Warton
WARTON: Military aerodrome later 'civil' final assembly and testing facilty
Note: This picture (2018) was obtained from Google Earth ©
Military users: WW2: USAAF No.2 Base Air Depot
USSTAFE Air Service Command
310 Air Transport Sqdn (Douglas C.47 Skytrains)
Army Air Force liaison
Post 1945: USAAF
2000s: 17 (XVII) Sqdn OEU [Operational Evaluation Unit] (Typhoon T.1s & F.2s)
Operated by:
From 1951: English Electric Aviation Ltd
1975: British Aircraft Corporation
1990: British Aerospace plc (Aircraft Group)
2000: British Aerospace plc (Military Aircraft and Aerostructures)
Civil users: Post 1945: Air Bridge Carriers, Air Compton, Air London
Manufacturing: Post 1945: English Electric, later British Aircraft Corporation & British Aerospace factory and flight testing centre. Panavia Tornado production line
Flying group: Post 1945: BAE Systems (Warton) Flying Club, English Electric (Aircraft Division) Flying Club
Note: In the 1957 The Aeroplane directory, the English Electric (Aircraft Division) Flying Club are listed and affiliated to the Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club. Sadly they didn't bother to include the aircraft used.
Gliding: Blackpool & Fylde Gliding Club
Note: This Club was originally based at BLACKPOOL SQUIRES GATE, probably in the 1950s. When that airport became busier they moved to SALMESBURY and here, until 1976 when they moved to a permanent site near Chipping in the SW corner of the Forest of Bowland. The club then changed its name to Bowland Forest Gliding Club - see seperate entry - BOWLAND FOREST.
Location: S of A584, SSE of Warton, SW of Freckleton, N or River Ribble, 7nm W of Preston
Period of operation: 1942 (some say 1940) to -
Note: These maps are reproduced with the kind permission of Pooleys Flight Equipment Ltd. Copyright Robert Pooley 2014.
Runways:
WW2: 08/26 1716x46 hard 12/30 1207x46 hard 02/20 1275x46 hard
1965: 08/26 2437x46 hard 14/32 1305x46 hard
1990: 08/26 2422x46 hard 14/32 1283x30 hard
2000: 08/26 2422x46 hard 14/32 1277x30 hard
NOTES: Originally conceived to be a satellite for RAF SQUIRES GATE.
This site was handed over to the USAAF on the 17th July 1943 to become No.2 USAAF Base Air Depot when aircraft of the US Eighth and Ninth Air Forces plus US Army ground forces aircraft were assembled, overhauled and repaired here. According to one source regarded as being very reliable, (although to me it seems quite fantastic), the USAAF had 15,902, (others say 10,000 at its peak), personnel based here in late 1944. It was in fact, it appears, the second largest US maintenance base of three in the UK. The largest being No.1 at BURTONWOOD and No.3 at LANGFORD LODGE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
GETTING GOING
When the Americans get going they do have the ability to perform and create impressive numbers. More than 14,000 aircraft passed through WARTON in roughly two years. These included 4,372 P.51 Mustangs, 2,894 B-24 Liberators, 711 A-26 Invaders, 360 B-17 Flying Fortress’ and 338 P-47 Thunderbolts. Which leaves very roughly 5300 other types to be accounted for.
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER
The Americans didn’t appear too much bothered by attrition rates for their aircraft and aircrews, seeming to have an inexhaustible supply of aircraft and airmen to throw at the enemy. Their bombers especially were rather inefficient fighting machines compared to British types. For example the B-17G Fortress had a typical crew of ten to deliver a maximum of 3.6 tonnes of bombs (others say 5 tons) and the B.24J Liberator a crew of 7-10 to deliver about the same amount. By comparison the Halifax Mk.III had a crew of seven to deliver 5.9 tonnes and the typical Lancaster 6.3 tonnes also with a crew of seven. (This did later go up to ten tons).
In other words during the bombing campaign over Germany, and German held territories, generally speaking of course, the Halifax and Lancaster could deliver nearly twice the weight of bombs using 25% less crew. This strikes me as altogether very sad when you consider the huge sacrifice so many American aircrews made.
