View source for BAC TSR-2

{{Short description|British reconnaissance strike aircraft prototype}}
{{good article}}
{{Use British English|date=July 2011}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2019}}
{{Infobox aircraft
 |name = TSR-2
 |image = File:BAC TSR.2 XR219 Warton 11.06.66 edited-2.jpg{{!}}border
 |caption = The only TSR-2 to fly, [[United Kingdom military aircraft serials|''XR219'']] in [[anti-flash white]] finish, at BAC's [[Warton Aerodrome|Warton factory]] in 1966
 |type = Strike/reconnaissance
 |national_origin = United Kingdom
 |manufacturer = [[British Aircraft Corporation]]
 |designer = <!--only appropriate for single designers, not project leaders-->
 |first_flight = 27 September 1964
 |introduction = <!--date the aircraft entered military or revenue service-->
 |retired = <!--date the aircraft left military or revenue service. if vague or multiples, it probably should be skipped-->
 |status = Cancelled<!--in most cases, this field is redundant; use it sparingly -->
 |primary_user = <!--please list only one, and don't use those tiny flags as they limit horizontal space-->
 |more_users = <!--up to three more. please separate with <br />.-->
 |produced = <!--years in production, e.g. 1970–1999, if still in active use but no longer built-->
 |number_built = 3<!-- Total number of flight-worthy aircraft completed. -->
 |unit cost =
 |developed_from = <!-- the aircraft which formed the basis for the topic type -->
 |variants = <!-- variants OF the topic type -->
}}

The '''British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2''' was a cancelled [[supersonic]] [[strike aircraft|strike]] and [[reconnaissance aircraft|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".<ref>Hamilton-Paterson 2010, p. 232.</ref>

The TSR-2 arose from the issuing of General [[Operational Requirement]] 339 (GOR.339) in November 1956, which sought a successor to the [[English Electric Canberra]] that would perform both conventional and [[Tactical nuclear weapon|tactical]] [[nuclear weapons delivery]], be able to penetrate well-defended frontline areas at low altitudes and very high speeds, and attack [[high-value target]]s in rear areas. Another intended combat role was to provide high-altitude, high-speed stand-off, [[side-looking radar]] and photographic imagery and [[signals intelligence]], [[aerial reconnaissance]]. On 1 January 1959, the project received its official go-ahead; early work was undertaken by [[Vickers-Armstrong]] in cooperation with [[English Electric]], before Britain's aircraft industry underwent [[Consolidation (business)|consolidation]] to create BAC. However, as some contributing manufacturers were employed directly by the Ministry rather than through BAC, this led to communication difficulties and cost overruns. On 27 September 1964, test pilot [[Roland Beamont]] performed the type's [[maiden flight]].

Only one example flew and test flights and weight increases during design indicated that the aircraft would be unable<ref>Burke 2010, p. 108.</ref> to meet its original stringent<ref>Buttler 1995, p. 21.</ref> design specifications.<ref name="Winchester p. 25"/><ref name="Wood p. 179"/><ref>Thornborough 2005, pp. 3, 34.</ref>{{refn|Approximately 14 hours of flight testing were completed on airframe ''XR219'' before the programme was cancelled, with the development phase not fully completed.<ref name="Winchester p. 25"/>|group=N}} The design specifications were reduced as the result.<ref name="auto">Burke 2010, p. 109.</ref>
The decision to cancel the TSR-2 programme came about out of ever-rising costs<ref>Burke 2010, p. 274.</ref> and inter-service rivalry<ref>Burke 2010, pp. 263–274.</ref> over Britain's future defence needs. It was decided to order [[General Dynamics F-111K|an adapted version]] of the [[General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark|General Dynamics F-111]] instead, but that decision was also later rescinded as costs and development times of that aircraft increased as well.<ref>Dorell, David, ed. "Short Cut to Suicide." ''Air Pictorial'', Volume 27, no. 2, February 1965, pp. Cover, 35–36.</ref> Operationally, the roles intended for the TSR-2 were taken up by other aircraft, such as the [[Blackburn Buccaneer]] and [[McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service|McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II]], both of which had been considered and rejected early in the TSR-2 procurement process. Eventually, the smaller [[Variable-sweep wing|swing-wing]] [[Panavia Tornado]] was developed by a European consortium and introduced during the 1980s to fulfil broadly similar requirements to the TSR-2.

==Background==

===Previous designs===
[[File:BAC TSR-2 at Duxford.jpg|thumb|''XR222'' in [[anti-flash white|white anti-flash finish]], worn by all the completed TSR-2s, at Duxford, 2006]]
The introduction of the first [[jet engine]]s in the late-[[World War II]] period led to calls for new jet-powered versions of existing aircraft. Among these was the design of a replacement for the [[de Havilland Mosquito]], at that time among the world's leading [[medium bomber]]s. The Mosquito had been designed with reduced weight to improve its speed. This led to the removal of all defensive armament, improving performance to the point where it was unnecessary. This approach was extremely successful, and a jet-powered version would be even more difficult to intercept.<ref name="auto1">Wynn 1997, pp. 65–68.</ref>

This led to [[List of Air Ministry specifications|Air Ministry specification]] E.3/45. The winning design, the [[English Electric Canberra]], also dispensed with defensive armament, producing a design with the speed and altitude that allowed it to fly past most defences.<ref name="auto1"/> The design's large wings gave it the lift needed to operate at very high altitudes, placing it above the range where jet fighters could intercept it. The Canberra could fly over its enemy with relative impunity, making it suited to [[aerial reconnaissance]] missions. The design was so successful that it was licensed for production in the United States, one of very few such cases. The [[Martin RB-57D Canberra|Martin RB-57D]] and [[Martin/General Dynamics RB-57F Canberra|RB-57F]] American-built reconnaissance subtypes further extended the wings up to a {{convert|37.5|m|abbr=on}} span for extremely high altitude capabilities.

===Canberra replacement===
It was realised that the Canberra's advantages would be eroded by improvements in enemy [[interceptor aircraft]]. As early as 22 February 1952, Air Vice Marshal [[Geoffrey Tuttle]] wrote that "Frankly, I do not believe that we will get much operational value out of the Canberra from 1955 onwards... the aircraft is already out of date and I doubt its chances of survival in daylight against the present MiG-15 opposition." As the Canberra's performance appeared to be at its limit, this led to a March 1952 draft requirement for a new light bomber to replace it, but this never went anywhere.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=87}}

A second round of development began after a January 1953 memo noted that the "thin wing" version of the [[Gloster Javelin]] could be modified to be a [[light bomber]]. The Javelin had an advanced navigation system that would be useful in this role. This led to [[operational requirement]] OR.328, but this was rejected as the range was too small when it was flown at low altitude. English Electric then began work on a [[Royal Navy]] requirement for a low-altitude [[strike aircraft]], which was won by [[Blackburn Aircraft|Blackburn]] with the [[Blackburn Buccaneer|Buccaneer]]. With minor changes, English Electric submitted their Navy entry to the RAF for the same role as OR.328. This was reviewed in October 1955, along with the winning Blackburn design, and rejected. [[Matthew Slattery]] stated that further redesign was needed to make them useful by the time they might enter service around 1960, concluding "it seems quite wrong to introduce in 1960 a subsonic aircraft that stands no hope of being supersonic."{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=88}}

Meanwhile, the Canberra was still proving useful in spite of new Soviet interceptors, but the widespread introduction of the first of the [[Soviet Union]]'s [[surface-to-air missile]]s (SAMs) in the late 1950s was a major threat.<ref>Jenkins 1999, p. 21.</ref> SAMs had speed and altitude performance much greater than any contemporary aircraft. The Canberra, and other high-altitude aircraft like the British [[V bombers]] or US [[B-52 Stratofortress|Boeing B-52 Stratofortress]], were extremely vulnerable to these weapons. The first aircraft to fall victim to the Soviet [[S-75 Dvina|S-75 ''Dvina'']] ([[NATO]] name "SA-2 Guideline") SAM was a [[Republic of China Air Force|Taiwanese]] RB-57 shot down in 1959.<ref>Garver 1997, pp. 193–194.</ref>

The solution was to fly lower: since [[radar]] operates in [[Line-of-sight propagation|line-of-sight]], the curvature of the Earth renders low-flying aircraft invisible beyond a certain range, the [[radar horizon]].<ref name=Spick_1986_p6-8>Spick 1986, pp. 6–8.</ref> In practice, trees, hills, valleys and any other obstructions reduce this range even more, making a ground-based interception of low-flying aircraft extremely difficult.<ref name=Spick_1986_p6-8/> The Canberra was designed for medium- to high-altitude flight and was not suitable for continuous terrain-hugging flight.<ref name = 'wynn 503'>Wynn 1997, p. 503.</ref> Low-level strike aircraft, or "[[interdictor]]s", grew into a new class during the late 1950s. They generally had a high [[wing loading]] to reduce the effects of turbulence and cross-wind, some form of [[terrain-following radar]] to allow very low flight at high speeds, and large fuel loads to offset the higher fuel use at low altitudes.<ref>Buttler 1995, pp. 12–13.</ref>

