The enormous(ly beautiful) British TSR-2 of the early 60s
Posted by K3IRRR@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 103 comments
The British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 was a cancelled supersonic strike and reconnaissance aircraft designed by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC). It was under development throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s for the Royal Air Force (RAF); the TSR-2 designation came from "Tactical Strike and Reconnaissance, Mach 2".
MajorRocketScience@reddit
Why… would you design your intake like that? For one engine sure but for two??????
K3IRRR@reddit (OP)
What's wrong with it?
Harpies_Bro@reddit
It was only two feet shorter than the Vulcan, with similar Olympus engines, but with reheaters installed to push past Mach 2, and was a big part in upgrading the Olympus for use in Concorde from the version used in the Vulcan.
It also brings to mind that, a few year before, Avro Canada had proposed a sale of CF-105s to the RAF with Bristol Olympus engines in place of the Orenda Iroquois.
T65Bx@reddit
Commonwealth tragedy whammy in that final paragraph jfc
FrozenSeas@reddit
Duncan Sandys and the 1957 Defence White Paper. That shit singlehandedly destroyed the aviation industry in the Commonwealth.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
And the basis for it was ultimately proven correct. Building bomber interceptors is fucking stupid when the enemy is building ICBMs.
Kanyiko@reddit
No, Duncan-Sandys thesis was that:
a) Any and every future conflict would be nuclear. So non-nuclear platforms were obsolete. This was a fallacy in itself, as have all of the non-nuclear conflicts since proven.
b) Since any future conflict would be nuclear, weapons would either be strike (missiles putting nuclear warheads on targets) or defense (missiles shooting down enemy bombers and missiles). Again, a fallacy.
c) Since offensive and defensive systems would be missile-based, manned military aircraft were deemed obsolete and a drain on finances. Again, a massive fallacy - this did not take the export market into account. Britain had dominated a very large share of the 1950s military export market with its various designs - Meteor, Vampire, Venom, Hunter, Seahawk, Canberra, etc; after the Defense White Paper, the entire British swathe of the export market was either taken over by the Americans and to lesser degrees the French, not to mention the massive loss of jobs and skills: engineers who were previously contracted to British defense contracts emigrated mainly to the United States.
Basically, Duncan-Sandys' vision would have left Britain with a nuclear-only capable air force operating only missiles. Imagine going into local conflicts with a nuclear-only force. It would pretty much had left Britain with its hands tied in a lot of scenarios - either nuke Argentina/Iraq/Serbia out of existence or do nothing; no alternatives like shows of force, or pin-point strikes with non-nuclear means.
Corvid187@reddit
Not really?
The sandy review didn't just rule out bomber interceptors, it ruled out most manned tactical aircraft on the basis that all wars would quickly go nuclear. That was a mistake, and the UK's myopic focus on that one type of conflict left it less well prepared industrially and militarily for the smaller, conventional, expeditionary conflicts that actually characterised the cold war.
The success of the Mirage III and (to a lesser extent) the f4 are testament to the mistaken and short-sighted nature of Sandy's view.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
The US equivalent of this was A-5, not F-4, and A-5 didn't last long (as a bomber at least) either.
I still think A-5 was one of the most beautiful aircraft built evet but it just wasn't ready for the times - very complicated avionics and AA missile threats killed it very quickly.
Corvid187@reddit
The Sandys review was in 1957, it predates TSR2. I am not saying TSR-2 was the equivalent of the f4. I am saying there is no British equivalent of the f4 because the Sandys review cancelled f155 and p1121in 1957.
LycraJafa@reddit
aircraft will be obsolete with the new missile tech (1957) so cancel aircraft - if i recall the Sandy report.
Nothing dodgy about those decisions. US F111 was in ascendance.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
It was literally built as a bomber interceptor. The same day that it was revealed to the public, Sputnik was launched and everyone went "Oh shit they've got good rockets."
It was cancelled because it didn't fit the world it was being built in. The F4 is not a bomber interceptor, nor is the Mirage III.
T65Bx@reddit
The original F4H was ABSOLUTELY a fleet interceptor, what? It was quite literally the predecessor in technology and vision to the F-14, complete with ill-fated first attempt in the Missileer in Phantom-Sparrow's case and Aardvark in Tomcat-Phoenix's case. (And I even suppose the F3H/AAM-N-2 and F-12/AIM-47 also are a strong parallel if you want to go there)
Corvid187@reddit
The CF105 was, sure, but the 1957 white paper cancelled far more than Just that. It also stopped development on the UK competitor to the Mirage III and F4 - f155 or p1121 - on the basis that they would also be obsolete in the event of nuclear war.