POST WW2
After the USAAF departed English Electric took WARTON over in late 1948 and in early 1949 commenced final assembly of the Canberra A.1 prototype VN799 which had been designed by W.E.W. Petter who previously designed the Westland Whirlwind, in its day the fastest British aircraft. The Canberra went on to become an exceptional, flexible and long lived type and originally was viewed as a Mosquito replacement. In this respect the Canberra fulfilled the roles of the Mosquito admirably, and initially at least, was so fast above 40,000ft that it was very difficult for existing fighters to intercept it. The first flight was undertaken by Roland Beaumont on the 13th May 1949 and it appears that apart from a low speed yaw problem it flew very well indeed.
SOME INFO
To quote Robert Jackson from his book Britain’s Greatest Aircraft : “VN850, the third B.Mk.1, was the first Canberra to have provision for jettisonable wingtip tanks, and trials with these were successfully completed in July 1950. Before this, it also became the first Canberra to give a display overseas, being flown from Warton in Lancashire to Paris/Orly on 11 June in fifty-four minutes. On 24 and 25 June it flew to Antwerp to be displayed at the Belgian International Air Show. The aircraft carried out several more demonstrations during 1950, twice at Farborough (the first time at an RAF display in July and then at the September SBAC Show) and also before a US mission at Boscombe Down in August.”
If proof was needed this rate of progress after the first flight clearly indicates just how right the design was from the outset. Such a rate would be quite inconceivable today despite a myriad of so-called advances. The B.2 version entered service with 101 Squadron at RAF BINBROOK in May 1951, just two years after the first flight and very soon world records were being broken.
For example: The first non-stop crossing of the Atlantic by a jet aircraft was made on the 21st January 1951, and the first double-crossing of the Atlantic followed on the 26 August 1952 in just 10 hours 3 minutes.
A FLIGHT TO NEW ZEALAND
Possibly the least remembered achievement amongst younsters these days was when, in 1953, a Canberra won arguably the last ‘Great Air Race’ from London to Christchurch, New Zealand in 23 hours 51 minutes arriving 41 minutes ahead of its closest rival. This record has never been beaten. It was also in 1953 that Canberra’s set about breaking altitude records:
4 May 1953 63,668ft (WD952),
29 August 1955 65,890ft
28 August 1957 70,310ft (WK163)
WAR MONGERS
British governments headed by egomaniacal Prime Ministers do love to wage wars, (alone in the EU?), especially the two biggest war-mongers Margaret Thatcher and her doppelganger Tony Blair. This saw the Canberra supporting these conflicts and, when the RAF retired the Canberra in 2006 (at RAF MARHAM?) it had been flying for 57 years! Exceeding the previous long service record held by the Avro 504 type.
It was also licensed for production abroad, in the USA as the Martin B.57 and in Australia. Exports went to Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, France, Peru, Rhodesia/Zimbawe, South Africa, Sweden, Venezuela and West Germany. The Canberra also saw combat service in many conflicts, by the British in Malaya and over Egypt in the Suez crisis. During Vietnam employed by the Australians and the USAF used their American built Martin B.57 version. Also by the Indian Air Force during the Indo-Pakistan conflicts during 1965 and 1971. Illustrating the mad, mad world we still live in the Argentine Air Force employed their Canberra’s during the Falklands War, and the British shot two of them down!
TWO OF THE BEST?
With all this said I suspect most British people interested in aviation will always associate WARTON with the English Electric Lightning and the TSR.2, the notorious cancellation of the latter possibly being the lowest point in so many low points to choose from during successive UK governments? I’ve banged on about this elsewhere.
THE LIGHTNING
The English Electric Lightning is I think possibly the most interesting interceptor type ever built in this country if for no other reason that its performance was so phenomenal it was never measured. Myth and legend abound of course but I do think some parameters are known? For example it is claimed the maximum speed of 1500mph in straight and level flight could be exceeded on one engine with reheat? It’s altitude ability in a zoom climb was limited only by the pressurisation limits of the cockpit enclosure, which was if memory serves – 120,000ft?
This was exceeded on at least one occasion. I met a Lightning pilot who admitted he, “took his eye off the ball” during one such exercise being utterly enthralled by being in near space. “East Anglia was below me like a map but in front I was looking at the stars.”