===GOR.339===
[[File:TSR-2 nose.jpg|thumb|TSR-2 ''XR222'' photographed at Duxford, 2009]]
Aware of the changing operational environment, the [[Ministry of Supply]] started work with [[English Electric]] in 1955, attempting to define a new light bomber to replace the Canberra.<ref name = 'flight oct 1969'>''Flight'', 9 October 1969, p. 570.</ref> These early studies eventually settled on an aircraft with a {{convert|2000|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}} ferry range, Mach&nbsp;1.5 speed "at altitude" and {{convert|600|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}} low-level range. A crew of two was required, one being the operator of the advanced navigational and attack equipment. The bombload was to be four {{cvt|1000|lb|kg}} bombs.<ref name = 'flight oct 1969'/>

The requirements were made official in November 1956 with General [[Operational Requirement]] 339 (GOR.339), which was issued to various aircraft manufacturers in March 1957.<ref name = 'flight oct 1969'/><ref>Burke 2010</ref> This requirement was ambitious for the technology of the day, requiring a [[supersonic]] all-weather aircraft that could deliver [[nuclear weapon]]s over a long range, operate at high level at Mach&nbsp;2+ or low level at Mach&nbsp;1.2, with [[STOL]] or possible [[VTOL]] performance.<ref name = 'wynn 503'/><ref name="Thornborough p. 6">Thornborough 2005, p. 6.</ref> The latter requirement was a side-effect of common battle plans from the 1950s, which suggested that nuclear strikes in the opening stages of war would damage most runways and airfields, meaning that aircraft would need to take off from "rough fields" such as disused Second World War airfields, or even flat and open areas of land.<ref>Buttler 1995, p. 13.</ref>

Specifically, the requirement included:<ref name="Thornborough p. 6"/>
* Delivery of tactical nuclear weapons at low level in all weathers, by day and night
* Photo-reconnaissance at medium level (day) and low level (day and night)
* Electronic reconnaissance in all weather
* Delivery of tactical nuclear weapons day and night at medium altitudes using blind bombing if necessary
* Delivery of conventional bombs and rockets

Low level was stated to be under {{cvt|1000|ft|m}} with an expected attack speed at sea level of Mach&nbsp;0.95. The operational range was to be {{convert|1000|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}} operating off runways of no more than {{cvt|3000|ft|m}}.<ref name="Thornborough p. 5">Thornborough 2005, p. 5.</ref> The TSR-2 was to be able to operate at {{convert|200|ft|m|abbr=on|sigfig=1}} above the ground at Mach&nbsp;1.1;<ref>Law 2002, p. 29.</ref> its range would allow it to operate strategically as well as tactically.<ref>Law 2002, p. 15.</ref>

===Political changes===
{{Quote box|align=right|width=26%|quote="There are jobs that missiles cannot do, they cannot reconnoitre enemy positions, they cannot be moved rapidly from one theatre to another, nor can they be switched from one target to another, only a manned vehicle can produce such flexibility."|source=Conservative [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|Member of Parliament]] and former Minister for Aviation [[Julian Amery, Baron Amery of Lustleigh|Julian Amery]] writing in ''Sunday Telegraph'' 1965<ref name = 'segell116'>Segell 1997, p. 116.</ref><ref>"Real Lessons of TSR-2." ''The Sunday Telegraph'', 11 April 1965, p. 13, cited in Antill, P. [http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_tsr2long.html#tsr1 "TSR-2: The Plane That Barely Flew."] ''historyofwar.org'', 28 August 2009. Retrieved: 23 November 2010.</ref>}}

As this specification was being studied by various manufacturers, the first of the political storms that were to dog the project reared its head, when Defence Minister [[Duncan Sandys]] stated in the [[1957 Defence White Paper]] that the era of manned combat was at an end and [[ballistic missile]]s were the weapons of the future. This viewpoint was vigorously debated by the aviation industry and within the [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defence]] for years.<ref name = 'smith 130'>Smith 1980, p. 130.</ref> Senior RAF officers argued against the White Paper's premise, stating the importance of mobility, and that the TSR-2 could not only replace the Canberra, but potentially the entire [[V bomber]] force.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Joubert de la Ferte |first=Philip |title=An Unrealistic Policy for Defense |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dGk-B_pvnN8C&pg=PA507 |magazine=New Scientist |date=5 March 1959 |page=507}}</ref>

In addition to the argument over the need for manned aircraft, additional political machinations had the effect of complicating the project. In September 1957, the Ministry of Supply informed the heads of the aviation companies that the only acceptable proposals would be those issued from teams consisting of more than one company.<ref name = 'labour 289'>Kaldor et al. 1979, p. 289.</ref> There was a large number of competing aircraft manufacturing companies in the UK, while orders were decreasing; thus the government intended to foster cooperation between certain companies and encourage mergers.<ref name = 'labour 289'/><ref name = 'segell117'>Segell 1997, p. 117.</ref>

Another political matter that did not help was the mutual distrust between the various services. At the time that GOR.339 was being defined, the Royal Navy was proceeding with the Buccaneer.<ref name = 'segell120'/> The savings associated with both forces using a common aircraft would be considerable, and Blackburn offered the RAF a version of the NA.39 — B.103A — to fit some of the GOR.339 requirements.<ref name = 'segell120'>Segell 1997, p. 120.</ref> The [[Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom)|Chief of the Defence Staff]] and former [[First Sea Lord]], [[Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma|Lord Mountbatten]], was a loyal proponent of the Buccaneer, later claiming that five of the type could be purchased for the same price as one TSR-2.<ref name = 'segell120'/><ref name="Wood"/> The RAF rebuffed the proposal, stating that it was unsuitable due to poor takeoff performance and the avionics not being capable of the desired role.<ref name = 'segell120'/> As one RAF official put it, "If we show the slightest interest in NA.39 we might not get the GOR.339 aircraft."<ref>[http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avtsr2.html "The BAC TSR.2."] ''faqs.org''. Retrieved: 4 February 2010.</ref>

Another political opponent of the TSR-2 project was Sir [[Solly Zuckerman, Baron Zuckerman|Solly Zuckerman]], at the time the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Ministry of Defence. Zuckerman had a low opinion of British technological achievements and was in favour of procuring military hardware from the United States.<ref name="Wood">Wood 1986, p. 158.</ref>

===Submissions===
[[File:BAC TSR2 Cosford-01.jpg|thumb|right|TSR-2 ''XR220'' at RAF Museum Cosford, 2002, with open access panel revealing interior details]]
English Electric and [[Hawker Aircraft]] had already received some signals from the Air Ministry that a formal process would be starting, but all of the major manufacturers were able to quickly put together submissions:{{sfn|Buttler|2003|pp=89-90}}
* Blackburn entered B.103A, which was essentially a B.103/NA.39 (Buccaneer) with its naval equipment removed and new fuel tanks installed.
* [[de Havilland Aircraft|De Havilland]] entered an upgraded version of the [[de Havilland Sea Vixen]], the "DH.110 Tactical Bomber', modified to remove naval systems and increase fuel through a fuselage extension. It also added an upgraded version of the [[Rolls-Royce Avon]] engines, [[blown flap]]s, and an attachment point for an under-fuselage [[rocket engine]] [[JATO]] unit, all to improve takeoff performance. 
* [[Vickers-Armstrongs]]/[[Supermarine]] offered Type 565, a similar conversion of the [[Supermarine Scimitar]].
* [[Hawker Aircraft|Hawker]]{{Refn|Hawker's parent, [[Hawker-Siddeley]], was also the parent of Avro. HS acquired de Havilland and Blackburn in 1960.|group=N}} entered the [[Hawker P.1121|P.1121]], a development of the [[Hawker Hunter]] relying on [[drop tank]]s to meet the range requirements.

These early submissions were reviewed in May 1957. While all of these would be available before the desired 1964 service entry date, all of them had performance that was far short of the requirements. Only de Havilland's entry met the {{convert|1000|nmi}} range requirement; the others were well short, especially P.1121. The supersonic performance of all of these designs was very limited, especially the range the aircraft could fly whilst supersonic.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=90}}

A further and more rigorous GOR.339 was released, and at a September 1957 meeting the Ministry called for a new round of submissions on 31 January 1958, making the first formal statement that only those submissions from paired-up companies would be considered.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=91}} Eight companies were invited to enter, leading to thirteen submissions:{{sfn|Buttler|2003|pp=89-104}}<ref name = 'segell110'>Segell 1997, p. 110.</ref>

* Avro's 739 looked very similar to the final TSR-2, although it had a mid-mounted swept wing instead of top-mounted delta. It is otherwise very similar to the EE submission, especially in details of the cockpit area.
* Blackburn entered B.108, a further modification of B.103A with even more fuel. While the performance was limited compared to the other entries, Blackburn felt that meeting all of these features was not justified and their model would cost far less per unit. They also felt that, through the experimental development of Buccaneer, they were the only company that really had experience with the low-level attack profile and its many problems in terms of turbulence and control.
* Bristol's Type 204 was the most distinctive entry, using their "gothic" version of the [[delta wing]] planform, which they had developed during early studies on [[Bristol Type 223]]. It also featured a [[Canard (aeronautics)|canard]] under the cockpit area, below the fuselage and mounted on a wing-like extension. The two engines were fed from an intake on the top of the wing.
* De Havilland entered an entirely new design, unnamed, with swept wings and engines under the wings in pods. They offered a rocket-powered pad for VTOL use, and also offered modified versions for naval strike and long-range interceptors.
* English Electric, having been informed of the upcoming requirements, had time to study 18 proposed layouts, P.1 to P.18, before selecting P.17A for submission. This was substantially similar to the winning design, differing primarily in the type of engine intakes used. EE teamed up with [[Short Brothers]] for the Shorts P.17D, a vertical-lift platform that would give the P.17 a VTOL capability.
* Fairey entered a design based on the [[Fairey Delta 2]], essentially stretching the fuselage forward and adding a large canard at the cockpit area. The two engines would be carried in underwing pods; this precluded underwing stores, but had a large bomb bay in the fuselage.
* Gloster entered two more versions of the thin-wing Javelin, either with in-fuselage engines like the Javelin, or with underwing pods that allowed for greater internal stores of fuel and weapons.
* Hawker entered three closely related designs: P.1123, P.1125 and P.1129. The first two shared as many components as possible to deliver a light bomber (1123) or air superiority fighter (1125). The P.1129 was similar but larger and more powerful, meeting all of the GOR requirements.
* Vickers, having dropped the Supermarine name, entered Type 571. This looked similar to the winning submission, but featured a very thin and only slightly swept wing with large wingtip fuel tanks, and prominent swept-forward Ferri-style engine intakes.