Flucloxacillin25pc@reddit
Oh, no - he had help.
CO_Brit@reddit
As the quote goes, all aircraft have 4 dimensions. Height, width, breadth, and politics. TSR-2 merely got the first 3 right.
As for the politics, Labour was in power at the time, so it was on a hiding to nothing there. Not helped by the RAF, who got the spec wrong - rough field capacity for a nuclear bomber that's on a one-way trip? Long endurance in full afterburner at low level instead of the sprint capability that eveyone else accepts is more viable? No real conventional iron bomb capacity for the conventional role? Turbojets for a low altitude bomber? the list goes on.
In the end, it was intended to replace \~48 nuclear strike aircraft. So the UK would probably have bought 36, 3 squadrons worth. With a rapidly rocketing price, that wasn't going to happen.
Now, if it had been looked at properly in the beginning -
Government applies pressure to Rolls-Royce to licence the Medway turbofan, or to assist Bristol Siddeley in developing their own, then they'd probably have got close enough to the performance specs for it to have been acceptable.
Ditch the short field capacity . With the turbofans and more space from regular landing gear, more fuel can be carried, with more range.
This also makes it easier to increase the size of the internal weapons bay, increasing the versatility.
Add in a redesign of the wing to allow another pair of pylons, and a pair of tip pylons, and it's actually got a usable conventional load at that point.
Then they might have bought a couple of hundred, got export sales and the UK would probably still have an indigenous aircraft industry.
HarryPhishnuts@reddit
Recently read an interesting perspective on the TSR.2. Fundamentally it was an East of Suez aircraft in a reality for the UK that was quickly becoming West of Suez. It was intended to serve a far flung empire that was quickly shrinking. To keep the program going when it no longer really met the need, especially giving the UKs economic conditions at the time, just wasn’t realistic. I’ve always thought that if it had been scoped earlier for a more NATO, North Atlantic mission set it probably could have been developed into something quite on par with the F-111.
LycraJafa@reddit
Thanks - good insight, and a brilliant aircraft for an empire, but not one post ww2 recovery.
I thought it was killed by the Sandy report (aircraft obsolete with new missiles) but the lack of finances at the time made every reason useful.
What stands out is the way the TSR2 program was cancelled - smashing and burning of the jigs and plans. It wasnt cancelled as much as burried beyond recognition.
This suggests other motives, eg competition from other countries for their aircraft of choice. Suggests also UK wasnt in control of its destiny at the time. Who knows...
GDow1981@reddit
Many good points but I think people miss the fact that Labour government wasn’t in power during development it was a Tory government when all the royal feck ups were happening which were mostly on industry and the RAF and absence of proper oversight and accountability. Then a new government was coming into power and saw this as a gigantic white elephant with project exploding its budget & completely out of control, a lovely looking shell of an aircraft with no actual systems, paper capabilities unlikely to be realized anytime soon and delays that would have taken it well into the 70s for service leaving a significant capability gap and killing all other projects due to cost. So rightly got cancelled. Then the Tory opposition (Thatcher) blamed all the issues & cancellation on the new government which was seen even at the time as.. two faced, hypocritical and extremely politically cynical. The myth the aircraft was perfect and undone by politicians was a face-saving lie permeated by the RAF and industrial leaders at the time to cover their asses and liability for nearly killing the UK aircraft manufacturing industry entirely and used for lazy political point scoring by a cynical Tory opposition who would come to power a while later and slash budgets and programs ruthlessly anyway.
Distinct_Bluebird_93@reddit
how refreshing to see a nuanced comment on the politics, almost every TRS2 vidoe/image as some moron saying " labour cancelled it"... whilst no one is perfect, Tories have arguably been worse on defence cuts/mismanagement and seem to get away with it.
Balmung60@reddit
And I always have to disagree with the quote because the TSR.2 is from my point of view one of the ugliest jets ever built. And I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's just astoundingly ungainly from every angle, be it the tall and thin fuselage, the awkward taper of the fuselage, or being part of the short-winged attack aircraft era. It's so bizarre to me that the aesthetics of this are always talked up as if the Brits hadn't already perfectly nailed those first three dimensions with the Vulcan, which is easily the best looking bomber aircraft ever built.
RollinThundaga@reddit
Ugliest plane I've ever seen and I'm all here for it.