An engineer licensed of the type (ex RAF) and employed to restore a Lightning at PYMOUTH in 1992, to at least a fast taxy condition, explained that the design was so advanced the rule of thumb was, calculate every possible contingency and double it! For him it was a pure privilege to be working on such a classic.
ANOTHER OPINION
With this said I think it useful to quote from Robert Jackson’s excellent book Britain’s Greatest Aircraft some of the history behind this most remarkable design. “The aircraft that was to become the Lightning was conceived by the English Electric Company just after the Second World War, at a time when RAF Command had one jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor, in operational service and another, the de Havilland Vampire, scheduled for delivery in 1946.”
There is a very important point to be made here. Both the Meteor and the Vampire were seriously defective designs and very dangerous to fly. It is, without much doubt a scandal waiting to be uncovered, regarding how many pilots died flying these types. By comparison both the English Electric Canberra and Lightning have excellent safety records.
To get back to Robert Jackson’s account: “Early in that year both Hawker and Supermarine were studying schemes for swept-wing jet fighters which would eventually materialise as the Hunter and Swift and which would just be capable of exceeding Mach 1.0 in a dive. Experimentation with a truly supersonic design then centred on the Miles M.52, an aircraft that would theoretically have been capable of 1,000mph at 36,000 feet. Miles aircraft were on the point of starting to construct a prototype when, in February 1946, the M.52 project was cancelled.” Without much if any doubt looking back, this was to allow the USA to be the first to break the ‘Sound Barrier’ with the Bell X.1, which bore a remarkable semblance to the M.52 design, albeit being rocket powered.
“It was at this point that English Electric’s talented young design team, under the leadership of their chief engineer, W.E.W ‘Teddy’ Petter – already heavily occupied in bringing the Canberra jet bomber design to reality – began turning their thoughts to designing an aircraft that would not only be capable of sustaining supersonic flight, but also of reaching Mach 2.0.”
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER?
I think that it is a matter of national disgrace for the UK that the name ‘Teddy’ Petter is not now today heralded as a major British hero, easily ranking alongside Horatio Nelson, William Shakespeare, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and (perhaps?) Winston Churchill etc in terms of genius and being in a distinct class of his own.
As quite rightly Mr Jackson observes: “Perhaps the most amazing thing about the design was that the Ministry of Supply, which had begun to have serious doubts about the practicability of sustained supersonic flight while the M.52 project was in being, decided that it merited further investigation, and in 1947 issued an experimental study contract, ER.103.” To cut the story down to basics, the Short SB.5 research aircraft was commissioned and this proved that English Electric team had done an excellent job and two experimental prototypes, the P.1 and P.1A were ordered.
“The first of these, WG760, was flown at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) Boscombe Down on 4 August 1954 by Wing Commander R.P. Beamont, English Electric’s Chief Test Pilot.” I was quite surprised to learn from Mr Jackson that it wasn’t first flown from WARTON. However, to give some idea as to just how right the design was; “The aircraft was powered by two Bristol Siddeley Sapphire turbojets and reached supersonic speed on its third flight.”
“Later in 1954, English Electric received a contract for the construction of three P.1Bs, which were effectively to be the prototypes of the operational version. The P.1B, which was the first British aircraft to be designed as an integrated weapons system, was powered by two Rolls- Royce Avon RA24 engines - and the first example, XA847, flew on 4 April 1957 – ironically, the very day that the British government published a White Paper forecasting the end of piloted combat aircraft and their replacement by missiles.” Just how wrong could they have beeen?
FINDING A ROLE
I think the following by Robert Jackson is also worth quoting: “The original intention was that operationally, the P.1B – which was given the name Lightning – was to form a mixed interceptor force together with the Saunders-Roe SR.177, a target defence aircraft powered by a jet engine and a rocket motor. Along with other promising military aircraft projects, the SR.177 fell victim to the 1957 policy changes, leaving the Lightning alone to make the jump from subsonic to supersonic flight. And a considerable jump it was. Unlike American fighter designs of the 1950s, which had progressed from the high subsonic F-86 Sabre via the ‘Mach One plus’ F-100 Super Sabre to the Mach Two F-104 Starfighter, the Lightning was to catapult the RAFstraight from the era of the subsonic Hunter into the truly supersonic future, with no transitional phase.”