===Selection===
By February, the Air Ministry had reduced the field to three designs: Hawker-Siddeley, Vickers and EE. The Ministry was highly impressed with the Vickers submission, which included not only the aircraft design, but a "total systems concept" outlining all the avionics, support facilities and logistics needed to maintain the aircraft in the field. EE, who had recently introduced the [[English Electric Lightning|Lightning]], was the only company with extensive experience with real-world supersonic aircraft, which they felt gave it a huge advantage in practical terms.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=96}}

Hawker-Siddeley, parent of Hawker, Avro and Gloster, had entered five designs. This led to some confusion and internal dissent within the company. Avro, having lost the [[Avro 730]] project, felt that a new bomber design was naturally theirs to lead. Gloster's design remained based on Javelin, and on 11 December 1957, the Hawker design team stated flatly there was no way it would ever win the contract.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|pp=105}} A 27 January 1958 meeting between [[Roy Dodson]], [[Frank Spriggs]] and J.R. Ewins eventually decided to promote the P.1129 as their primary submission, with some added features from the 739. Notably, the wing was made thinner and the [[area rule]] was applied to optimize the design for flight at Mach 1.34.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|pp=106}}

In May, the Air Ministry issued OR.343, a refined version of GOR.339. Hawker submitted their updated "P.1129 Development", while minor variations of the other two designs were offered.  Given the similarities between the Vickers and EE, there was some discussion of awarding another series of proposals, one from Vickers and EE and the other from Hawker-Siddeley, but it was noted this would delay the final contract by as much as a year.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=104}}

It was later revealed that the decision to drop the Hawker effort had been taken as early as August, and that their later submissions were effectively a "going through the motions" effort.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=107}} Official opinions of EE's management found it lacking in comparison to Vickers, but the combination of the two was felt by officialdom to be a useful marriage and accordingly the development contract was awarded to Vickers, with English Electric as sub-contractor.<ref name="Burke">Burke 2010, pp. 66–68.</ref><ref name = 'segell118'>Segell 1997, p. 118.</ref> The ultimate design was essentially the wings and tail sections of the P.17, combined with the longer fuselage of the Type 571, with the design being built in two parts, Vickers the front and EE the rear, and the bolted together at a point just in front of the wing.{{sfn|Buttler|2003|p=107}}

The existence of GOR.339 was revealed to the public in December 1958 in a statement to the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]].<ref name = 'segell118'/> Under pressure by the recommendations of the Committee on [[Estimates]], the Air Ministry examined ways that the various project proposals could be combined, and on 1 January 1959, the Minister of Supply announced that the TSR-2 would be built by Vickers-Armstrong working with English Electric;<ref name="Winchester p. 16">Winchester, ''Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft'', 2005, p. 16.</ref> the initials coming from "Tactical Strike and Reconnaissance, Mach 2",<ref>Hamilton-Paterson 2010, p. 232.</ref> the 'Strike' part of the designation specifically referring in RAF terminology to a nuclear weapons role.

On 1 January 1959, the project was given an official go-ahead; in February, it came under the new designation Operational Requirement 343.<ref>Burke 2010, p. 75.</ref> OR.343 was more specific and built upon work from the various submissions to GOR.339, specifically stating that low-level operations would be at {{convert|200|ft|abbr=on}} or less, and that Mach&nbsp;2 should be attained at altitude.<ref>Thornborough 2005, pp. 6, 19.</ref>

===Mission===
[[File:TSR-2.jpg|thumb|TSR-2 ''XR222'' photographed at Duxford, 2009]]

The envisaged "standard mission" for the TSR-2 was to carry a {{cvt|2000|lb|kg}} weapon internally for a combat radius of {{convert|1000|nmi|mi km}}. Of that mission {{convert|100|nmi|mi km}} was to be flown at higher altitudes at Mach 1.7 and the {{cvt|200|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}} <!-- does this really need a conversion, only a few words after 100 nmi was converted? -->into and out of the target area was to be flown as low as 200&nbsp;ft at a speed of Mach&nbsp;0.95. The remainder of the mission was to be flown at Mach&nbsp;0.92. If the entire mission were to be flown at the low 200&nbsp;ft altitude, the mission radius was reduced to {{convert|700|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}}. Heavier weapons loads could be carried with further reductions in range.<ref name="Winchester p. 25">Winchester, ''Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft'', 2005, p. 25.</ref> Plans for increasing the TSR-2's range included fitting external tanks: one {{convert|450|impgal|usgal L|adj=on}} tank under each wing or one {{cvt|1000|impgal|USgal L}} tank carried centrally below the fuselage. If no internal weapons were carried, a further {{cvt|570|impgal|USgal L}} could be carried in a tank in the weapons bay.<ref name="Winchester p. 25"/> Later variants were to be fitted with variable-geometry wings.<ref>Murray, Iain, "Bouncing-Bomb Man: the Science of Sir Barnes Wallis", Haynes, 2009, p. 191.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+Planned flight profiles as of 3 December 1963<ref name="TNA AIR 2/17329 E53A pps 2-3">TNA AIR 2/17329 E53A, pp.&nbsp;2–3.</ref><ref>[http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/tna-air2-17329e53a_02.JPG "AIR 2/17329, E53A, p. 3."]  ''National Archives'', London via nuclear-weapons.info. Retrieved: 4 February 2010.</ref><ref group=a>Ranges based on 2,000&nbsp;lb weapon carried internally and retained throughout flight. Normal fuel reserves included</ref>
|-
!Profile
!Fuel load
!Altitude
!Speed <br />(Mach No.)
!Distance
!Still air time
!Notes
|-
|Economic cruise
|Max internal
|{{convert|23000|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|35000|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|Mach 0.92
|{{convert|2780|mi|km}}
|5 h, 5 min
| .
|-
|Economic cruise
|Max internal plus 2 x {{convert|450|impgal|L|abbr=on}} wing tanks plus 1 x {{convert|1000|impgal|L|abbr=on}} ventral tank
|{{convert|15000|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|35000|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|M0.88–0.92
|{{convert|3440|mi|km}}
|6 h, 20 min – 6 h, 35 min
| Ventral tank still in design stage
|-
|Low-level cruise
|Max internal
|{{convert|200|ft|m|abbr=on}} above ground level
|M0.90
|{{convert|1580|nmi|km}}
|2 h, 40 min
|
|-
|Low-level cruise
|Max internal and 2 x {{convert|450|impgal|L|abbr=on}} wing tanks plus 1 x {{convert|1000|impgal|L|abbr=on}} ventral tank
|{{convert|200|ft|m|abbr=on}} above ground level
|M0.90
|{{convert|2060|mi|km}}
|3 h, 30 min
| 
|-
|[[Supercruise|Supersonic cruise]]
|Max internal
|{{convert|50000|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|58000|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|M2.00
|{{convert|1000|mi|km}}
|53 min
| Climbs and descents will be at less than M2.0; fuselage and engines limited to 45 min at M2.0
|-
|}

{{reflist|group=a}}

{| class="wikitable"
|+Bomb release procedure<ref name="TNA AIR 2/17329 E53A pps 2-3"/>
|-
!Mode of delivery
!Altitude
!Speed
!Notes
|-
|[[Laydown delivery|Laydown]]
|{{convert|100|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|500|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|M0.80–1.15
|5 mins at M1.15. 2 mins at 1.20M. Initial clearance using automatic system will be at {{convert|200|ft|m|abbr=on}} and M0.9. Minimum height for laydown will depend on weapon.
|-
|[[Toss bombing|Loft]]
|{{convert|100|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|500|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|M0.80M-1.15
|Release at 30°, 65° or 110°. Initial clearance will be at {{convert|200|ft|m|abbr=on}} and 0.90M.
|-
|Ballistic
|{{convert|5000|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|55000|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|M1.15 up to M2.05 (depending on height)
|Initial clearance will be at {{convert|25000|ft|m|abbr=on}} and M1.70
|-
|[[Toss bombing#Dive toss|Dive toss]]
|Commence manoeuvre at {{convert|25000|ft|m|abbr=on}} – {{convert|50000|ft|m|abbr=on}}
|Commence manoeuvre at M1.70–2.00
|Dive angles between 12.5° and 22.5°. Aircraft speed at release between M0.92 and 1.10. Height at release 5–13,000&nbsp;ft. Initial clearance will be with dive commencing at {{convert|25000|ft|m|abbr=on}} and M1.70.
|-
|Retarded air burst
|
|
|This was possible with the system but no clearance of this mode was sought initially.
|-
|}

