It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My CAF (Canadian armed forces) friend and his work on the TRS-2

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:44 PM
This is a bit of an odd post, but an old friend a senior member of CAF (Canada is as far as I know the only nation with a unified armed forces, something nations with smaller military services should take a serious look at. We would have a full blown riot at the Pentagon given the clique's we have in our individual services; air force, army, etc. So would China, Russia, UK Australia, many others are very provincial)

I first met this gentleman when I visited NORAD in the early 1990's He was a senior technology aid associated at CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) What few people know though its hardly a secret is the USA and Canada share equally as Commanders of NORAD at Cheyenne mountain.

Canada is the second largest country on Earth, after Russia and very important because in the cold war it was assumed that a first strike would come over the poles, and very likely cross Canada territory first. That means it made sense to all to have Canada take them on and therefore even though we didn't think Canada would be a target except a back-up NORAD CnC that is in Canada.

Over the years we have built more and I can't tell you where. The way it still works is an Advanced Grade military officer, General, Admiral, etc from each the US and Canada share command 50/50 over the entire defense of the continent. A very good arrangement.

The gentlemen who was kind enough to call me out of the blue was aware of my ALS. In my line of work no way such things are secret from certain parties very long. Christ, is nothing sacred? But when I met him at NORAD he was then a General, though not the commander at the time, and he retired years ago.

We got in a long conversation about technology, both our fields. In truth why he was at NORAD that day why, he didn't say why, and it wasn't like me to ask to much. But he did comment on something I remembered at the time.

There is a "British" aircraft that was never adopted, the TSR-2. Truth is most of the planes technology was "grafted" on the plane but certain technology that had to do with the internal systems were invented in Canada, by Canadians. Canada produced some very interesting stuff over the years, but got little credit except for the dreadful "flying saucer" called the areo-car, which the US bought the company and frankly took everything in the office at the time, with the RCMP permission I should add. Oh, it gets better...

The fact is I mentioned the TRS-2 and he said yes he both knew a lot about it, indeed he helped invent some of the most advanced aircraft technology at the time. Now I was drooling. Pathetic, but true. At the time the Canadians adopted US aircraft interceptors.

The F-101 Voodoo, armed w/nuclear weapons and conventional ones, the F-106 Delta Dart also with Genie Nuclear Rockets (a nuclear armed weapon is not needed to be "guided" just point in the target of the bombers for which they were designed to do, good enough) One thing the could to is go to maximum altitude to provide a nuclear barrier to not very well but possible provide a nuclear largely heavy neutron yield to stop an incoming ICBM, 1 chance in hell, but 1 is better then none. And other UK and US aircraft.

The Canadians also came up with an ingenious "add on" to both their Nimrod (a good UK aircraft) used for anti-submarine and AWACS, like our similar AWACS aircraft. I don't know but have a hunch they got at least a few 707 military variants, but that I can't confirm. The US had ground control capability of our F-106 air defense interceptors, the Canadians chose to use there AWACS that would tie-in to the interceptors. We saw that and did the same.

In my next post, I'll tell you how I was so impressed with the "Canadian" TSR-2, but sorry, I'm very tired. Later all.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:01 PM
Whatever the hell the TSR 2 is, its probably just a souped up AVRO Arrow......
but thats another story.......................

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:34 PM
Promised a response, so I had to regarding the really very kind and very,very bright Canadian CAF retired General who out of the blue paid me a visit. By the way I offered him a position in my company and he lit up and accepted on the spot!. All of you out there do yourself a favor and don't catch or develop a fatal disease. Its a real bitch, believe me. Mine is ALS. And I have people coming out of the wood work paying me a visit as this retired Canadian General did. Almost like buzzards circling except mine have a lot of class, and wont pick my flesh to the bone when dead.

Perhaps I don't have a lot of time left is some of it.

So I was talking about the so-called British TSR-2 aircraft. It may have been because its development by Canada was so covert? First and foremost I saw the plans for the aircraft and it was superior to our F-106 as an interceptor, hands down. But we didn't "own it" though we did try to buy the BAC company that built it as we did buy anything of quality, or stole. We didn't steal from our friends though, not our style.

Not that we were so noble we just didn't want the fall out if we did. For me, I don't screw our friends, ever. Our lets say enemies, aaa sure. Had some work on that on a nice SU-35/37 Beautiful plane. Fabulous maneuverability. THAT we did steal. Alls fair in love and war, loves more fun though.

Want to know a whole lot at Area-51? Dozens of east (Russian) aircraft. And we almost never stole them, money is something we have let it known we pay major dollars, and one time we had no less then 30 assorted Russian aircraft approaching the CONUS air defense zone. Both the US and Canada sent up interceptors and warned them if they attempt to enter *********we will shoot you down.

We quickly determined it looked like a god damn air show, not likely in an attack. This was not SOP. Normally we would just buy one or two. But this was a jackpot and we got the latest (and a horse and buggy MIG-23, even an ancient MIG-21) Rumor has it they were in for service or on training flights but can't tell you for sure. I get more poop from others then my own people. Go figure...

But the equipment in the Canadian (BAC) aircraft was 60% Canadian. A country that gets far to little credit for the technology they came up with. Why the Brits got so much credit? Who knows. Not they don't make fine aircraft, we still have Marine Harriers, greatly upgraded and vastly improved, technology we did share (OK, most of it) with our UK friends.