And, please don’t overlook this, the Lightning could easily outperform the F-104 Starfighter in, I think you will find, nearly every respect. It seems the Lightning couldn’t beat the Starfighter in low-level acceleration – but could equal it. Even today, unless doing a great deal of in-depth research, it is remarkably difficult to find direct performance comparisons of any type of aircraft. However, it is fairly easy to find some opinions from pilots who flew both the Lightning and the Starfighter and these seem unanimous – the Lightning was better.
THE ENGLISH ELECTRIC TSR-2
I cannot think of any other aircraft type, the cancellation of which even in the 21st century, which still provokes such strong and emotional responses – usually anger. This is of course generally confined to British men aged fifty and above with a keen interest in aviation matters. Indeed, I can still feel the sense of outrage upon learning the TSR-2 would be cancelled and I have little interest in military matters or politics at any level. But, although I never swallowed the official line that the Soviet Union really posed a severe threat to those of us in western Europe, the idea of having a very effective deterrent (in the 1960s and 70s) seemed eminently sensible. And, the best form of deterrent was by having a weapon that could strike directly at the heart of the enemy with a very good chance of success. In those days the only aircraft which appeared to have this potential was the TSR-2.
I have little doubt that today those RAF crews flying Avro Vulcans especially, training for low-level attacks deep into the Soviet Union might well take exception to this, and quite rightly. But, bear in mind, knowledge of what they were doing was being kept a tad secretive at the time. However, looking back, it does seem the TSR.2 definitely had the edge - if early flight testing results can be believed?
A COMPLEX SITUATION
Surrounding the history of the TSR-2 it now seems a quite sinister secret relationship within elements of the UK Labour Government and certain ‘agencies’ within the USA administration existed? Whereby the TSR-2 project would be abandoned, but, not until after the massive initial development costs and efforts had been spent! And, to quite a substantial extent the UK would then bankroll the F-111 which could not perform the same role. More of this later.
The replacement for the TSR-2, the RAF was informed, would be the Blackburn Buccaneer, a type which was neither ‘fish nor fowl’ and in most regards singularly useless for providing a deep penetration medium bomber deterrent in the ‘Cold War’ circumstances existing in Europe at that time. Small wonder so many of us felt incensed. I’m pretty certain that most of us had visions of the high ranking Soviets clapping their hands and stamping their feet in jubilation on hearing the news and ordering a litre bottle of vodka to be placed before each of them to celebrate. “Zazdarovje comrade!” If they didn’t – they should have.
A COMPARISON
Perhaps the most useful comparison for this period is to compare the TSR.2 programme with what the Swedish military forces were doing? Living next door to the Soviet “threat” they developed a family of very high performance fighter/bomber aircraft capable of being operated from temporary and make-shift sites with an overall control strategy to match. However, very good though the Swedish aircraft were, they did not in any way compare with the abilities of the TSR-2. The Swede’s were concerned with defence, not attack.
A VERY COMPLICATED HISTORY
Just how the TSR-2 history eventually developed is a very complex affair. One of the best accounts I have found, which seems to explain the situation with commendable brevity, is in Robert Jackson’s book, Britain’s Greatest Aircraft. In this book he explains how the Air Staff Requirement ASR.343 issued in the spring of 1959: “…virtually demanded the amalgamation of Vickers and English Electric to bring the aircraft to fruition. Together with the Bristol Aeroplane Company, they were eventually to form the British Aircraft Corporation.”
I hope I have understood the history correctly? In essence the TSR-2 was an exceptional design, very advanced, but exactly what was needed at the time, mostly based on the English Electric P.17 concept. Essentially the TSR-2 was designed to replace the Canberra and reflect the realities of the ‘Cold War’. But, it must be borne in mind that the UK was in effect bankrupted due to WW2 and the British Empire was by then more or less finished. In British government circles, our main purpose was, reading between the lines, to mostly serve as a lackey for U.S. foreign policy interests and most of the British population supported this. So, one might ask, if this was the case, why did the TSR-2 project go ahead?
In those days I suppose it could be said, that we Brits mostly considered that our allegiance should be with the USA and any ideas of joining in with being a part of Europe were very much resisted. Europe was okay for taking holidays in, but, we mostly didn’t want to be part of it.
If only it was that simple!