The TSR-2 was also to be equipped with a reconnaissance pack in the weapons bay which included an optical linescan unit built by [[EMI]], three cameras and a sideways-looking radar (SLR) to carry out the majority of its reconnaissance tasks.<ref>Burke 2010, pp. 221–226.</ref> Unlike modern linescan units that use [[infrared linescan|infrared imaging]], the TSR-2's linescan would use daylight imaging or an artificial light source to illuminate the ground for night reconnaissance.<ref name="Thornborough p. 36">Thornborough 2005, p. 36.</ref>

===Tactical nuclear weapons===
Carriage of the existing [[Red Beard (nuclear weapon)|Red Beard]] [[tactical nuclear weapon|tactical nuclear bomb]] had been specified at the beginning of the TSR-2 project, but it was quickly realised that Red Beard was unsuited to external carriage at supersonic speeds, had safety and handling limitations, and its 15&nbsp;[[kiloton|kt]] yield would be inadequate for the targets assigned. Instead, in 1959, a successor to Red Beard — an "Improved Kiloton Bomb" to a specification known as [[Operational Requirement]] 1177 (OR.1177)<ref>''AIR 2/17322 E31A''. London: Public Record Office.</ref> — was specified for the TSR-2.  In the tactical strike role, the TSR-2 was expected to attack targets beyond the forward edge of the battlefield assigned to the RAF by [[NATO]], day or night and in all weathers. These targets comprised missile sites — both hardened and soft — aircraft on airfields, runways, airfield buildings, [[Aviation fuel|airfield fuel installation]]s and bomb stores, tank concentrations, [[ammunition dump|ammunition]] and supply dumps, railways and railway tunnels, and bridges.<ref name="air77/654">''AIR 77/654: The Limitations of 10&nbsp;kt Free-Fall Tactical Weapon As A Replacement for Red Beard''. London: Public Record Office, 2010.</ref> OR.1177 specified 50, 100, 200 and 300&nbsp;kt yields, assuming a [[circular error probable]] of {{convert|1200|ft|m|abbr=on}} and a damage probability of 0.8, and [[laydown delivery]] capability, with burst heights for targets from 0 to {{convert|10000|ft|m|abbr=on}} above sea level. Other requirements were a weight of up to {{convert|1000|lb|kg|abbr=on}}, a length of up to {{convert|144|in|m|abbr=on}}, and a diameter up to {{convert|28|in|mm|abbr=on}} (the same as Red Beard).<ref name="air2/17322">''AIR 2/17322: Draft Air Staff Requirement No. O.R.1177 An Improved Kiloton Bomb''. London: Public Record Office, 2010.</ref>

However, a ministerial ruling on 9 July 1962 decreed that all future tactical nuclear weapons should be limited to a yield of 10&nbsp;kt.<ref name="air2/17325">''AIR 2/17325 E31B: Joint Naval/Air Staff Requirement G.D.A.15/O.R.1177 (Issue 3): An Improved Kiloton Bomb pp.&nbsp;1–2''. London: Public Record Office, 2010.</ref> The RAF issued a new version of the OR.1177 specification, accepting the lower yield, while making provision in the design for it to be capable of adaptation later for a higher yield, in the event of the political restriction being lifted. Meanwhile, the RAF explored ways of compensating for the lower yield by including, in the specifications for both the bomb and TSR-2, provision for releasing the smaller weapons in salvos, dropping sticks of four of the revised OR.1177 — later named [[WE.177|WE.177A]] — at 3,000&nbsp;ft (914m) intervals to prevent the detonation of the first weapon destroying the succeeding ones before they could, in turn, detonate. This led to the requirement that the TSR-2 must be able to carry four WE.177As, two internally and two on external underwing [[Hardpoint|stores pylons]] —the width of the TSR-2 [[bomb bay]] (originally designed to accommodate a single Red Beard weapon) necessitating reducing the diameter to {{cvt|16.5|in|cm}}, the bomb's width and fin span being constrained by the need to fit two WE.177 bombs side-by-side in the aircraft's bomb bay.<ref name="air77/654"/> The requirement for stick bombing using nuclear weapons was soon dropped as larger yield bombs came back into favour.<ref>Burke 2010, p. 238.</ref>

A drawback of carrying WE.177 on external pylons was a limitation due to [[aerodynamic heating]] of the bomb's casing. WE.177A was limited to a maximum carriage time of five minutes at Mach&nbsp;1.15 at low level on TSR-2; otherwise the bomb's temperature would rise above its permitted maximum. This would impose a severe operational restriction on TSR-2, as the aircraft was designed for Mach&nbsp;1+ cruise at this height.<ref name="air2/17330">''AIR 2/17330 E9A p1''. London: Public Record Office, 2010.</ref>

Nuclear [[stand-off missile]]s were also proposed for the TSR-2 early in development but were not proceeded with. These included an air-launched development of the [[Blue Water (missile)|Blue Water]] missile<ref name="Wood p. 168">Wood 1986, p. 168.</ref> — carried underwing or semi-recessed in the bomb bay — and an air-launched [[ballistic missile]] referred to as ''Grand Slam'' with a warhead derived from that intended for the [[GAM-87 Skybolt|Skybolt]] missile and a range of {{cvt|100|nmi|mi km}}.<ref name="Wood p. 155">Wood 1986, p. 155.</ref> Conventional missiles were catered for instead, with the design originally centring on use of the [[AGM-12 Bullpup]], moving on to favour the French [[AS-30]], then settling on the new OR.1168 missile (which would become the TV-guided [[Martel (missile)|AJ-168 Martel]]).<ref>Taylor 1963, p. 394.</ref>

After the cancellation of the TSR-2, the RAF eventually filled the tactical strike requirement using [[McDonnell F-4 Phantom II]]s with [[Project E|US dual-key nuclear weapons]],{{refn|The "British" Phantoms were based on the F-4C and F-4J variants and retained the earlier series' capability of carrying nuclear arms on the centreline pylon.<ref>Gardner 1970, p. 20.</ref>|group=N}}<ref>Sweetman 1984, p. 24.</ref> but continued their attempts to get the 10&nbsp;kt limit lifted.<ref>Burnell, Brian. [http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm#WE.177 "WE.177."] ''Nuclear weapons: A guide to British nuclear weapons'', 7 November 2010. Retrieved: 12 November 2010.</ref> Development of WE.177A was delayed by several years because the [[Atomic Weapons Research Establishment]] (AWRE) at Aldermaston was inundated with work on other warhead developments. AWRE workload eased after completion of the [[Polaris missile]] warheads and work was able to resume on the WE.177A; deliveries to the RAF began in late 1971 for deployment on Buccaneers of [[Royal Air Force Germany|RAF Germany]], a year after WE.177A deliveries to the Royal Navy. Approval for high-yield tactical weapons was eventually gained in 1970, and by 1975 the RAF had WE.177C, which at almost 200&nbsp;kt was a weapon very similar to what they had planned for the TSR-2 in 1959.<ref name="air2/17322"/>

==Design==
[[File:TSR-2 (engines).jpg|thumb|TSR-2 ''XR222'' engine exhaust nozzles photographed at Duxford, 2009. The hinged panel in the centre above the engine nozzles contains the [[Drogue parachute|braking parachute]]]]

Throughout 1959, English Electric (EE) and Vickers worked on combining the best of both designs to propose a joint design with a view to having an aircraft flying by 1963, while also working on merging the companies under the umbrella of the [[British Aircraft Corporation]].<ref>Burke 2010, p. 89.</ref> EE had put forward a [[delta wing]]ed design and Vickers, a swept wing on a long [[fuselage]]. The EE wing, born of their greater supersonic experience, was judged superior to Vickers, while the Vickers fuselage was preferred. In effect, the aircraft would be built 50/50: Vickers the front half, EE the rear.<ref name="Thornborough p. 6"/>

The TSR-2 was to be powered by two [[Rolls-Royce Olympus|Bristol-Siddeley Olympus]] [[Afterburner|reheated]] [[turbojet]]s, advanced variants of those used in the [[Avro Vulcan]]. The Olympus would be further developed and would power the supersonic [[Concorde]].<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Maxtone Graham |first=J. A. |title=You, Too, Can Break The Sound Barrier |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-tMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA220 |magazine=Popular Mechanics |date=March 1968 |page=220}}</ref> The design featured a small shoulder-mounted delta wing with down-turned tips, an all-moving swept [[tailplane]] and a large all-moving [[Vertical stabilizer|fin]]. [[Blown flaps]] were fitted across the entire trailing edge of the wing to achieve the short takeoff and landing requirement, something that later designs would achieve with the technically more complex swing-wing approach. No [[aileron]]s were fitted, control in roll instead being implemented by differential movement of the slab tailplanes. The [[wing loading]] was high for its time, enabling the aircraft to fly at very high speed and low level with great stability without being constantly upset by turbulences near the ground such as thermals and rotors on the leeward side of mountain ranges .<ref name="Winchester p. 24">Winchester, ''Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft'', 2005, p. 24.</ref> The EE [[Test pilot|Chief Test Pilot]], [[Wing Commander (rank)|Wing Commander]] [[Roland Beamont]], favourably compared the TSR-2's supersonic flying characteristics to the Canberra's own subsonic flight characteristics, stating that the Canberra was more troublesome.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Parliamentary Debates: House of Lords Official Report |newspaper=Hansard |publisher=[[Her Majesty's Stationery Office]] |volume=374 |date=1976 |page=xlviii}}.</ref>