NxPat@reddit
Thunderbirdesque
LycraJafa@reddit
i first saw this in the flesh, not knowing what it was.
What struck me the most were the Thunderbird 2 pods that could reconfigure it for different missions. Large cube of electronics that swapped in and out easily behind the cockpit.
Very Tbirds
Batfink-1999@reddit
Definitely! Saw the picture and the Thunderbirds theme kicked off right in my head…!!!
Suitandbowtie@reddit
Cool timing, there’s this gem of a channel I found recently called Aviation Republic that’s currently doing a series on the TSR’s development history. Super interesting problems they had to solve for the requirements given, and thankfully it never had to actually do its proposed job but man is it impressive what they made possible given the technology at the time.
Rooilia@reddit
Funfact: they didn't. No core ability was ready or had been ready for at least another decade and bankrupting amounts of money. Electronics, engines, vibration issues, inproper landing gear. Nothing was solved at the end.
Evening-Physics-6185@reddit
The landing gear would have been fixed easily enough. Hooker has gone on record as saying that the engines would have been fixed quickly.
The only issue is that the avionics wouldn’t have been ready for 10 years.
If the MOD hasn’t insisted on Mach 2 and high level Mach 1+ at low level and a 1000 miles range it would have been fine. Nothing since can do that either and theres no need for it to.
Sadly theres a lot of revisionist idiocy out there.
HarryPhishnuts@reddit
Yeah but if you remove those requirements, especially the 1000mile range then it no longer support the UK East of Suez doctrine. Change that (like they did in the late 60s) and you start looking a lot like the Mirage IV or maybe F-111, which was probably what the RAF really needed in the first place (the capability scope, not those particular aircraft).
Evening-Physics-6185@reddit
If you ditch the Mach 2 at altitude it’s probably fine and if you add refuelling, then range is less important.
The airframe had the Potential despite what revisionists say.
HarryPhishnuts@reddit
Yeah I think if they had de-scoped it a bit it could have been a peer to the F-111 but it would have taken a decade and a boat load of money (kinda like the F-111).
LycraJafa@reddit
F111 wasnt a thing when the TSR2 was. the F111 program had massive cost and timeline overruns. UK ended up ordering F4's due to F111 program non-delivery.
agreed - a decade and a lot of money.
Evening-Physics-6185@reddit
Definitely for the avionics. But there’s no doubt it would have been good.
Shuffle_Gaming_@reddit
If you watched the video you'd see which elements were ready eg TA Radar vs which weren't. It's a great series totalling 3hrs of content.
K3IRRR@reddit (OP)
Ohh I'll check this out, thanks for the recommendation!
Special_Cicada6968@reddit
Okay, but can we talk about those landing gear?
LycraJafa@reddit
ok, you met the last ridiculous requirement we put on you to fail the design, now do 1000mile range supersonic AND land in a paddock.
3_man@reddit
One of the design requirements was short / rough field performance, hence the beefy landing gear and large airbrakes.
weirdal1968@reddit
Once you see it...
GDow1981@reddit
Landing gear Vibration was an issue improved but not completely fixed during prototype work completed prior to cancellation.
trooperking645@reddit
Feel so privileged to have seen it flying in the Boscombe circuit, most probably early 1965
UncleHeavy@reddit
My late grandfather worked on the TSR.2 whilst he was at Warton. By the mid 60's he had progressed from a fabricator on the Canberra, completed his degree in aero design and was working his way up the ladder and into project management, eventually being responsible for the costings for the Concorde project.
My mum told me that she had memories of him sat in the dining room table with the blueprints spread around, a slide rule and notepad close by. She told me that he thought that the TSR.2 was 30 years ahead of anything made abroad but that it might be canelled because the UK owed so much money to the US and there was pressure from them to buy an american aircraft instead. He also said that there were worries that the alloy used was too brittle. For example, an engineer dropped a spanner that clipped a spar, snapping it in two. It was light, but hard to work with, and the engine removal was a nightmare.
However, he was immensely proud of it because it achieved everything in GOR 339 despite constantly shifting goals.
However, politics cares for no man and now the TSR.2, along with the CF-105, became a great case of 'If only...'