THE EARLY STAGES
Regarding the TSR-2 at that early stage Robert Jackson has this to say: “On 1 January, 1959, it was announced that Vickers-Armstrong and English Electric had been awarded the contract to develop a new tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft, known as TSR-2, to replace the Canberra. Its airframe was to be developed from that of the P.17, and it was to be powered by two afterburning Bristol Siddeley Olympus 22R engines. The choice of power plant was pushed through in the face of severe criticism from the Vickers and English Electric design teams, who wanted a Rolls-Royce engine, and as events were to prove it was an unfortunate choice.”
As it turned out the development of the TSR-2 was bedevilled by committees comprised of the RAF, the Ministry of Aviation and BAC, but, as Robert Jackson points out: “By May 1959 the contractors, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply had all agreed exactly what was required and what was feasible. The most notable of the changes required under ASR.343 was that low-level height was defined as 200 feet (60m) or less, speed at 40,000 feet (12,000m) was to be Mach 2.0 instead of Mach 1.7, electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment was to be added, ferry range increased to 2,500 nautical miles (4,600km) and the aircraft was to be able to operate from firm grass, to allow it to be dispersed away from the large airfields that would inevitably be targets for an enemy in any confrontation.”
Another feature of the project was that all the companies selected to provide the associated automated, avionics, radar and navigation systems appear to have been utterly incompetent in providing realistic cost estimates for the project, to a degree that beggars the imagination. They appear to have had absolutely no idea what they were about, and appear to have had no idea if they could actually fulfil the requirements within the cost estimates they provided. Sounds incredible? Sounds familiar? Having been in business for over forty years the rule of thumb is pretty simple when quoting a job with unknown factors; you make fair but generous contingency allowances. On the other hand, how exactly does a company prepare quotationsn for very expensive and very complex equipment yet to be developed? I have no idea.
TAKING SHAPE
To return to Robert Jackson’s account: “While the TSR-2 airframe gradually took shape, various sub-contractors were given the responsibility for developing associated systems. The contract for the automatic flight system went to Elliott Automation, who had amassed an enormous amount of experience in developing the inertial navigation system (INS) for the V-Force’s Blue Steel stand-off missile, Ferranti was given the task of developing the terrain-following radar and nav/attack system, and EMI the sideways-looking radar, while Marconi was made responsible for avionics such as the Instrument Landing System (ILS).” Today of course techniques have been developed to manage such complexities but the most common factor seems to be – allow enough time? In a supposed ‘war’ environment, time is the least available commodity.
“By the spring of 1960, it was apparent that the cost of developing the aircraft’s advanced electronic systems was greatly to exceed the estimated figures, and this was the first of a series of cost escalations that would contribute to the project’s eventual downfall. Funds were diverted from other cancelled projects to keep TSR-2 going, but there was little slowing in the overall upward trend. By the autumn of 1962 the design of TSR-2 had been finalised and the British Aircraft Corporation was able to provide the Ministry of Aviation with realistic simulated performance figures.
These included a cruising speed of between Mach 0.9 – 1.1 at sea level and Mach 2.05 at altitude. Combat radius with external fuel would be 1,500 nautical miles (2,800km), or 1,000nm (1,850km) with a 2,000lb (900kg) internal bomb load on internal fuel only. Initial rate of climb at sea level would be 50,000 feet per minute (15,000m/min). A variety of flight profiles was envisaged, most involving lo-lo sorties at heights of not more than 200 feet (60m) at Mach 0.9. The aircraft could carry a formidable range of weapons in both the conventional and nuclear strike roles.”
HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE THE REST?
Nothing even remotely as capable as this aircraft was available or even being developed elsewhere at that time. The potential for export possibilities was nigh on endless – any nation who could afford to buy the TSR-2 would want them. It is clearly obvious that, having started and getting the aircraft to an advanced stage for in-flight development, every effort should have been made to get this aircraft sorted. The RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) for example were very interested.
To quote from Robert Jackson once again: “Between June and August 1963 the evaluation team investigated the French Mirage IV and the USA’s McDonnell F-4C Phantom, North American RA5C Vigilante and General Dynamics TFX, which was later re-designated F-111. Yet there was no sales drive aimed at convincing the Australian Government that TSR-2 was the aircraft the RAAF needed, so it was hardly surprising that Australian interest began to wane after Lord Mountbatten, during a tour a tour of South-East Asia, expressed the opinion that mounting costs and complexity would prevent the aircraft coming into service.”
