tsr 2 black buck
- Thread starter tgifriday
- Start date
Riain
Banned
The USAF Operation Eldorado Canyon missions against Libya in 1986 required F111s to undertake 9,700km round trips which gets close to the 12,200km of the Black Bucks, so it's likely TSR2 BB missions are physically possible. They'd likely include a PGM element from the start; MARTELS or LGBs or whatever else was available, and maybe durandals or some other runway busting munition to totally destroy the runway using the TSR2s vastly superior performance.
TSR2 is a smaller aircraft, with only two engines, so presumably the tanking requirements will be less of a headache. Perhaps each strike could be of two aircraft, or maybe you could have more single aircraft strikes. Not that there are all that many targets worth hitting. The practical bombload over such a long range is much less than a Vulcan, so as Riain says, PGMs will be very likely.
Riain
Banned
While I'm inclined to agree that getting the TSR2 into service is indicative of greater or at least considerably more efficient UK Defence spending that likely sees the RN with at least 1 fleet carrier in service in 1982 I've recently come to the conclusion that increased military capability will not cause the Argentines to not invade the Falklands.
My reasoning is that they successfully occupied South Thule from 1976 when the RN had the Ark Royal in commission, and Operation Journeyman ended with a whimper not a bang and certainly wasn't a success. The Foreign Office never stopped negotiating with the Argentines, always dangling the prospect of Sovereignty out there. Operation Rosario was a prerequisite for the Navy support for the coup that put Galtieri in power, the Junta was committed to the operation from the very day they took power for domestic reasons. Operation Rosario was supposed to happen in the (southern) summer of 1982/83 after a year of planning and preparation, that it happened in March/April after only the most basic planning outlines had been done was because of domestic pressures unrelated to the British response. The entire Argentine attitude was that the British would do nothing or that the UN would intervene before any counter offensive would be successfully mounted, to the extent that the Junta explicitly forbade ANY defensive planning to be undertaken until after the Task Force sailed.
I think the Argentine would need to see more than a few fancy toys before deciding against taking action over the Falklands. It would need a Britain well engaged in a world role, perhaps with a reasonable presence East of Suez in 1982 along with the powerful suite of capabilities that would send a clear signal to the entire world that Britain isn't to be messed with.
Possibly less successful. The TSR-2 has a slight advantage in range but I'm assuming that's with internally carried weapons only to avoid drag, which limits it to six 1,000 pound bombs versus the Vulcan's twenty-one. Considering that they purposely flew across the Port Stanley Airport runway at a roughly 35° angle to maximise the chance of at least one hit, with fewer bombs and a much smaller margin for error the chance of missing entirely rises.
If you want to start introducing precision guided munitions – AKA laser guided bombs – then that potentially changes things, but for the Vulcan as well. The TSR-2 will likely have to either operate in pairs with one designator aircraft and one bomber aircraft, which might cause the in-flight refuelling plans to collapse, or singly carrying both a designator pod and bombs accepting increased drag for external carry or a reduction in bombs carried if they can find a way to mount it in the bomb bay. I suppose you could try something like the A-6's Target Recognition and Attack Multi-Sensor (TRAM) turret but since it wasn't started to be introduced until 1980 that's probably way too late for the British to get it.
Riain
Banned
The RAF got simplified Pave Spike pods in 1979, IOTL used by Buccaneers so presumably would have laser designation for the TSR2 fleet in a similar timeframe.
Almost all of the attack profile of OTL BB missions were because its avionics were so shit, the exception was that the bombs needed to be dropped from 10,000' to hit at a good angle for penetration. The avionics of the TSR2 were highly advanced so would likely be able to hit the runway with only 6 bombs, even if they did need to drop them from 10,000'.
A quick search suggests that Pave Spike – at least in UK service – had daylight only capability as late as the Gulf War, there’s references to Thermal Imaging Airborne Laser Designator (TIALD) pods being shipped out to overcome the limitation. Would a daytime mission be viable?
