Just on the cost overrun part, this source [1] disagrees: > The TSR-2 project was considered to be a Conservative 'prestige project' by the Labour Party, one o

Just on the cost overrun part, this source [1] disagrees: > The TSR-2 project was considered to be a Conservative 'prestige project' by the Labour Party, one of the major causes of the UK's economic difficulties. This was unfair as the project had only cost some £125 million up until cancellation, and had in fact, quite a slow rate of spend for a major weapon system of this type. As for the rest, history is complex and high dimensional and there is rarely just one reason or easy explanation (for example, above link argues for a Labour vs Conservative political fight, rather than international relations and economic warfare motivations). You read a lot of sources (and I doubt the government-controlled BBC would ever criticize past government decisions or admit to US influence) and try and criss-cross a most likely opinion, and mine is that it was a political shot. As with the Valkyrie, the roles of both nuclear delivery aircraft and the interceptors that would catch them were rapidly being retired by ICBMs, and of course Britain's military might was less and less justified to the taxpayer as decolonisation and economic stagnation progressed, but there was still no justification for setting back the British R&D community by so much (by destroying all the TSR-2 related work, and burning the airframes). That work was relatively cutting edge ([1] claims it set the British back 8 years) and could have been used in a myriad of other projects, thus having relatively high value, even without the option to sell TSR-2s as a ROI. To me, there is therefore the motive for economic warfare from the American side, especially considering the later purchase of F-111s by Australia when they had expressed their interest in the TSR-2 bringing back the short term international economic interest into the picture. The companies involved were clearly capable of doing this kind of thing - see General Dynamics' continuous fight against Admiral Rickover [2]. > in 1963, the RAAF chose to buy the F-111 instead, having been offered a better price and delivery schedule by the American manufacturer.[84][85] 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. I am sure this particular tactic is familiar to many in the IT industry... Why would they do it? > Among the topics of discussion were the future of the TSR-2, Britain’s purchase of F-111s, and U.S. support for a desperately needed $8.4 billion loan to Britain from the International Monetary Fund. > Although it has never been proved, some believe the TSR-2’s fate was sealed on that trip by an unofficial deal between Healey and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: Britain would cancel the TSR-2 and buy the F-111, McNamara’s pet fighter-for-all-reasons, in exchange for U.S. backing of the IMF loan. [3] [1] http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_tsr2long.html#tsrCancel http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_tsr2long.html#t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Forced_retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Forced_retir... [3] http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/cancelled-britains-high-mach-heartbreak-4036788/?no-ist=&page=2 http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/cancelled-brita...