Even at the time this attitude seemed incomprehensible and today it is quite staggering. What on earth was really going on? A significant proportion of the costs had already been spent, the TSR-2 was well underway and indeed, on the 27th September 1964 the first prototype (XR219) made its maiden flight from BOSCOMBE DOWN and by early 1964 the second prototype (XR220) was scheduled to join the flying programme. A third (XR221) had, more or less, completed all the ground trials – plus – five more aircraft were partly complete.
In other words the project was well under way and, despite some inevitable teething problems, was showing considerable promise in the air. It was apparently reported that the early flight testing programme of the TSR.2 was “Brilliantly successful”. It is also reported that on the 22nd of February 1965 test pilot “Bee” Beaumont and observer Don Bowen flew the TSR.2 supersonically to the English Electric aerodrome at WARTON.
TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE?
A belated sales drive to Australia was mounted at the end of 1963 but by then the Australians had lost faith in the British Government and opted for twenty-four F-111As, a type which was plagued with serious development problems and indeed, the first deliveries to the RAAF didn’t occur until 1973! What is rarely mentioned is that there must have been enormous potential for sales to the USAF as nothing they had in hand was remotely as capable as the TSR-2 or indeed designed to do the same job. For the Americans having the TSR-2 stationed at their bases in Europe, in West Germany especially, would have been very tempting and quite probably hard to resist.
The Americans may be highly protective of their own interests but they are certainly not blind to something that offers them substantial benefits. They purchased the English Electric Canberra and developed it. On the civilian side they were the biggest single purchaser of the Vickers Viscount, and of course were very enthusiastic about the Harrier for the US Marines.
THE OLYMPUS ENGINE
One major problem was the Bristol Siddeley Olympus 22R engines, surprise, surprise. I think it is interesting to see just why the TSR-2 design teams were against this choice of engine. Possibly because this was a company which, as far as I can see, since WW2 had singularly failed to produce an engine in which they were involved that performed satisfactorily and met its specification targets from the outset? Is there an exception to prove the rule? Bristol weren’t really much good with piston engines and much worse with jets.
Typically it isn't a simple issue - far from it. The Olympus was of course eventually developed to power Concorde, and, as far as I know, it performed very well.
LIFE IN THE 'REAL' WORLD
Once again from Robert Jackson: “The Labour Party, influenced by ‘advisors’ who had minimal knowledge of military aviation and even less of the RAF’s operational requirements, made political capital out of the funds that were being diverted to keep TSR-2 alive, and left the electorate in no doubt about what they would do to the project if they got into power. But there were sinister forces at work within the Ministry of Defence, too. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Mountbatten, made no secret of the fact that he favoured a land-based version of the Buccaneer to meet the RAF’s requirement, while the Ministry’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Solly Zuckermann, told everyone concerned that he thought TSR-2 a waste of public money and that better value might be obtained by buying aircraft from the United States.
Today of course both Lord Mountbatten and Sir Solly Zuckermann are often discredited as being fools. This is utter fallacy - both men were very intelligent, well informed, highly experienced in the machinations of politics and world affairs. Could it be the case, as some believe, that they had both become monkeys working in effect for a certain organ grinder clad in stars and stripes? Who knows and quite probably we’ll never know. What is now beyond any doubt whatsoever it that these two 'numpties' especially, (and many others of similar culpability even at Cabinet level were involved of course), created the most ridiculous set of financially damaging circumstances any British government had ever been involved in during a period when we weren’t involved in all-out war.
HERE COMES THE RUB
Once again from Robert Jackson: “The Labour Government that had taken office under Prime Minister Harold Wilson shortly after TSR-2s first flight had kept the project going so that the aircraft could be evaluated against the General Dynamics F-111. ”This of course never happened. It first flew on the 21st December 1964 (three months after TSR-2) and “officially” the F-111 entered service with the USAF on the 18th July 1967 but it seems very doubtful it was fit for duty as evidenced by the Australians not getting their first aircraft until 1973. And of course it could not operate from unprepared grass airstrips – an essential element at that time.