GDow1981@reddit
No offense to anyone’s grandfather the problem with a project failure is that is no individual thing or persons fault and happens despite all the hard work, time and effort put in by many many good people. Anecdotes are near pointless for TSR2 because many many individual items worked .. but collectively it was a disaster. it’s a poster child or bureaucratic mismanagement, project chaos and absence of accountability. The prototypes didn’t meet requirements, they had no radar, self defense suit, weapons, navigation system, it’s undercarriage wasn’t going to be suitable for a service aircraft, its engines had issues and it was a very long way away from being anywhere near ready for service. No hate but I’ve seen various anecdotal accounts of pilots loving it and it being 30s ahead of anything in the world (while its engines didn’t work properly, the undercarriage shook dangerously and it lacked any systems to allow it to fly fast at low level) or engineers that said they “did everything asked of them” while ignoring other departments had failed to develop critical systems and subsystems etc. This dissonance is the product of nostalgia, wishful thinking and legend permeated by industry and RAF who were most responsible for the failure in the first place.
Evening-Physics-6185@reddit
Typical revisionist nonsense. The undercarriage could have been easily fixed. The engines were on their way to being fixed.
The requirements were unthought out nonsense and numbers written down on the back of a fat packet.
The crippling issue is that the were no avionics suitable and small enough for a decade.
If they’d come back with a tsr3 that was slightly bigger, dropped the sustained Mach 2 at altitude to Mach 1 got rid of the must be able to use damaged runways, it would have been useful.
GDow1981@reddit
Eh.. no. Are you one of those kind of people that call any factual history you dislike revisionism but ignore that a more nuanced view is the revised view in the face of legend with its obvious inaccuracies. what does “could have being easily fixed” actually mean btw? Do you mean “would have been”? Because could is more conditional than would and would seem to contradict an “easily” descriptor. Also factually a redesign of the undercarriage was definitely required and listed in the project as such despite tinkering in the prototype so it’s very unclear how either of us could know with great certainty that this could/ would be done easily that you claim to possess. Sees like spoofing. It’s interesting that you were triggered by my comments at all, I guess you like the legend and probably need to ignore its obvious inaccuracies. Divorced man vibes no offense.
Evening-Physics-6185@reddit
You are just spouting a load of nonsensical words to make you think your IQ is 100 more than it actually is.
Sir Stanley Hooker no less has stated many times the engines were on their way to being fixed. I’ll trust him over some simpleton on the net.
The undercarriage was an issue but it’s hardly insurmountable, it would have been fixed. It’s the least of the worries.
No, I’m not one of these people who think The TSR2 is the greatest thing ever. It was too advanced for its time, there were no avionics that were good , small or reliable enough at that time. But it wasn’t as terrible as a lot made out. Probably a case of right plane, wrong time.
It also NEEDED the RAF and MOD to have an understanding of what they actually needed! They were completely unsure of that until the time of the tornado.
UncleHeavy@reddit
No offense taken.
Even at the early stages, the issues were clear, but the engineers & designers were actively working to overcome them. The Bristol Olympus went on to power Concorde, so clearly the solutions were there to be found.
As for the lack of radar, etc, only two airframes flew, and they were intended just to iron out basic flight problems, such as the airbrakes not closing properly. As with the prototype Tornado F3, the 'radar' was just a block of concrete as a mass simulator.
I suspect the TSR.2 would have had a fairly protracted development lifecycle, with undercarriage, intake, wing and engine bay redesigns.
Part of issue was that BAC took all the worst working practices from its' unwilling parent companies and rolled them into a management-heavy structure ill-equipped for flexible working practices that the project so dearly needed. my grandfather even said that there were more managers on the assembly floor than fitters.
Then there are the politicians, who wanted to show thay they put their 'mark' on the UK's flagship aero project, so they changed requirements and specifications until they became near-impossible to implement. This was driven by pressure to make everything bleeding-edge: the performance, payload, radar, STOL, rough-field use: the lot. As the cost spiralled because of government interference, the decision was made to kill it off, and once that decision was made, nothing could have saved the project.
My grandfather, as union representative,, was told the night before that it was all over. He asked if he could tell the fitters, and was told that if he did so, he'd be looking for a new job before his tea got cold.
As Sidney Camm once stated: “All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right.”
