jgetti

Ah yes,, isn't that the aircraft that was never constructed, but the developed engines were used on the Concord?

PubFather

Go to the top of the class! It does look quite impressive, if terribly unrealistic lol... (Although the Sidewinder concept is borrowed (i expect) from the Jaguar above-wing missile mount) There was a planned TSR-2 engine upgrade to boost payload to 22,000 pounds (if memory serves me correctly).

Wasnt quite the last - that honour goes to the Harrier. I nearly picked it for the worst cancellation ever thread. It's another might have been: no UK Tornado, therefore the UK either designs a indigenous interceptor for the GUIK gap. Or buys either the F15 or F14 for that job - and probably the F14 for its bomber killing abilities with Phoenix...

Ah well, we have always had the potential, just not the will or the money...

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

PubFather

Two prototypes (at least) were built and tested, and then destroyed by the Labour gvt on cancellation (along with the blueprints). It was capable of supercruise, I dont know if the engines were exactly those used on Concorde but certainly those engines would have been of the same family/tech tree...

RustyBattleship

About 25 or so years ago, while the Cold War was still in full swing, my wife's uncle visited us from Hungary. Being, technically, an attorney there was no problem granting him a visa (though before WW II he was the commandant of the military school).

We took him down to Poway to visit some friends then from there to Tijuana, Mexico where he could do some souvenir shopping. On the way we went past Miramar Naval Air Base and a couple of F-4 Phantoms were coming in for a landing. I happened to mention it and uncle Bela leaned out the window with wide eyes and a smile saying "Phantom? Phantom?"

His English was not very good so I did a little intelligence work using my wife as an interpreter (I was still working for the DOD at the time). I asked what did he know about the Phantom (which was also issued to the West German Luftwaffe). He said he wasn't technically knowledgable about the plane. The only thing he ever heard from Eastern Bloc pilots was they were taught, "If a Phantom ever gets on your tail, you may as well bail out now because he's going to get you."

Made MY day.

HistoricalDavid

For STOVL carriers, yes, but otherwise, how does the phrase go; STOVL aircraft are a good way to go half as far, carry half the payload, half as fast, for twice the price.

I'm not sure, would the bomber version of the SR-71 been better than the TSR-2? Certainly faster.

We bought the F-4 instead of the TSR-2, and considered buying the F-111. Perhaps it's just the hindsight talking but it's a real pity we ended up with the profoundly second-rate Tornado as opposed to the F-14 or -15.

The F-4 went out of Royal Navy service in 1978 - four years too early!

I personally don't mind at all if it comes from the guys across the pond.

PS - excellent story, RustyBattleship!

PubFather

And the F4 is still in German service (although much upgraded), I suspect it would still hold its own against most Migs... (although thats another thread lol)...

PubFather

Oh I know the Harrier is limited, but the tech still sold widely and gave us a capability we would otherwise never have had. The Harrier is still serving well in Afghanstan... and if we had ever developed the Supersonic Harrier... might have been a different story...

Different roles really - TSR-2 was low level penetration with SLR, but with a much greater range than the Tornado. A bomber version of SR71 would have been high-level nuke strike primarily..

A bit harsh on the Tornado ADV. It fulfilled its role (interceptor for the GIUK gap) pretty well, and always acquitted itself well in exercises against F15s in BVR. WVR is a different matter, lol.. Not that the F14/F15 wouldnt have been better however...

Not at all, I wish we would buy US equipment when it fits our needs and is better and cheaper than what we can produce ourselves. It's just that the TSR-2 would have been world beating...

HistoricalDavid

As good as the A-10s?

We're at the protoype stage, eh, only it's also got stealth.

TSR-2 was for nukes as well, IIRC.

How about F-14s for the inteceptor role?

Hm, F-15s for a start have faaaaaaaar better wing-loading - by a factor of about 2.5, I think! - and much greater thrust. It was a pretty good dogfighter, IIRC?

I don't know about 'world-beating'. I'm still concerned about the less-than-impressive payload, and God knows how much it would have cost.

gunnut

You should have told him that we had buckets load of Phantoms coming out the wazoo. In fact, they were being phased out for something even more nasty.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

bigross86

The IAF also has F-4's, known as the Kurnass 2000. Heavily modified and damn ugly looking things. They're beautiful...

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

jgetti

Here's a Super Hornet carrying 2 sidewinders, 2 sparrows and 8 amraams. Note stations 5, 6, and 7 are still open as well.

bigross86

I never understood that. What's the point of Sparrows and AMRAAMs? Wouldn't it make more sense to just carry one or the other instead of a mixed load?

jgetti

Beats me,, unless they're just trying to get rid of the sparrows..

gunnut

Those big outboard missiles look too big to be Sparrows. I think they are HARMs.

Zaphael

either that or harpoons. But it looks a lil too small to be harpoons either. Didn know the Superhornets were carrying harms