When dropping dumb bombs from 10,000 feet I guess I'm just a bit sceptical about the TSR-2's electronics being capable enough to outweigh the ~71% reduction in bombs carried. There's also the problem that the specification was very cutting edge which I'm not sure they would have been able to initially meet, requiring introduction of the aircraft with more limited electronics to be upgraded over time. In theory fine but with UK defence spending often running into the reality of Treasury scepticism, and the 1970s were especially bad economically.
On paper, it looks like a winner - you can do all the IFR and the aircraft could have carried the missiles - but not the extra oil for the engines and TSR2 (or the BAC Eagle as I call it) could only carry 6 thousand pound bombs internally. Yes, more could have been carried under the wing, but that's more drag and thus more fuel.
Maybe in an alternate time line the UK somehow gets Pavetrack (or a similar system) carried in the weapons bays of their TSR2's in time to use in the Falklands conflict. Pave track combined one or more internally carried laser guided bombs would seem a good fit for this type of mission.
Last edited:
If the RAF had TSR2 for the Falklands i assume that would have also taken the trouble to move the Falklands closer to Ascension so that it would be in range
Other option is the US willing to risk more " overt" support for the UK and quietly using USAF tankers for the flight. Maybr temporarily " lease" them to the RAF with the USAF crew acting as " Advisors" to say a single RAF officer in " command". Officially its a ( temporary) RAF plane commanded by a RAF officer.
For that role I imagine they'd use KC10s.
Perhaps the US is willing to lend a few KC 10s for a night.
Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
Taken from Wikipedia . . . . so it isn't Gospel
TSR-2
Planned flight profiles as of 3 December 1963
| Profile | Fuel load | Altitude | Speed (Mach No.) | Distance | Still air time | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic cruise | Max internal | 23,000 ft (7,000 m) – 35,000 ft (11,000 m) | Mach 0.92 | 2,780 miles (4,470 km) | 5 h, 5 min | . |
| Economic cruise | Max internal plus 2 x 450 imp gal (2,000 l) wing tanks plus 1 x 1,000 imp gal (4,500 l) ventral tank | 15,000 ft (4,600 m) – 35,000 ft (11,000 m) | M0.88–0.92 | 3,440 miles (5,540 km) | 6 h, 20 min – 6 h, 35 min | Ventral tank still in design stage |
| Low-level cruise | Max internal | 200 ft (61 m) above ground level | M0.90 | 1,580 nautical miles (2,930 km) | 2 h, 40 min | |
| Low-level cruise | Max internal and 2 x 450 imp gal (2,000 l) wing tanks plus 1 x 1,000 imp gal (4,500 l) ventral tank | 200 ft (61 m) above ground level | M0.90 | 2,060 miles (3,320 km) | 3 h, 30 min | |
| Supersonic cruise | Max internal | 50,000 ft (15,000 m) – 58,000 ft (18,000 m) | M2.00 | 1,000 miles (1,600 km) | 53 min | Climbs and descents will be at less than M2.0; fuselage and engines limited to 45 min at M2.0 |
Ranges based on 2,000 lb weapon carried internally and retained throughout flight. Normal fuel reserves included
AVRO Vulcan
General characteristics
Crew: 5 (pilot, co-pilot, AEO, Navigator Radar, Navigator Plotter)
Length: 97 ft 1 in (29.59 m)
Wingspan: 99 ft 5 in (30.30 m)
Height: 26 ft 6 in (8.08 m)
Wing area: 3,554 sq ft (330.2 m2)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0010 mod.; tip: NACA 0008 mod.