GDow1981@reddit
Great post there. The thing is Sidney Camms quote is a great sound bite but ignores the reality he knew. That 4th element of “politics” is such a gross simplification. The firms and companies and management were responsible for outcomes for the program. And they failed. This wasn’t “politics”, it was a symptom of over promising and underestimating cost & time at every level. British industry was trapped in WW2/ immediate post war/ Korea war mindset where they’d just ask for more and more money and would get it. RAF asked for frankly stupid capabilities and the companies went sure no problem as they saw that as a way of extracting more money out of the department of supply (procurement) who actually paid for it. Blaming any government to try to get these companies to combine and work together to be viable and actually meet costs/ deadlines/ provide required capabilities within the project is kind of missing the point it was having to do this to an industry that had no interest in doing this and had to be forced kicking and screaming into anything approaching the modern day and processes we’d consider the norm today. The RAF shouldn’t have tried to combine a tactical strike aircraft with a V-bomber replacement or ask for technical performance in radar and terrain avoidance that the Americans didn’t even try to incorporate into their silver bullet F-111. Also Concorde was a civil aircraft using its engines under ideal low stress conditions at high altitude despite supersonic flight. Working the throtttle constantly at ultra low altitudes is far more stressful on an engine that was basically picked for its crude power but was an old technology big and heavy turbojet with high fuel consumption at low levels. not a good thing on an aircraft entering service in mid 70s and full service in the 80s I guess.
UncleHeavy@reddit
There's a book names Empire of the Couds by James Hamilton-Patterson that examines the british aviation industry as it was in the 1950's and 60's that outlines many of your points.
As you said, the RAF was also complicit; asking more and more from an airframe. TSR.2 was expected to be all things to all men: a Mach 2 nuclear bomber, a low-level ground attack aircraft that could operate from short or rough strips, a Recon platform and more.
It was a foolish thing to expect, and it would have been a hurculean task to make it a reality. The aircraft that took over parts of its' intended role have proven this It took 4 aircraft to do what TSR.2 was expected to. Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado for Ground attack & Recon, Bucaneer repurposed as a (very) low level bomber and PAVE unit.
I suspect that if it had gone into service, the RAF would have faced similar issues that were found with the Nimrod fleet. Each aircraft would have spent more time being upgraded than in the air as each was hand-built and each with their own quirks. At a time where money was tight and demands were high, I suspect that the plug would have been pulled sooner rather than later.
Foreign_Athlete_7693@reddit
finaly, a decent cutaway.....been a while since ive seen one...
Southern-Bandicoot@reddit
Who the fuck has besmirched the fine history and tradition of Treble-One (Fighter) Sqn by applying their colours to a mud mover?!
No_Shame_2397@reddit
I feel it shares Star Wars IV-VI design language and I want one.
lucathecontemplator@reddit
This thing getting cancelled represents everything wrong with Great Britain
Cloudsareinmyhead@reddit
Not really. It was cancelled because it didn't work.
Corvid187@reddit
TBF in this case it was probably deserved. The real tragedy is what the UK gave up first in order to keep developing this.
Illustrious-Run3591@reddit
Reminds me of the Boom XB-1 in form
Nuclear_Geek@reddit
I wouldn't say beautiful. I think I'd describe it as pleasingly brutal - there is no attempt to soften it or make it look like anything other than a vehicle for forcing the sound barrier into submission.
tudorapo@reddit
not just brute force, the area rule was applied.
Balmung60@reddit
Could have fooled me. It's ugly in a way that I thought it had to be pre-area rule
tudorapo@reddit
It was only really visible on the planes they had to modify from a pre-area-rule design without a full re-design, which is just a couple of examples.
Since then they just place things and move things around, maybe add a little bump here or there.
zoinkability@reddit
Brutalful
Balmung60@reddit
I can't agree with calling it beautiful when it's one of the ugliest jets I've ever seen, and not even ugly in a good way like the English Electric Lightning was. At least that one looked like it meant business.
K3IRRR@reddit (OP)
I so wish to have seen this with operational markings...
roy107@reddit
I have that decal set. One day I intend building one of my TSR2 kits in operational markings
Swisskommando@reddit
I’ve stood next to one at Duxford. And yes, it’s fucking enormous.
PhoenixFox@reddit
One of a very small number of aircraft that could get my full attention when there's also a Vulcan in the room
cvnh@reddit
There's one in the Imperial war museum too, with the Concorde in the far end. My first reaction when approaching the Concorde was "wow a TSR 2!" and it's very impressive in person.
PhoenixFox@reddit
Duxford is the Imperial War Museum, that's the same one we're talking about.
cvnh@reddit
Ops you're right I confused it with the RAF museum for a moment
Softimus_prime@reddit
A picture from my last visit.
Samus_subarus@reddit
TSR-2 MENTIONED
ZookeepergameBig6413@reddit
TSR-2 my beloved,
Fascinating aircraft, beautiful too shame it got cancelled but the combined design houses of British aviation were really pushing for it to be a modern (for the time) aircraft much of the technology was gutted and sprinkled elsewhere
Particularly the terrain following radar, first in the world to do it, I believe the fundamental technology behind this was later pivotal in thr F-111 and B1 bomber of the USAF
If you are ever able to get to Duxford to take a look, I highly recommend it
RandoDude124@reddit
Only one that flew was scrapped.