According to the Flight Envelope diagram,<ref name="McLelland p. 92">McLelland 2010, p. 92.</ref> TSR2 was capable of sustained cruise at Mach&nbsp;2.05 at altitudes between {{convert|37000|ft|m|abbr=on}} and {{convert|51000|ft|m|abbr=on}} and had a dash speed of Mach&nbsp;2.35 (with a limiting leading-edge temperature of 140&nbsp;°C).<ref name="McLelland p. 92"/><!--This recently added content could use some rewording and clarification.-->

The aircraft featured some extremely sophisticated [[avionics]] for navigation and mission delivery,<ref>Law 2002, p. 14.</ref> which would also prove to be one of the reasons for the spiralling costs of the project. Some features, such as forward looking radar (FLR) and side-looking radar for navigational fixing, only became commonplace on military aircraft years later.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ramirez |first=Enrique |title=Architecture Against the System (2): The BAC TSR-2 |url=http://www.aggregat456.com/2010/01/architecture-against-system-2-bac-tsr-2.html |website=aggregat456.com |date=24 January 2010 |access-date=7 December 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707093659/http://www.aggregat456.com/2010/01/architecture-against-system-2-bac-tsr-2.html |archive-date=7 July 2011}}</ref> These features allowed for an innovative autopilot system which, in turn, enabled long distance terrain-following sorties as crew workload and pilot input had been greatly reduced.<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Major Projections Which Lead the World: A Great Challenge |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Bk7nTSxPE3gC&pg=PA373 |magazine=New Scientist |issue=200 |date=7 May 1964 |page=373}}</ref>

{{Quote box|align=left|width=26%|quote="The practical solution of appointing one prime contractor to manage the whole programme with sub-contractors operating under strictly controlled and disciplined conditions was, if considered at all, waived aside."|source=Wing Commander R.P. Beamont, the first TSR-2 pilot.<ref>{{cite web |last=Barbaroux |first=Pierre |title=How do Organisations Manage to Develop Innovation within Collaborative and Interactive Environments? Lessons Learnt From a Cold War Military Project |url=http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=500952&cf=43 |website=Imperial College London Business School |date=2010 |page=14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719122346/http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=500952&cf=43 |archive-date=19 July 2011}}</ref>}}

There were considerable problems with realising the design. Some contributing manufacturers were employed directly by the Ministry rather than through BAC, leading to communication difficulties and further cost overruns. Equipment, an area in which BAC had autonomy, would be supplied by the Ministry from "associate contractors", although the equipment would be designed and provided by BAC, subject to ministry approval.<ref>{{cite web |title=TSR.2. |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%201015.html |website=Flight International |date=9 April 1964 |page=570 |access-date=4 February 2010}}</ref> The overall outlay of funds made it the largest aircraft project in Britain to date.<ref>''Flight'', October 1964, p. 437.</ref>{{date missing|date=April 2021}}

Unlike most previous projects, there were to be no prototypes. Under the "development batch" procedure pioneered by the Americans (and also used by English Electric for the [[English Electric Lightning|Lightning]]), there would instead be a development batch of nine airframes, to be built using production jigs.<ref name = 'segell121'>Segell 1997, p. 121.</ref>{{refn|In terms of construction, there had been a large pre-emptive investment in tooling, on the assumption that production numbers would definitely be built, however, in terms of flight-testing and systems integration, the first series TSR-2s were considered development prototypes.<ref>Burke 2010, p. 95.</ref>|group=N}} The choice of proceeding to production tooling turned out to be another source of delay, with the first aircraft having to adhere to strict production standards or deal with the bureaucracy of attaining concessions to allow them to exhibit differences from later airframes.<ref name = 'segell121'/> Four years into the project, the first few airframes had effectively become prototypes in all but name, exhibiting a succession of omissions from the specification and differences from the intended pre-production and production batches.<ref>Gardner 2006, p. 173.</ref>

==Operational history==

===Testing===
[[File:TSR 2 (3rd prototype).jpg|thumb|Serial number ''XR222'' was one of only three "flight ready" TSR-2s completed, photographed at the [[Supermarine Spitfire]] 60th Anniversary Airshow, Duxford, 1996.]]

Despite the increasing costs, the first two aircraft of the development batch were completed. Engine development{{refn|The loss of the [[Avro Vulcan]] flying testbed aircraft and two ground failures in 1964 resulted in the TSR-2 engine development being far behind schedule.<ref name="Thornborough p. 28"/>|group=N}} and undercarriage problems led to delays for the first flight which meant that the TSR-2 missed the opportunity to be displayed to the public at 1964's [[Farnborough Airshow]].<ref name="Thornborough p. 28">Thornborough 2005, p. 28.</ref> In the days leading up to testing, [[Denis Healey]] — the [[Shadow Secretary of State for Defence|Opposition shadow secretary for defence]] — had criticised the aircraft, saying that by the time it was introduced it would face "new anti-aircraft" missiles that would shoot it down, making it prohibitively expensive at £16 million per aircraft (on the basis of only 30 ordered).<ref>{{cite web |title=TSR.2 Takes Air |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%202576.html |website=Flight |date=1 October 1964 |page=576 |access-date=4 February 2010}}</ref>

Test pilot [[Roland Beamont]] finally made the first flight from the [[Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment]] (A&AEE) at [[MOD Boscombe Down|Boscombe Down]], Wiltshire, on 27 September 1964.<ref>{{cite web |last=Feron |first=James |title=British Test Controversial Jet; Pilot Applauds its Performance; Supersonic Fighter-Bomber Will Carry Nuclear Arms – Labor Attacks Costs |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/28/archives/british-test-controversial-jet-pilot-applauds-its-performance.html |website=The New York Times |date=28 September 1964 |page=4}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=TSR.2 Takes The Air |journal=Flight International |date=1 October 1964 |page=576 |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%202575.html}}</ref> Initial flight tests were all performed with the undercarriage down and engine power strictly controlled—with limits of {{convert|250|kn|mph km/h|abbr=on}} and {{convert|10000|ft|m|abbr=on}} on the first (15-minute) flight.<ref>''Flight'', 8 October 1964, p. 440.</ref> Shortly after takeoff on ''XR219's'' second flight, vibration from a fuel pump at the [[resonant frequency]] of the [[human eyeball]] caused the pilot to throttle back one engine to avoid momentary loss of vision.<ref name="Wood p. 161">Wood 1986, p. 161.</ref><ref name="Gardner">Gardner 1981, p. 116.</ref>

Only on the 10th test flight was the landing gear successfully retracted—problems preventing this on previous occasions, but serious vibration problems on landing persisted throughout the flight testing programme. The first supersonic test flight (Flight&nbsp;14) was achieved on the transfer from A&AEE, Boscombe Down, to [[Warton Aerodrome|BAC Warton]].<ref name="Thornborough p. 33"/> During the flight, the aircraft achieved Mach&nbsp;1 on dry power only ([[supercruise]]). Following this, Beamont lit a single reheat unit as the other engine's reheat fuel pump was unserviceable, with the result that the aircraft accelerated away from the chase [[English Electric Lightning]] (a high speed interceptor) flown by Wing Commander [[Jimmy Dell|James "Jimmy" Dell]], who had to catch up using reheat on both engines.<ref>Hastings, David. [http://www.targetlock.org.uk/tsr2/prototypes.html "Prototypes."] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719194936/http://www.targetlock.org.uk/tsr2/prototypes.html |date=19 July 2011 }} ''Target Lock: British Aircraft Corporation TSR.2''. Retrieved: 12 November 2010.</ref> On flying the TSR-2 himself, Dell described the prototype as handling "like a big Lightning".<ref name="O'Sullivan">{{cite web |last=O'Sullivan |first=Bill |title=The Beamont Files |url=http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2005/bee/bee.htm |website=Newark Air Museum |access-date=2 February 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110115091519/http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/oldstuff/2005/bee/bee.htm |archive-date=15 January 2011}}</ref>

Over a period of six months, a total of 24 test flights were conducted.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2044882/Wing-Commander-Jimmy-Dell.html "Wing Commander Jimmy Dell: Pilot who established his reputation in fighters and went on to test both the Lightning and the TSR 2".] ''The Telegraph'', 28 May 2008. Subscription required.</ref> Most of the complex electronics were not fitted to the first aircraft, so these flights were all concerned with the basic flying qualities of the aircraft which, according to the test pilots involved, were outstanding.<ref name="O'Sullivan"/> Speeds of Mach&nbsp;1.12 and sustained low-level flights down to 200&nbsp;ft were achieved above the [[Pennines]].<ref name="Thornborough p. 33"/> Undercarriage vibration problems continued, however, and only in the final few flights, when XR219 was fitted with additional tie-struts on the already complex landing gear, was there a significant reduction in them.<ref name="Wood p. 179">Wood 1986, p. 179.</ref><ref>Hunter 1998, p. 179.</ref> The last test flight took place on 31 March 1965.<ref name="Thornborough p. 33">Thornborough 2005, p. 33.</ref>