Empty weight: 83,573 lb (37,908 kg) equipped and crewed
Max takeoff weight: 170,000 lb (77,111 kg)
Fuel capacity: 9,280 imp gal (11,140 US gal; 42,200 l); 74,240 lb (33,675 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Bristol Olympus Mk.101 / Mk.102 / Mk.104 twin-spool turbojet engines, 11,000 lbf (49 kN) thrust each
Performance
Maximum speed: 561 kn (646 mph, 1,039 km/h) at altitude
Maximum speed: Mach 0.96
Cruise speed: 493 kn (567 mph, 913 km/h) / M0.86 at 45,000 feet (14,000 m)
Range: 2,265 nmi (2,607 mi, 4,195 km)
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (17,000 m)
Thrust/weight: 0.31
Armament
21 × 1,000 pounds (454 kg) of conventional bombs
1 × Blue Danube nuclear gravity bomb
1 × Violet Club 400 kt nuclear gravity bomb
1 × U.S. Mark 5 nuclear gravity bomb supplied under Project E
1 × Yellow Sun Mk.1 400 kt nuclear gravity bomb
1 × Yellow Sun Mk.2 1.1 Mt thermonuclear gravity bomb
1 × Red Beard nuclear gravity bomb
1 × WE.177B parachute-retarded nuclear gravity bomb
Comparison of variants
Variants compared| B.1 | B.1A | B.2 | B.2 (MRR) | K.2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wingspan | 99 ft 5 in (30.30 m) | 111 ft 0 in (33.83 m) | |||
| Length | 97 ft 1 in (29.59 m) | 105 ft 6 in (32.16 m) [99 ft 11 in (30.45 m) without probe] | |||
| Height | 26 ft 6 in (8.08 m) | 27 ft 1 in (8.26 m) | |||
| Wing area | 3,554 sq ft (330.2 m2) | 3,964 sq ft (368.3 m3) | |||
| Max. takeoff weight | 167,000 lb (76,000 kg) 185,000 lb (84,000 kg) (operational necessity) | 204,000 lb (93,000 kg) | |||
| Cruising speed | Mach 0.86 indicated | ||||
| Max. speed | Mach 0.95 indicated | Mach 0.93 indicated (Mach 0.92 with 301 engines) | Mach 0.93 indicated | Unknown | |
| Service ceiling | 55,000 ft (17,000 m) | 45,000 to 56,000 ft (14,000 to 17,000 m) | |||
| Electrical system | 112 V DC | 115/200 V AC 3-phase 400 Hz | |||
| Emergency electrical system | Battery | Ram air turbine and Airborne Auxiliary Power Plant | |||
| Engines | 4 × Bristol Olympus 101, 102 or 104 | 4 × Bristol Olympus 104 | 4 × Bristol Siddeley Olympus 200-series, 301 | 4 × Bristol Siddeley Olympus 200-series | |
| Fuel capacity (main) | 9,280 imp gal (11,140 US gal; 42,200 l) / 74,240 lb (33,675 kg) | 9,260 imp gal (11,120 US gal; 42,100 l) / 74,080 lb (33,602 kg) | |||
| Fuel capacity (bomb bay) | None | 0–1,990 imp gal (0–2,390 US gal; 0–9,047 l) / 0–15,920 lb (0–7,221 kg) | 1,990 imp gal (2,390 US gal; 9,000 l) / 15,920 lb (7,221 kg)[ | 2,985 imp gal (3,585 US gal; 13,570 l) / 23,880 lb (10,832 kg) | |
| Powered flying controls | 1 × rudder (duplex), 4 × elevators, 4 × ailerons | 1 × rudder (duplex), 8 × elevons | |||
| Armament | 1 × free-fall nuclear bomb or 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) conventional bombs | 1 × Blue Steel missile or 1 × free-fall nuclear bomb or 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) conventional bombs | None |
So from these figures . . . does the RAF actually need more tankers????
Last edited:
To deliver the same number of bombs to Port Stanley airstrip would require 11 aircraft per raid, so yes.
The issue is do they need that many to it if they have, say a high altitude (above SAMs hight?) or a toss bombing them pop-up to guide with a LGB/designator (daylight but too fast & short exposure for defences) can one bomb not shut the runway?
Riain
Banned
A daylight attack would be feasible for an aircraft of the TSR2 performance, 9 Sea Harriers conducted a daylight bombing mission a few hours after BB1.
From what I understand the TSR2 electronics were on the verge if a breakthrough in 1965, the double sided VERDAN used in the Resolution class ssbn would have given the TSR2 the memory it needed to do the job. By 1982 the computer problems would likely be solved.