RAF Concordes ?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Gents,

I was with a good friend last night having dinner, when he told me a story that during the late 60's or early 70's there was a rumour going round that the RAF were going to get a sqn of Concordes to be fitted with Blue Steel (or the modern equivelant) Apparently Corcorde would have been able to carry three weapons each.

Has anyone else heard of such a thing?? Beagle, Winco etc??

Kind regards
TSM

[Kitbag]

ISTR reading a similar idea in 'Project Cancelled' many years ago, also schemed at one time was a plan, similar to the American TipTow (sp?) to carry Gnat fighters as a form of self defence, though that was under Vulcans I think. All these paper ideas were just that though.

[r supwoods]

And the VC10 derivetive was considered using a stand off Folland Midge pilotless aircraft under each wing. Each aircraft carrying a warhead.

[Tigs2]

Are you sure it wasn't the TSR2, arguably the forerunner to concorde?

[chiglet]

AFAIK, ['cos someone has "borrowed" the book] the Vukcan was [able] to carry three piloted Gnats as a "Stand off fighter"....I could be wrong tho'
watp,iktch

[Pontius Navigator]

Chiglet, that would have been the Mk 3.

For Concord (no French e :)) it would have been rather faster than the missiles which were too easy to shoot down being rather slow ballistic missiles.

[wiggy]

Can't help thinking any external ordnance would have had been more than slightly detrimental to Concorde's supersonic performance....anyone seen any numbers?

Also I sadly never had the chance to see a Concorde using an AWG-12 or similar (F-4) but did get the chance to point a p*** poor weather radar at a Concorde over the Atlantic a few years ago and I couldn't believe what a big radar target it was ( ? the intake geometry)....

So perhaps it would have ended up as a subsonic target with a radar cross section bigger than a B-52? Maybe not such a good idea unless you were going to throw ALCMs off the thing from over the North Sea.

[TEEEJ]

Didn't the 1968 RAF Yearbook have an artist impression?

An interesting one if correct?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=52969&page=2
'I believe that certain provisions were made on Concorde 002 ( the one now at Yeovilton) to facilitate a demo conversion should the necessity have arisen.'

This one from a Bond movie

http://www.concordesst.com/duxford/archive/pictures/52.jpg
'The aircraft was used as a B1 bomber substitute in the "Never say never again" James Bond spin off, with dummy Cruise missles being loaded'

From

http://www.concordesst.com/

[BlackadderIA]

As quoted to me by a very old guide at Duxford during a tour:

"If you open the panels, you'll see that the lower fuselage ribs of our Concorde curve upwards in the middle. This was done to allow her to carry the Blue Steel (I think he said Blue Steel, it was a couple of years back) Nuclear Missile".

No reason to doubt him and his knowledge of the aircraft in the collection was bordering on Jedi Master.

I went on to jokingly ask him for a sit in the Lancaster - and he said sure thing!:eek:
Spent half an hour clambering around inside her! :ok:

[Double Zero]

I'd love to have seen any stores separation trials if 'it' had got that far !

One of the ( unintentionally ) funniest films I ever saw was ' Airport - The Concorde ' - strangely enough the last of the series, funny that.

At one stage the Concorde is fired on by a baddie in an F4, and the heroic co-pilot, as I remember, winds down a cockpit side window at high altitude Mach 2 then puts his arm out & fires a decoy Verey flare !

I suppose when seeing a 'platform' like that one can't help wondering 'what if ?' but...then one's prodded awake by one's nurse.

[chiglet]

BlackadderIA,
When I was a VRT doing the Aerodynamics Course at RAF Scampton, I was fortunate to be allowed to scamble [no pun intended] all over the Lanc.
As you say :ok::ok::ok:
But as I returned to "real life" I just wondered how [if a relatively fit 40yo, in "shirt sleeve order" found it "not too easy", just how the Heck did those chaps manage in all the kit they had to wear....bouncing all over the sky, in the dark...:D I freely admit that my hat was truly raised to them then, and quietly in the Bar that evening.
Thank you Gentlemen
watp,iktch

[WildDart]

im surprised that the RAF didn’t buy the remaining concords, they have a nack for buying ex unsafe passenger jets (nimrod), plus i would love to hear the loud engines upon take off, one last time :(

just a random thought :)

[Contacttower]

they have a nack for buying ex unsafe passenger jets


To be fair the Tristar and the VC10 must be among the safest airliners ever built.