Although the test flying programme was not completed and the TSR-2 was undergoing typical design and systems modifications reflective of its sophisticated configuration, "[T]here was no doubt that the airframe would be capable of accomplishing the tasks set for it and that it represented a major advance on any other type."<ref name="Wood p. 179"/>

Costs continued to rise, which led to concerns at both company and government upper management levels, and the aircraft was also falling short of many of the requirements laid out in OR.343, such as takeoff distance and combat radius. As a cost-saving measure, a reduced specification was agreed upon, notably reductions in combat radius to {{convert|650|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}}, the top speed to Mach&nbsp;1.75 and takeoff run up increased from {{convert|550|to|915|m|ft|-1|order=flip}}.<ref name="auto"/>

===Project cancellation===
[[File:TSR2-Cosford-2007.jpg|thumb|left|''XR220'' at the RAF Museum, Cosford, 2007. The two cockpit canopies are coated with a thin film of [[gold]] to protect the occupant's eyes from a [[Nuclear explosion|nuclear flash]]]]

By the 1960s, the United States military was developing the [[swing-wing]] [[General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark|F-111]] project as a follow-on to the [[Republic F-105 Thunderchief]], a fast low-level fighter-bomber designed in the 1950s with an internal bay for a nuclear weapon.<ref name=Gunston_p12-3>Gunston 1978, pp. 12–13.</ref> There had been some interest in the TSR-2 from Australia for the [[Royal Australian Air Force]] (RAAF), but in 1963, the RAAF chose to buy the F-111 instead, having been offered a better price and delivery schedule by the American manufacturer.<ref>{{cite web |title=Correspondence between the Australian and British Governments concerning the selection of the F-111 over the TSR-2 |url=http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=1345810&I=1&SE=1 |website=National Archives of Australia |access-date=11 November 2010 |archive-date=29 June 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120629134547/http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=1345810&I=1&SE=1}}</ref><ref name = 'segell122'>Segell 1997, p. 122.</ref> Nonetheless, the RAAF had to wait 10 years before the F-111 was ready to enter service, by which time the anticipated programme cost had tripled.<ref name="Wood p. 160">Wood 1986, p. 160.</ref> The RAF was also asked to consider the F-111 as an alternative cost-saving measure. In response to suggestions of cancellation, BAC employees held a protest march, and the new Labour government, which had come to power in 1964, issued strong denials.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lewis |first=Anthony |title=Protest on Plane Mounts in Britain: Workers Meet Amid Reports TSR-2 Will be Dropped |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1965/01/14/archives/protest-on-plane-mounts-in-britain-workers-meet-amid-reports-tsr2.html |website=The New York Times |date=14 January 1965 |page=13}}</ref> However, at two [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|Cabinet]] meetings held on 1 April 1965, it was decided to cancel the TSR-2 on the grounds of projected cost, and instead to obtain an option agreement to acquire up to 110 F-111 aircraft with no immediate commitment to buy.<ref name = 'smith 130'/><ref name="cc(65)20">''Conclusions of a Meeting of the Cabinet held at 10 am. 10 Downing Street, S.W.1, on Thursday, 1st April, 1965'', CC(65)20, CAB/128/39. London: Public Record Office, 2010.</ref><ref name="cc(65)21">''Conclusions of a Meeting of the Cabinet held at 10 Downing Street, S.W.1, on Thursday, 1st April, 1965, at 10 p.m.'', CC(65)21, CAB/128/39. London: Public Record Office, 2010.</ref> This decision was announced in the budget speech of 6 April 1965. The maiden flight of the second development batch aircraft, ''XR220'', was due on the day of the announcement, but following an accident in conveying the airframe to Boscombe Down,{{refn|The ''XR220'' fuselage was loaded onto a "smallish" trailer, tipping over while manoeuvering around the Lightning chase T.4, with its cargo "unceremoniously dumped" onto the concrete.<ref name="Barnett-Jones p. 90"/>|group=N}}<ref name="Barnett-Jones p. 90">Barnett-Jones 2000, p. 90.</ref> coupled with the announcement of the project cancellation, it never happened.<ref name="xr220-history">{{cite web |title=Individual History: BAC TSR-2 KO-2 XR220/7933M Museum Accession Number 84/A/1171 |url=http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/aircraft_histories/84-A-1171%20TSR-2%20XR220.pdf |publisher=RAF Museum Cosford |access-date=18 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416161248/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/aircraft_histories/84-A-1171%20TSR-2%20XR220.pdf |archive-date=16 April 2009}}</ref> Ultimately, only the first prototype, ''XR219'', ever took to the air. A week later, the Chancellor, [[James Callaghan]], defended the decision in a debate in the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]], saying that the F-111 would prove cheaper.<ref name="Wood p. 181">Wood 1986, p. 181.</ref> All airframes were then ordered to be destroyed and burned.<ref>{{cite web |title=TSR2 The Untold Story Full Documentary |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edClNWhKFEU |website=YouTube |publisher=TheAviator |date=10 August 2015 |access-date=14 May 2021}}</ref>

{{Quote box|align=right|width=25%|quote="The trouble with the TSR-2 was that it tried to combine the most advanced state of every art in every field. The aircraft firms and the RAF were trying to get the Government on the hook and understated the cost. But TSR-2 cost far more than even their private estimates, and so I have no doubt about the decision to cancel."|source=[[Denis Healey]], then Minister of Defence.<ref name = 'labour 2901'>Kaldor et al. 1979, pp. 290–291.</ref>}}
Aeronautical engineer and designer of the [[Hawker Hurricane]] [[Sydney Camm|Sir Sydney Camm]] said of the TSR-2: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."<ref name="page-obit">{{cite web |title=Sir Frederick Page |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1491503/Sir-Frederick-Page.html |website=The Daily Telegraph |date=7 May 2005 |access-date=4 February 2010}}</ref>

===TSR-2 replacements===
To replace the TSR-2, the Air Ministry initially placed an option for the [[General Dynamics F-111K|F-111K]] (a modified F-111A with F-111C enhancements) but also considered two other choices: a Rolls-Royce Spey (RB.168 Spey 25R) conversion of a [[Dassault Aviation|Dassault]] [[Mirage IV]] (the Dassault/BAC Spey-Mirage IV)<ref>{{cite web |title=Defence: More on the Spey-Mirage |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200266.html |publisher=Flight International |date=27 January 1966 |page=163 |access-date=13 December 2010}}</ref> and an enhanced Blackburn Buccaneer S.2 with a new nav-attack system and reconnaissance capability, referred to as the "Buccaneer 2-Double-Star".<ref>{{cite web |title=F-111 Option Postponed |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1965/1965%20-%203051.html |website=Flight International |date=23 December 1965 |page=1070 |access-date=27 December 2010}}</ref> Neither proposal was pursued as a TSR-2 replacement although a final decision was reserved until the [[1966 Defence White Paper|1966 Defence Review]]. Defence Minister Healey's memo about the F-111<ref name="c(65)58">{{cite report |last=Healey |first=D. W. |title=The Need for an Option on the F-111A |series=C(65)58, CAB/129/121 |publisher=Public Record Office |location=London, UK |date=2010}}</ref> and the Cabinet minutes regarding the final cancellation of the TSR-2<ref name="cc(65)21"/> indicate that the F-111 was preferred.<ref>{{cite web |last=DeWeerd |first=H.A. |title=P-3347: The 1966 Defense Review |url=https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/2008/P3347.pdf |website=The Rand Corporation |date=April 1966 |access-date=13 December 2010}}</ref>

Following the [[1966 Defence White Paper]], the Air Ministry decided on two aircraft: the F-111K, with a longer-term replacement being a joint Anglo-French project for a [[variable-geometry wing|variable geometry]] strike aircraft – the [[AFVG|Anglo French Variable Geometry Aircraft]] (AFVG).<ref>Smith 1980, pp. 130–131.</ref> A censure debate followed on 1 May 1967, in which Healey claimed the cost of the TSR-2 would have been £1,700 million over 15 years including running costs, compared with £1,000 million for the F-111K/AFVG combination.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mr Healey's missing £700 million |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1967/1967%20-%200853.html |website=Flight |date=25 May 1967 |access-date=4 February 2010}}</ref> Although 10 F-111Ks were ordered in April 1966 with an additional order for 40 in April 1967, the F-111 programme suffered enormous cost escalation coupled with the devaluation of the pound, leading to its cost far exceeding that of the TSR-2 projection.<ref>Franklin 1986, p. 213.</ref> Many technical problems were still unresolved before successful operational deployment and, faced with poorer-than-projected performance estimates, the order for 50 F-111Ks for the RAF was eventually cancelled in January 1968.<ref name="Gardner" />{{refn| The first two F-111Ks (one strike/reconnaissance F-111K and one trainer/strike TF-111K) were in the final stages of assembly when the order was cancelled. The two aircraft were later completed and accepted by the USAF as test aircraft with the YF-111A designation.<ref>Logan 1998, pp. 278–280.</ref>|group=N}}{{refn|The AFVG project had already been terminated in 1967.<ref>Smith 1980, p. 131.</ref><ref name="Gardner p. 211">Gardner 1981, p. 211.</ref>|group=N}}

