths I am not an expert so will not even attempt to comment on the subject.

I wondered when someone would mention the Arrow, yes Canadas answer to TSR2.

Tim;70298 wrote:

More to the point, he wasn't quite the "hero" that he is often portrayed as being. Okay, the Upkeep bomb was a brilliant concept but even he subsequently admitted that if he'd known how many crews would be lost in order to deliver it, and just how little effect the dams attack actually had on Germany, then he wouldn't have even suggested it.

Character assassination of Barnes Wallis now?! I'm not sure anyone has ever described him as a "hero" - just a brilliant engineer. In fact it is a mark of the man's character that he was so appalled by the loss of life on the dams raid that he wished he hadn't come up with the idea.

He was also a very significant influence on projects in subsequent years and his eagerness (if not insistence) that he (or at least Vickers) should have control of many projects, led to quite a few expensive dead-ends and cancellations. He was a brilliant designer but he also did a great deal to poison developments too because of his attitude.

So what you are saying is that a designer wanted his company to take on projects rather than somebody else? Remarkable, imagine that! As for poisoning developments... a contemptuous remark, on what basis do you come out with something like that?

Tim;70308 wrote:

The concept of variable geometry was indeed considered in the UK prior to the adoption of what became TSR2 but in typical Wallis fashion, he continued to claim that a swing-wing design would have been a solution to the UK's requirement for what became a Canberra replacement.

Which, of course, it would have been, as demonstrated by the order of the swing-wing F-111 to replace the TSR2.

In fact Wallis' Swallow design had several fatal flaws, and the Americans' own swing wing work had come up against their own show-stopping problems. When Wallis visited the US and NASA took at look at his Swallow the result was the classic one you'd expect of a fresh set of eyes on an old problem - a breakthrough. They drastically simplified his design, keeping only the outboard pivot concept and discarding everything else including the tail-less configuration and wing-mounted engines. From that work came the only practical swing-wing design, that has been used on every operational swing-wing type to date.
You cannot say it is entirely Wallis' work, nor can you say it was entirely NASA's (though they would say so!); what you can certainly say is that the concept of variable geometry certainly was one solution to TSR2's challenging mix of requirements for short field use, high speed and long range. Of course it was not the only solution, as BAC's design team came so close with a more conventional configuration.