FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1980.PDF
OBUiai Organ of to* Rayal Aaro Club First Aeronautical WMkly in the World Founded in 1909 IURSDAY NOVEMBER 14, 1963 Number 2853 Volume 84 Editor-in-Chief MAURICE A. SMITH DFC Editor H. F. KING MBE Technical Editor W. T. GUNSTON Air Transport Editor J. M. RAMSOEN Production Editor ROY CASEY Managing Director H. N. PRIAULX MBE In this issue World News 784 Air Commerce 786 Straight and Level 794 Deuces High 795 Up to their Eyes in Soldiers 7 99 Mlnuteman 802 Letters 810 Sport and Business 813 Service Aviation 814 Missiles and Spaceflight 815 Industry 820 llitf* Transport Publications Ltd, Dorset House, 8tamford Street, London, SB1; elephone Waterloo 3333 (Telex 25137). elegrams Flightpres London Telex. Annual subscriptions: Home £4 15a. 'verseas £5 5s. Canada and USA S15.00. -<econd Class Mail privileges authorized st New York, NY. Branch Offices: Coventry, 8-10 Corpora-Uon Street; telephone Coventry 25210. Birmingham, King Edward House, New "treet, Birmingham 2; telephone Afld- tand 7191, Manchester, 260 Deansgate, sanchesterS ; telephone Blackfilars 4412 or Deansgate 3595. Glasgow, 62 Bucha-f* Street, Glasgow CI; telephone «.«utral 1265-6. Saw York, NY: Thomas Skinner A Co •iibUshers) Ltd, 111 Broadway 6; telephone Digby 9-1197. S; nifife Transport Publications Ltd, AtfM. Permission to reproduce illustra- f and letterpress can be granted only ?JW» written agreement. Brief extracts «. comments may be made with due ^Josowledgement. TSR.2 TWO weeks ago the British Government unveiled the British Aircraft Corporation's TSR.2, the new strike/reconnaissance weapon system for the Royal Air Force. Since that time this aeroplane has become the focus of so much controversy that it is now imperative to set the record straight. The TSR.2 is pressingly needed by Britain, yet it is being assailed by a horde of detractors who are variously misinformed, bigoted or grinding axes. Such appears to be the fate of every major weapon system developed in this country. Mr Denis Healey, Labour Party spokesman on defence matters, stated that TSR.2 is becoming "the biggest scandal in British politics since the South Sea Island Bubble." He calculates that each aircraft costs £20 million, basing his arithmetic on a programme cost of £1,000 million. It is three years since the Government intimated that the programme ceiling would be £400 million, and this journal is assured that the latter figure remains accurate. It would be reasonable to expect research and develop ment to amount to something over £200 million, and for the remainder to pay for a run of between 50 and 100 aircraft. The R&D bill is heavy; but it has paid for a whole new technology, without which the P.l 154, Concorde (even the One-Eleven) and any later programme would be either much more expensive or else technically impossible. It is the misfortune of the TSR.2 that it has to bear the financial burden of providing the British aircraft industry with a new range of abilities. Many commentators seem to believe that TSR.2 was designed to provide close battlefield support, and that following the cancellation of Skybolt it was hurriedly packed with electronics and forced into a strategic role as a stop-gap pending the arrival of Polaris. Is it too much to believe that the weapon system has been designed in accordance with the original Oper ational Requirement? And is its consequent ability to fulfil an exceptional range of military missions something to be deprecated ? The All-can-do Unlike the Polaris submarine, which can take no action at all until the outbreak of full-scale nuclear war, TSR.2 can react appropriately to any military situation; and no crisis can be more than half a day away. Those who doubt the need for this aircraft might well conduct a critical exam ination of the alternatives. And there is no reason why four Polaris submarines in the next decade should render TSR.2 obsolete, any more than 41 Polaris submarines of the US Navy are removing the need for the US Air Force. Finally, one cannot but regret the impression created by the Australian Government's method of choosing their own equipment in this class. During the past year TSR.2 has been carefully considered for the Royal Australian Air Force. Its specification was far superior to that of any other machine in existence, the price of £2 million each was acceptable, and the real disadvantage was the fact that the RAAF needed the new equip ment sooner than the TSR.2 delivery schedule allowed. An impartial observer is therefore justified in showing surprise at the choice of an American aircraft the design of which was begun 3£ years later than the TSR.2, and at the comment "It may be that the Canberras will see us through." There is no reason to doubt that the General Dynamics F-l 11A will be developed on schedule, nor is there reason to doubt that it will be a superb product in all respects. But we challenge the assertion that it will be delivered at "substantially the same time" as TSR.2, and we venture to suggest that it may not always pay to jump at what appears to be a bargain offer.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