To provide a suitable alternative to the TSR-2, the RAF settled on a combination of the F-4 Phantom II and the Blackburn Buccaneer, some of which were transferred from the [[Royal Navy]]. These were the same aircraft that the RAF had derided in order to get the TSR-2 go-ahead, but the Buccaneer proved capable and remained in service until 1994.<ref>Jefford 2001, p. 72.</ref> The RN and RAF versions of the Phantom II were given the designation F-4K and F-4M respectively, and entered service as the Phantom FG.1 (fighter/ground attack) and Phantom FGR.2 (fighter/ground attack/reconnaissance), remaining in service (in the air-to-air role) until 1992.<ref>Donald 1999, pp. 5, 11.</ref>

The RAF's Phantoms were replaced in the strike/reconnaissance role by the [[SEPECAT Jaguar]] in the mid-1970s.<ref name="shraf5">{{cite web |title=Focus on Europe |url=http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21E81DC_E902_D3CE_488720FE8488434D.pdf |website=Short History of the RAF (Royal Air Force) |page=248 |access-date=27 December 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070222004546/http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21E81DC_E902_D3CE_488720FE8488434D.pdf |archive-date=22 February 2007}}</ref> In the 1980s, both the Jaguar and Buccaneer were eventually replaced in this role by the variable-geometry [[Panavia Tornado]], a much smaller design than either the F-111 or the TSR-2.<ref name = 'segell124'>Segell 1997, p. 124.</ref> Experience in the design and development of the avionics, particularly the terrain-following capabilities, were used on the later Tornado programme.<ref name = 'segell125'>Segell 1997, p. 125.</ref><ref name = 'labour 291'>Kaldor et al. 1979, p. 291.</ref> In the late 1970s, as the Tornado was nearing full production, an aviation businessman, Christopher de Vere, initiated a highly speculative feasibility study into resurrecting and updating the TSR-2 project. Despite persistent lobbying of the UK government of the time however, his proposal was not taken seriously and came to nothing.<ref>Burke 2010, pp. 291–292.</ref>

==Survivors==
[[File:BAC TSR-2 (in museum).jpg|thumb|TSR-2 ''XR222'' photographed at Duxford, 2009]]
[[File:TSR-2 XR220 at Cosford.jpg|thumb|TSR-2 ''XR220'' at RAF Museum Cosford, UK]]
[[File:TSR2-Brooklands-899.jpg|thumb|Forward fuselage used for testing seen on display at [[Brooklands Museum]]]]
[[File:2025-08-03-TSR2-Brooklands-Cockpit.jpg|thumb|TSR-2 cockpit at [[Brooklands Museum]]]]

The TSR-2 tooling, jigs and many of the part completed aircraft were all scrapped at [[Brooklands]] within six months of the cancellation.<ref name="Winchester p. 16"/> Two airframes eventually survived: the complete ''XR220'' at the [[Royal Air Force Museum Midlands]], RAF Cosford, and the much less complete {{Citation needed|date=July 2020|reason=There are 2 intact TSR-2 and 1 less intact. One of the intact ones is at Cosford, the other one being at Duxford. The less complete one is at Weybridge, Surry. I think there has been some confusion here.}} ''XR222'' at the [[Imperial War Museum Duxford]]. The only airframe ever to fly, ''XR219'', along with the completed ''XR221'' and part completed ''XR223'' were taken to [[Shoeburyness]] and used as targets to test the vulnerability of a modern airframe and systems to gunfire and shrapnel.<ref>Burke 2010, p. 276.</ref> Four additional completed airframes, ''XR224'', ''XR225'', ''XR226'' and one incomplete airframe ''XR227'' (X-06,07,08 and 09) were scrapped by R. J. Coley and Son, Hounslow Middlesex. Four further airframe serials ''XR228'' to ''XR231'' were allocated but these aircraft were allegedly not built. Construction of a further 10 aircraft (X-10 to 19) allocated serials XS660 to 669 was started but all partly built airframes were again scrapped by R. J. Coley. The last serial of that batch, XS670 is listed as "cancelled", as are those of another batch of 50 projected aircraft, XS944 to 995.
By coincidence, the projected batch of 46 General Dynamics F-111Ks (of which the first four were the trainer variant TF-111K) were allocated RAF serials XV884-887 and 902–947,<ref>[http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f111_13.html "General Dynamics F-111K"] Baugher, J 1999</ref> but these also were cancelled when the first two were still incomplete.

The haste with which the project was scrapped has been the source of much argument and bitterness since and is comparable to the cancellation and destruction of the American [[Northrop YB-49|Northrop Flying Wing]] bombers in 1950,<ref name="Winchester p. 173">Winchester, ''Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft'', 2005, p. 173.</ref> and the [[Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow]] interceptor that was scrapped in 1959.<ref>Campagna 1998, p. 136.</ref>

;Surviving airframes
*''XR220'' (X-02) on display at [[RAF Museum Cosford]]
*''XR222'' (X-04) on display at [[Imperial War Museum Duxford]]
* Cockpit section on display at [[Brooklands Museum]]
* Bristol Siddeley Olympus 22R-320 – 2 engines on display at [[Gatwick Aviation Museum]]

==Specifications==
[[File:TSR2.png|thumb|300px|''XR220'' profile drawing]]
[[File:BAC TSR.2 three-view silhouette.png|thumb|300px|BAC TSR-2]]

{{Aircraft specs
|ref=TSR2: Britain's Lost Bomber<ref name="Burke"/>
|prime units?=kts
<!--
        General characteristics
-->
|crew=2
|length ft=89
|length in=
|length note=
|span ft=37
|span in=2
|span note=
|height ft=23
|height in=9
|height note=
|wing area sqft=702.9
|wing area note=
|aspect ratio=<!-- sailplanes -->
|airfoil=
|empty weight lb=54750
|empty weight note=
|gross weight lb=79573
|gross weight note=
|max takeoff weight lb=103500
|max takeoff weight note=
|fuel capacity=
|more general=
<!--
        Powerplant
-->
|eng1 number=2
|eng1 name=[[Bristol Siddeley B.Ol.22R Olympus Mk.320]]
|eng1 type=afterburning turbojet engines
|eng1 lbf=22000
|eng1 note=
|eng1 lbf-ab=30610

<!--
        Performance
-->
|max speed kts=
|max speed note= 
|max speed mach=2.15 at {{cvt|40000|ft|0}}, M1.1 at sea level
|cruise speed kts=
|cruise speed note=
|stall speed kts=
|stall speed note=
|never exceed speed kts=
|never exceed speed note=
|minimum control speed kts=
|minimum control speed note=
|range nmi=2500
|range note=
|combat range nmi=750
|combat range note=
|ferry range nmi=
|ferry range note=
|endurance=<!-- if range unknown -->
|ceiling ft=40000
|ceiling note=
|g limits=<!-- aerobatic -->
|roll rate=<!-- aerobatic -->
|climb rate ftmin=15000
|climb rate note=
|time to altitude=
|wing loading lb/sqft=
|wing loading note=
|fuel consumption lb/mi=
|thrust/weight=0.59

|more performance=<!--<br />
*'''Take-off run:''' {{cvt||ft|0}}
*'''Take-off distance to {{cvt|50|ft|0}}:''' {{cvt||ft|0}}
*'''Landing run:''' {{cvt||ft|0}}
*'''Landing distance from {{cvt|50|ft|0}}:''' {{cvt||ft|0}}-->
<!--
        Armament
-->
|armament= Total weapons load of 10,000&nbsp;lb (4,500&nbsp;kg); 6,000&nbsp;lb (2,700&nbsp;kg) internal and 4,000&nbsp;lb (1,800&nbsp;kg) external<ref name=Complete_Encyclopedia>Donald 1997, p. 92.</ref>
* Internal weapons bay, 20 ft (6 m) long, with (initially) 1 [[Red Beard (nuclear weapon)|Red Beard]] 15 kt nuclear weapon or as intended 2 × OR.1177 300 kt nuclear weapons or 6 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) [[High Explosive|HE]] bombs. Final designed normal load in nuclear role of up to 4 × [[WE.177]] nuclear weapons, two side-by-side or in tandem in weapons bay, two on external underwing stores pylons.

|avionics=
* [[Autonetics]] [[Versatile Digital Analyzer|Verdan]] autopilot modified by [[Elliott Brothers (computer company)|Elliott Automation]]
* [[Ferranti]] ([[terrain-following radar]] and navigation/attack systems)
* [[EMI]] ([[Side looking airborne radar]])
* [[Marconi Electronic Systems|Marconi]] (general avionics)
* [[Cossor]] ([[Identification friend or foe|IFF]])
* [[Plessey]] (Radio)
}}

==See also==
{{Portal|Aviation}}
{{aircontent
|related=
|similar aircraft=
* [[Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow]]
* [[Convair B-58 Hustler]]
* [[Dassault Mirage IV]]
* [[General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark]]
* [[North American A-5 Vigilante]]
* [[Sukhoi Su-24]]
|lists=
* [[List of bomber aircraft]]
}}