“At that time, Wilson – acting on faulty advice – seriously believed that some £300 million might be saved by buying the American aircraft. His Cabinet thought so too, and the final nail in TSR-2s coffin was hammered home on 6 April 1965, when Chancellor James Callaghan, during his budget speech, announced that the project was to be cancelled forthwith.”
What Mr Jackson has to say next seems to clearly indicate that "certain people" had a huge amount of fear towards TSR-2 which surely can only be explained by them having the knowledge that it was already proving to be vastly superior to the F.111? What else could explain such bizarre behaviour? I have to admit I knew absolutely nothing of this final episode in the TSR-2 story until reading Mr Jackson’s account. (This was in 2010). For what it is worth, after over fifteen years of researching British aviation history, (written in 2015), and having read his book Britain’s Greatest Aircraft, Mr Jackson strikes me as being not only very knowledgeable indeed, and a stickler for accurate reporting.
“The assassination was to be complete; no trace of the project was to survive. Orders were issued for the destruction of the completed prototypes and those on the assembly line, and of all the jigs and tools used by the manufacturing companies.” There are dark shades here resembling something akin to a medieval witch hunt. “It is fair to say that the decision to cancel TSR-2, in its stage of development, was probably the most ill-advised ever made by a British government involving the aircraft industry. Admittedly, there were still snags to be overcome, but fewer snags than those that afflicted the F-111, for which the British Government now opted. Soaring costs and technical problems in the F-111 development programme eventually led to thecancellation of the British order, at considerable cost.” What the hell was going on here?
“The gap was filled, in 1969, by the Buccaneer S.2, which Blackburn had wanted the RAF to have ten years earlier, and an admirable job it subsequently did. But it was not until 1982, with the debut of the Panavia Tornado, that the strike squadrons of the Royal Air Force at last possessed an aircraft capable of carrying out all the tasks for which TSR-2 had been intended.”
TAKING ISSUE
It is here that I would take issue with Mr Jackson as, although not an expert on military aircraft by any means, I’m pretty certain the Tornado is not suitable for operation from 900m grass nairstrips. Also the rate of climb of the Tornado at 15,100 ft/min doesn’t quite match the 50,000 ft/min initial rate of climb required for TSR-2. But, with Glasnost and Perestroika occurring in the mid-1980s it was already clear before this occurring that the ‘Cold-War’ was a lost cause.
Perhaps ‘God’ only knows why such idiocy developed in the first place. Surely a war without winners is a cause that can only be dreamt up by the clinically insane?
WAS IT JUST MADNESS OR SOMETHING MUCH MORE SINISTER?
I shall leave you to decide but the following account by Robert Jackson leaves me utterly dumbfounded – and indeed, almost beggaring belief. “Of the TSR-2 airframes, XR219, XR221 and XR223 were taken to the gunnery range at Shoeburyness to be destroyed as ‘damage to aircraft’ targets. XR220 was kept at Boscombe Down for a year or so and then placed in storage at RAF Henlow after it had had all its internal equipment ripped out. Even the wires to equipment were severed rather than disconnected. It was later transferred to the Aerospace Museum at RAF Cosford, near Wolverhampton. It was initially planned to scrap XR222, but the aircraft was instead allocated to the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield and later saved for restoration and moved to the Imperial War Museum at Duxford.” I can testify that after visiting COSFORD and DUXFORD to visit the museums, it is quite an emotional experience to stand alongside XR220 and XR22, and imagine what should have become of this astonishing project.
And there is more, again from Robert Jackson: “All the other airframes were scrapped. All tooling was destroyed. On the production line, as workers completed the assembly of some airframes prior to their transport to the scrap yard, the tooling was being destroyed with cutting torches behind them. Even a wooden mock-up of the TSR-2 was dragged out of the BAC factory at Warton and burned while the workers looked on. All technical publications, even photographs of the aircraft in its various stages of construction were destroyed. Boscombe Down’s official records of test flights were ‘lost’. It was an act of vandalism unparalleled in the history of British aviation.”
THE LATER YEARS
In 1975 Jet Provost/Strikemaster types were in production here and it seems that Jaguar flight testing was happening too. Indeed, it seems a tad difficult to establish when and where the first British (BAC built) SEPECAT Jaguar first flew. It seems to have been from here on the 12th October 1969. The prototype and those following going mostly to BOSCOMBE DOWN (WILTSHIRE) for evaluation duties. The French, perhaps needless to say, were well ahead of the British team and displayed their second prototype at the Paris Salon (Le Bourget) in June 1969.
