Legacies of the TSR-2
Introduction
The TSR-2 was the one of the most ambitious projects in the British aerospace and defence industry. The main objectives for the TSR-2 were nuclear strike and reconnaissance at supersonic speeds (Ministry of Defence, “The Royal Air Force – History”). In essence, the TSR-2 was a continuation of the British nuclear deterrent (Gott, 1963). In addition to the main objectives, a series of ultra-advanced operational requirements provided a huge challenge for British engineers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Despite the difficulty and complexity of the project, test flights were becoming more successful and most of the technical challenges had been overcome by the early 1960s. While this may seem like a success story, the labour government cut back defence spending which led to project being cancelled. But even though the project was cancelled, it left valuable legacies in the British defence and aerospace industries. It also left less tangible legacies in serving as an example of the involvement of social, political and economic factors in large-scale technological development projects.
British Aerospace and Defence Industry
Nine firms submitted proposals to the original specification, with the Ministry of Defence concluding that a combination of the design sent by Vickers and English Electric would be the best solution (Law and Cullon, 1998). This collaboration between firms was encouraged further when the government stated that only a group of firms would be awarded the contract. This was a conscious choice by the government to attempt to reduce the number of firms in the industry. While theoretically, more firms could supply more knowledge which would be necessary for the production of the TSR-2, the real reason for the convergence of the industry was to benefit government. Edmonds (1967) notes that the British government created themselves as oligopalists, but also prepared industry for future developments in aircraft and missile production.
The convergence of the industry, while spearheaded by the MoS and MoD, was not based on any policy, but rather on the belief that the industry was oversized for a country of Britain’s size (Law and Callon, 1998). While the reorganisation of the defence industry is a clear legacy of the TSR-2, the effects of the reorganisation are more subtle. The supplier power of the defence industry was greatly reduced, and their dependency on the government for contracts and support greatly increased. The forced collaboration and power shift in the industry forced defence firms to change strategy. Firms had to consider mergers and acquisitions in order to compete for some contracts, but also a means of support after the cancellation of the TSR-2 and subsequent downsizing of the industry. The downsizing of the industry is a legacy that can be viewed as either good or bad. The downsizing brought knowledge into a few key firms, but at the same reduced the capacity of the British aerospace industry.
The industry also suffered setbacks from government policy (which ultimately helped contribute to the cancellation of the TSR-2) including the 1957 Defence White Paper which “forecast that there would be no new manned combat aircraft” (Lombard, 1967). The most important legacy of the industrial policy and industry convergence however is that Britain is now reliant upon her allies. The RAF states: “…the most sophisticated weapon systems the RAF on its own had ever completed [concerning the TSR-2]…” (Ministry of Defence, “Chapter 5 – Europe”). The notion that the British industry and policy would now favour heavy collaboration and purchases from allies forced the British industry (which had worked so hard on this cancelled project) to take a smaller role in future weapons and aircraft development projects. This legacy is clearly valuable to countries such as the United States where much of this technology is produced and also in that it helped strengthen an already strong alliance, but its legacy to Britain is debatable.
Discussion
The Ministry of Supply set out to procure a technology, but in fact produced an organization. While, as discussed previously, this was not quite an unintended result, this helps illustrate the fact that a myriad of issues exists in the development of large-scale technological projects. The case study of the TSR-2 is no doubt a valuable legacy in that it can help society and governments cope with and understand these projects. The development of technology is no longer pure engineering. The complexity and intricacies involved in crafting a project—especially one as advanced as the TSR-2---must be addressed and accounted for when planning technological development. Hughes (1986) points out that traditional categories and organization are no longer sufficient to understand science and technology, and that a “seamless web” approach is more accurate. Viewing the TSR-2 development as a web, rather than categories of social, technical and political leads to a better understanding of why the project was terminated and the valuable legacies it left behind.
Law and Callon (1988) hypothesize that technical content and social context evolve together through a joint process. The changing context of the TSR-2 development and the mismanagement of the technical content of the TSR-2 drove its downfall. The lesson is that to properly manage technology, the context of that technology must be fully understood in addition to managing the technology itself. Driving this point even further, Callon and Law (1997) deconstruct the TSR-2 into a network of actors—ranging from technicians, politicians, metal fatigue and budget restrictions to explain the development process. The TSR-2 also serves as a reminder that complexity can quickly outpace our ability to categorize and understand it. After all, there was no single point of failure in either the engineering, social, or economic inputs into the TSR-2. The TSR-2 was the victim of circumstance—or more accurately—unmanaged complexity. The TSR-2 serves as a valuable reminder that technology does not exist in a vacuum.
This page is about a dog named Spike who likes Candy.