==References==

===Notes===
{{reflist|group=N}}

===Citations===
{{reflist|30em}}

===Bibliography===
* {{cite journal |last=Barnett-Jones |first=Frank |title=Oops! |journal=Aeroplane |volume=28 |issue=322 |date=February 2000}}
* {{cite book |last=Boot |first=Roy |title=From Spitfire to Eurofighter: 45 Years of Combat Aircraft Design |publisher=Airlife Publishing Ltd. |location=Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK |year=1990 |isbn=1-85310-093-5}}
* {{cite magazine |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%202638.html |title=Boscombe Down, September 27, 1964: The TSR.2's First Flight (Pilot Roland Beamont; Navigator Donald Bowen) |magazine=Flight International |date=8 October 1964 |pages=637–640 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100414090920/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%202638.html |archive-date=14 April 2010}}
* {{cite book |last=Burke |first=Damien |title=TSR2: Britain's Lost Bomber |publisher=The Crowood Press |location=Ramsbury, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-84797-211-8}}
* {{cite book |last=Buttler |first=Tony |title=British Secret Projects: Jet Bombers Since 1949 |publisher=Midland Publishing |location=Hinckley, UK |year=2003 |isbn=1-85780-130-X}}
* {{cite journal |last=Buttler |first=Tony |title=Strike Rivals: The ones that 'lost' when the T.S.R.2 'won' |journal=Air Enthusiast |issue=59 |date=September–October 1995}}
* {{cite book |last=Buttler |first=Tony |title=X-Planes of Europe II: Military Prototype Aircraft from the Golden Age 1946–1974 |publisher=Hikoki Publications |location=Manchester, UK |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-90210-948-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Campagna |first=Palmiro |title=Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dse9yrDjKsEC&pg=PA136 |publisher=Stoddart |location=Toronto, Canada |edition=Third |year=1998 |isbn=0-7737-5990-5}}
* {{cite book |editor=Donald, David |title=The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft |chapter=BAC TSR.2 |publisher=Barnes & Noble Books |location=New York, US |year=1997 |isbn=0-7607-0592-5}}
* {{cite journal |last=Donald |first=David |title=RAF Phantoms |journal=Wings of Fame |volume=15 |publisher=Aerospace |location=London, UK |year=1999 |pages=4–21 |isbn=1-86184-033-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Franklin |first=Roger |title=The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics |publisher=Harper & Row |location=New York, US |year=1986 |isbn=0-06-015510-8}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Hayward |first1=Keith |title=Healey's Axe: The Cancellation of the TSR.2 |journal=The Aviation Historian |date=2023 |issue=44 |pages=10–17 |issn=2051-1930}}
* {{cite journal |editor=Hunter, Air Vice-Marshal A.F.C., CBE AFC DL |title=TSR2 with Hindsight |url=http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/journals.cfm |journal=RAF Historical Journal |issue=17B |location=London, UK |year=1998 |isbn=0-9519824-8-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Jefford |first=C. G. |title=RAF Squadrons, a Comprehensive Record of the Movement and Equipment of all RAF Squadrons and their Antecedents since 1912 |publisher=Airlife Publishing |location=Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UK |year=2001 |isbn=1-84037-141-2}}
* {{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Dennis R. |title=B-1 Lancer: The Most Complicated Warplane Ever Developed |publisher=McGraw-Hill |location=New York, US |year=1999 |isbn=0-07-134694-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Forbat |first=John |title=TSR2: Precision Attack to Tornado |publisher=Tempus Publishing Ltd. |location=Stroud, UK |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7524-3919-8}}
* {{cite book |last=Gardner |first=Charles |title=British Aircraft Corporation: A History by Charles Gardner |publisher=B.T. Batsford Limited |location=London, UK |year=1981 |isbn=0-7134-3815-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Gardner |first=Richard E. |title=The F-4 Phantom II |publisher=Almarks Publishing Co. |location=Edware, Middlesex, UK |year=1970}}
* {{cite book |last=Gardner |first=Robert |title=From Bouncing Bombs to Concorde: The Authorised Biography of Aviation Pioneer Sir George Edwards OM |publisher=Sutton Publishing |location=Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK |year=2006 |isbn=0-7509-4389-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Garver |first=John W. |title=Face Off: China, the United States and Taiwan's Democratization |publisher=University of Washington Press |location=Seattle, US |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-295-97617-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Gunston |first=Bill |title=F-111 |series=Modern Combat Aircraft |publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons |location=New York, US |year=1978 |isbn=0-684-15753-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Hamilton-Paterson |first=James |title=Empire of the Clouds: When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World |publisher=Faber & Faber |location=London, UK |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-571-24794-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Hastings |first=Stephen |title=The Murder of TSR-2 |publisher=Macdonald & Co. |location=London, UK |year=1966}}
* {{cite book |last=Harver |first=John W. |title=The Sino-American Alliance: Nationalist China and American Cold War Strategy in Asia |publisher=M.E. Sharpe |location=Armonk, New York, US |year=1997 |isbn=0-7656-0025-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Kaldor |first=Mary |author2=Smith, Dan |author3=Vines, Steve |title=Democratic Socialism and The Cost of Defence: The Report and Papers of The Labour Party Defence Study Group |publisher=Routledge |location=London, US |year=1979 |isbn=0-85664-886-8}}
* {{cite book |last=Law |first=John |title=Aircraft Stories: Decentering The Object in Technoscience |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tq9-3dImN4sC&pg=PA14 |publisher=Duke University Press |location=Durham, US |year=2002 |isbn=0-8223-2824-0}}
* {{cite magazine |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%202952.html |title=Lessons of The TSR.2 Story |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160305030940/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%202952.html |archive-date=5 March 2016 |magazine=Flight International |date=9 October 1969 |pages=570–571}}.
* {{cite book |last=Logan |first=Don |title=General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark |publisher=Schiffer Military History |location=Atglen, US |year=1998 |isbn=0-7643-0587-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Lucas |first=Paul |title=BAC TSR.2: Lost Tomorrows of an Eagle, The TSR.2 which Might Have Been 1960–1980 |publisher=SAM Publications |location=Bedford, UK |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-9551858-8-5}}
* {{cite book |last=McLelland |first=Tim |title=TSR.2: Britain's Lost Cold War Strike Aircraft |publisher=Classic Publications |location=Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-906537-19-7}}
* {{cite book |last=Segell |first=Glen |title=Royal Air Force Procurement: The TSR.2 to the Tornado |publisher=Glen Segell Publishers |location=Staffordshire, UK |year=1998 |isbn=978-1-901414-10-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Segell |first=Glen |title=Wither or Dither: British Aerospace Collaborative Procurement with Europe |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UU39P_O2Ey8C |publisher=Glen Segell Publishers |location=Staffordshire, UK |year=1997 |isbn=1-901414-03-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Smith |first=Dan |title=The Defence of The Realm in The 1980s |publisher=Taylor & Francis |location=London, UK |year=1980 |isbn=0-85664-873-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Sweetman |first=Bill |title=Phantom |series=Jane's Aircraft Spectacular Series |publisher=Jane's Information Group |location=London, UK |year=1984 |isbn=978-0-7106-0279-4}}
* {{cite journal |last=Taylor |first=John W.R. |title=The BAC TSR-2 |journal=Air Pictorial |volume=25 |issue=12 |date=December 1963}}
* {{cite book |last=Thornborough |first=Anthony |title=TSR2 |series=Aeroguide Special |publisher=Ad Hoc Publications |location=Suffolk, UK |year=2005 |isbn=0-946958-46-7}}
* {{cite book |last=Winchester |first=Jim |title=X-Planes and Prototypes: From Nazi Secret Weapons to the Warplanes of the Future |chapter=BAC (English Electric) TSR.2 |publisher=Amber Books Ltd. |location=London, UK |year=2005 |isbn=1-904687-40-7}}
* {{cite book |last=Winchester |first=Jim |title=Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft |chapter=BAC TSR.2 and Northrop XB-35/YB-49 |publisher=Grange Books plc. |location=Kent, UK |year=2005 |isbn=978-1-84013-809-2}}
* {{cite book |last=Wood |first=Derek |title=Project Cancelled: The Disaster of Britain's Abandoned Aircraft Projects |publisher=Jane's |location=London, UK |edition=2nd |year=1986 |orig-date=1975 |isbn=0-7106-0441-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Wynn |first=Humphrey |title=The RAF Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Forces: Their Origins, Roles and Deployment, 1946–1969: A Documentary History |publisher=HMO |location=London, UK |year=1997 |isbn=0-11-772778-4}}

==External links==
{{Commons}}
*[http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/index.php TSR-2 page on Thunder and Lightnings site]
*[http://aviation.elettra.co.uk/tsr2/ TSR-2 history with images of ''XR220'' on Aviation Elettra site] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723180212/http://aviation.elettra.co.uk/tsr2/ |date=23 July 2011 }}
*{{YouTube| o53u0X0Ik0w | "TSR2: The Untold Story" }}

{{British Aircraft Corporation aircraft}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bac Tsr-2}}
[[Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:British Aircraft Corporation aircraft|TSR-2]]
[[Category:1960s British bomber aircraft]]
[[Category:Twinjets]]
[[Category:History of science and technology in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Aircraft first flown in 1964]]
[[Category:High-wing aircraft]]
[[Category:Aircraft with retractable tricycle landing gear]]