But the TSR-2, Its ability to tie in to AWACS and do so very, well covertly and be VERY hard to scramble, assume. They could carry more weapons then our then front line F-106, many more and each could be individually targeted and then "cut loose" from AWACS control so the communications would not be screwed with, outstanding.

Also several alternative radar/IR/other sensors that could be slaved to each missile individually, and the aircraft data and each missile could burst transit its data to the AWACS and ground control. Very, very nice. They asked us to investigate "could we have these interceptors unmanned"? We said sure, with one or two manned and more unmanned, no problem. Last point was this aircraft was listed as an attack aircraft but was available for air-to-air combat. And very good at that.

We discussed sensors and communications stuff I can't discuss, god this is killing me! But I don't screw with what is classified, ever.

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:13 PM
Some of your info is wrong.

The TSR-2 was a tactical strike and reconnaissance bomber being developed by BAC and cancelled by the British government in 1965. It wasn't an interceptor and it wasn't Canadian.

I think you are confusing the TRS-2 with the CF-105 Arrow designed by Avro Canada and cancelled in 1959 with five having been made for development and flight testing. The cancellation of the CF-105 resulted in the end of Avro Canada with some 15,000 people losing their jobs. A number of engineers joined NASA and were lead engineers, program managers, and heads of engineering for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.

Canada has never used the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod for ASW or anything else. We used the Avro Lancaster, a variant of the P-2 Neptune, the Canadair CP-107 Argus, and currently use a variant of the P-3 Orion called the CP-140 Aurora.

Canada has never operated AWACS as part of the RCAF or CAF. We have had personnel serving on NATO AWACS out of Geilenkirchen, though apparently we're pulling out of that.

edit on 28/5/12 by erwalker because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/5/12 by erwalker because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:57 AM
reply to post by erwalker

I agree. In addition to that the Nimrod never operated in the AWACS role at all, the ancient and essentially Lancaster derived (via the Lincoln) Shackleton AEW.2 was replaced by the Boeing Sentry AEW.1 (equivalent to the US E-3D variant) in 1991.

The CAF, much vaunted in the original post, has now reverted to the fractured identities of RCAF, RCN etc in recent months.

. Even if the OP did intend to talk about the CF-105 rather than TSR-2 he has it back to front, some senior technicians and designers were imported to Canada from the parent Avro company in the UK to help develop the Arrow, bringing with them their delta experience from developing the Avro 697 (Vulcan), 707, 710, 720, etc. Though this was a means to try and expedite the development making use of existing company experience and not a reflection on Canada's ability to develop the plane.

If he really did mean TSR 2, then the whole thing is total fiction, with even the intended role of tne TSR 2 being completely wrong. Oh dear.

For a true history of the (entirely British) TSR 2 there is the excellent and peerless book by Damien Burke.
edit on 29-5-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM
The change from the CAF Air Command to RCAF back in Aug 2011 was really just a name change rather than any sort of restructuring, as was the return to the RCN and Canadian Army. Changes to letterhead, signs, and some minor uniform changes such as shoulder flashes are the main changes I saw.

Our dress uniforms changed from green to air force blue and navy blue back in 1986, with the army adding epaulets to the green uniform. The operational dress for air force personnel other than pilots went to CADPAT around 2005.

Support personnel (MPs, supply, admin, etc), the so called purple trades, can be assigned any one of the three dress uniforms on enrollment. This is why you will see a mixture of uniforms in the ranks on parade.

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by arbiture
This is a bit of an odd post, but an old friend a senior member of CAF (Canada is as far as I know the only nation with a unified armed forces, ......)

Timor Leste

Of course Canada's "unified" services are not particularly any more unified in reality than any other western country that has a chief of Defence Staff & a singular ministry of Defence or the equivalent overseeing all teh armed forces & only took a decade or so to start to unravel from the ideal originally envisaged

See here for summary

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

That surprises me. The "clique" also seemed so well behaved when I dellt with Canada's CAF. Shows me their good at playing nice for guests.
edit on 29/5/12 by arbiture because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by erwalker

Yes I am aware the TRS-2 was designated a tactical strike/recon vehicle. But it was part of a larger effort that included an air defense platform. That much is largely lost to history. What the pity. If the MIC of Canada could have held a candle to our own at the time, we may have gotten the better interceptor.

Thats just IMO.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by arbiture

The TSR.2 (not TRS) was designed as a replacement for the Canberra bomber. It was not part of any larger effort at all. It was already the largest aerospace programme the UK had ever entered into.

The initials stand for "Tactical Strike and Recconaisence, MACH 2" and the UK used the programme as a tool by which the overly large UK aircraft industry could be reduced via company mergers. There were several competing designs and the aircraft that was built was an amalgam of the Supermarine 571 and the English Electric P.17. In awarding the contract it forced Vickers-Supermarine, Bristol, English Electric and Hunting Percival to merge together into the British Aircraft Corporation, hence the BAC TSR.2.

The only link of the aircraft to the interceptor role was a vague proposal by BAC several years later that an air defence version might be feasible, that was never pursued into detail design and there was never any Canadian connection to the TSR .2 at all.

You, sir, have been sold a pup by your friend, as the saying goes. Here is a fact that is true for you, the day after the TSR.2 was cancelled, I was born, so I very much see it as "my" plane

edit on 3-6-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in