SPOTTERS NOTES
In 1977 it appears that only the H.S.125 Srs.3B G-AVRF of BAC Ltd and the privately owned Cessna U206F G-BATD were based here.
LATER YEARS
In more recent years, WARTON has been involved in production of the Tornado and more recently the Eurofighter ‘Typhoon’ with 18 and 29 Squadrons being based here to iron out any teething problems directly and with full involvement by the manufacturer. This being an entirely new concept comprising common sense which should have been employed, from the outset, during the last hundred years. Such a shame then that the Eurofighter, (or at least the RAF version), is nigh on useless according to some RAF people I have spoken to.
A military aeroplane in search of an enemy. And, it seems, inept at doing even the most basic duties it was designed for in the ground attack role, especially when multiple targets are involved. But, hopefully, since I was told this a few years ago, the situation has since improved?
AN 'IN HOUSE' AIRLINE
For many years WARTON was (or still is?) also the base for BAE Systems ‘Corporate Air Travel’ division, operating in-house services to FARNBOROUGH, Munich, FILTON (now closed), CAMBRIDGE, RAF CONINGSBY and RAF MARHAM.
SOME THOUGHTS
Over the course of the twentieth century it is I think rather interesting to see how aircraft development has so quickly slowed down approaching recent years. In the very early years major developments sprang up year on year and during WW1 and WW2 the escalation reached staggering proportions, as did the Cold War period. Since then the general picture has mostly been a tinkering about of basic designs. The big advances being mostly in systems, not the development of any really new aerodynamic designs. It is perhaps easy to cite Burt Rutan as being an exception to this rule, (and what a genius he is) but, lets face it, none of his designs have changed the picture regarding mainstream military and civil airliner production.
Indeed, it is common today to find aircraft in commercial and military use being developments of designs dating back thirty, forty and even fifty years. With the USAF the B.52 is a prime example. In the RAF in 2005 the Apache, Canberra, Chinook, Gazelle, Harrier, Hawk, Hercules, HS125, Jaguar, Jetstream, Lynx, Nimrod, Puma, Tornado, Tri-Star and VC.10 all have a heritage stretching back more than thirty years, some back to fifty years.
colin horrabin
This comment was written on: 2020-02-20 17:25:24I was very interested to read you comments on Warton and its aircraft. I was born in 1941 failed the 11 plus but thanks to English Electric Aviation who offered me a technician apprenticeship in 1960 I have a first in Electrical Engineering from Salford in 1966. I came from Warrington so I stayed in digs in St Annes and although I began work at Warton as an electronic engineer.in 1966 my long term interest in amateur radio following a conversation with an Australian radio amateur Bill Hemple who had a dairy farm in Ki Valley it set in motion a chain of events that took me to the then Daresbuury Nuclear Physics Laboratory in 1968 until I retired in 2000 but I moved back to the area four years ago. Warton was a very interesting place to work and I was fortunate to work with such a great and talented bunch of people. At one point I was awarded a BAC Scholarship the certificate being signed 'Portal of Hungerford' who I had met. The chief test pilot at the time was Roland Beaument and at the time I was there BAC wwere trying to interest the Saudi's in buying the Lightening .So quite often there would be some sort of demo flight on and he could pull more G than the other test pilots.It was quite something to see a lightening go into a vertical climb with full reheat from a few feet off the runway ! I did see the arrival of TSR2 from Boscombe Down and it had gone supersonic during the flight.When it came in to land its unusual undercarriage mad it look like a bird of prey swooping down. In 1960 in one of the hangers was a full sized plywood mock up of the front of Concord ( then without the e) including the droop.In fact I helped Bill Scarfe who was then head of equipment test do a test to estimate the fatigue life of concordes tail fin..You may remember that part of Concordes tail fin fell off during a supersonic flight across Australia but it did not bring down the aircraft-good design- times change now its B Ae systems I would have liked a look round but 'old Boy's' of my generation seemed to have been forgotten colin
We'd love to hear from you, so please scroll down to leave a comment!
Leave a comment ...
Copyright (c) UK Airfield Guide