Corvid187@reddit
You can go see it on display as Duxford Air Museum, I believe?
AP2112@reddit
I think the comment above means the actual airframe that flew. XR222 at Duxford is mostly a shell. XR219 is the only one that flew and it was scrapped.
XR220 at Cosford was ready to fly and would’ve done so had it not been for tech issues and getting damaged in transport.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
I need to arrange another trip this Spring. It's my favourite museum ever!
Significant-Camp-551@reddit
Sooo this should be the answer to Blackbird and F-111🤔?
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
It's really an answer to A-5 Vigilante, which also failed in this role and got replaced rapidly.
K3IRRR@reddit (OP)
It was decided to order an adapted version of the General Dynamics F-111 instead of the TSR-2, but that decision was also later rescinded as costs and development times of that aircraft increased as well.[10] Operationally, the roles intended for the TSR-2 were taken up by other aircraft, such as the Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, both of which had been considered and rejected early in the TSR-2 procurement process. Eventually, the smaller swing-wing Panavia Tornado was developed by a European consortium and introduced during the 1980s to fulfil broadly similar requirements to the TSR-2.
Lispro4units@reddit
Out of curiosity why hasn’t British aviation made as many military aircraft now as in the past ?
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
The most important answer was economics. 1950s UK was poor, its empire crumbling around it and it was still trying to have a huge army, the reason for this aircraft was to bomb Russians with nukes.
In the end, building submarines with US ICBMs was much cheaper. Along the way, they destroyed the UK aircraft industry. This was virtually the last fast jet they ever produced alone. Tornado and Eurofighter were European projects with partners, and although I like it, the only jet they produced in numbers after this - the Hawk - is a joke, a trainer.
GDow1981@reddit
Economics. Multibillion cost of development of new aircraft types cannot be viable unless hundreds of aircraft are being procured which in practice means an international program (Tornado and Eurofighter). Or you’re the US industrial military complex getting trillions every year.
404-skill_not_found@reddit
The 1957 White Paper on Defense, massacred the British defense industry and particularly the aviation industry. Too much to go into here.
FxckFxntxnyl@reddit
The TSR-2 and the Vigilante are two of my favorite birds. It’s always been interesting to me how little talked about these two are.
speedyundeadhittite@reddit
A-5 is definitely one of the most graceful large jets, evet. It just looks fast sitting on the carrier pad.
Mackey_Corp@reddit
Is this like the British version of a Backfire?
Corvid187@reddit
More like a British F-111. They even shared some systems.
Backfire was more designed for massed standoff attacks against shipping at medium altitude. This was intended for nuclear delivery at very low level across Europe.
T65Bx@reddit
Kinda, yeah.
Holiday-Hyena-5952@reddit
Canada would have gotten interceptors. Australia wouldn't need F-111s, even Norway or Korea would have bought... just sad!
DadKnightBegins@reddit
I forgot all about this aircraft! I built a model of one as a kid.
NoDoze-@reddit
For ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2
NoDoze-@reddit
Look at the size of those radar housings! LOL Sweet looking plane, but also looks cliche for that time period. LOL
KDiggity8@reddit
Love the TSR! Although when I saw that first pic, my brain immediately thought it was inverted lol
an_older_meme@reddit
When an F-4 and a Concorde love each other
Trackrat14eight@reddit
That AOT tho…
Surprise11thDentist@reddit
Are those 4 huge airbrakes?
K3IRRR@reddit (OP)
Sure are! I can't imagine the effect they'd have, feeling that as the pilot
Jamatace77@reddit
Any info on what the frontal view show in top left of picture 5 and is supposed to be ? Have tried to search for alternative concepts for the tsr2 but no joy so far. Kinda looks like it’s supposed to be some form of advanced vtol , like a cross between a Harrier and TSR2
forgottensudo@reddit
I’m gonna have to agree with you here. This is beautiful.
K3IRRR@reddit (OP)
I'm grateful for your refined and matured taste in aircraft
eishethel@reddit
Ah, one of the few aircraft that the only natural predator was...A British Committee, a form of Hydra. Managed to successfully equipment kill on the ground as it nested rather than in the air.
4art4@reddit
How common is it to have a stabilizer lower than the main wing?
Diogenes256@reddit
I can’t go beautiful on this one.