[DaveyBoy]

The Comet 4C wasn't unsafe... it was in passenger service for over 20 years and frames were only ever lost due to pilot error!

[GeeRam]

im surprised that the RAF didn’t buy the remaining Concordes,they have a nack for buying ex unsafe passenger jets

Considering the HMG/British Taxpayer bought them in the first place (not BOAC/BA) then by rights they could just have been handed over instead.....

I'm surprised TB at the time didn't insist on this for the cudos of Blair One.....

And 'our' Concordes weren't unsafe........;)

[Al R]

Soldier magazine, in April 1983, printed a terrific story about the MoD intending to do HALO trials with one and volunteers being required..

[BEagle]

Sometimes one's April Fool spoofs can go slightly wrong...

In 1984 I was the editor of Gateway and we printed an article on mods to the BAe 146 of the 146 Development Flight for 'special duties'. This included an AAR probe, and our cover showed it fitted to the aircraft and being checked by a technician. It was actually a convincingly painted broomstick with 2 support struts on top of the fuselage complete with a fairing made from layers of Dr White's sanitary products for ladies, which when sufficiently wetted made the whol thing looked very realistic indeed.

The article went on to describe 'a RFIL loop' fitted to the aircraft, which was supposed to deflect RF illuminating energy and also to apply polarising optics to 'reduce the optical signature' to make the aircraft invisible - it even concluded 'This is a specific property of optical fibres'.

No-one noticed either the anagram of 'April fool' or 'This is a s.. p.. o.. o.. f..' in the last sentence! Worse was to come, for 'Air Clues' swallowed it hook, line and sinker and also used the photo, referring to a 'technician adjusting the AAR equipment of the BAe 146P'. Eventually I had to phone the editor to tell him he'd been had - not a Happy Bunny!

But HALO from Concorde - did anyone really fall for that?

[Gainesy]

Hah! I saw a 146 in the static park at Farnborough which had been tarted up by BAe as a "military transport". Nobody fell for that one though.:)

[jonesthepilot]

Never heard the rumour about a Squadron of Concordes but I did hear that a Concorde was sometimes used to act as a high flying, supersonic target for Lighning and Phantom crews to practice intercepts on.

[Green Flash]

But HALO from Concorde - did anyone really fall for that?
Surely that should read 'did anyone really fall FROM that?'
Sorry.

[XL391]

The Lightning in question was F3 XR749, allegedly a very hot ship, even for a Lightning... :D

[XV277]

Always nice to see a bit of Alternative Reality!! As a kid I painted my Airfix Concorde in RAF bomber colours (albeit purple and green).
On initial view, Concorde does have some apparent advantages as a mil aircraft - the ability to sustain Mach 2 for a considerable period being one of them.
By the time Concorde was being produced, high flying supersonic bomb or missile carriers had been replaced in the Strategists plans by low flying, camouflaged ones. (In some ways you could compare it with the XB-70)
I always understood that Concord had to be predominantly white to avoid heating effect at sustained Mach 2 flight. IIRC Air France couldn't fly the 'Pepsi' aircraft supersonic for that reason.
The aerodynamists would no doubt be able to give you their opinion on the undercarraige of weapons and lack of folding pointy nose on the 'bomber' illustration as well.
As a fast transport it may have been more of a success - the Comets of 216 were just about ready for replacement - but the limited carraige and limited door size would have been a problem. That withdrawing from East of Suez. oh, and the equipment arriving three days later by C-130!
In fact the only realistic military use for Concorde (other than a fast target and research airframe) that I could see would be as a VIP transport, as much for the kudos factor - following Press, bags etc would have to be in another Concorde or good ole VC-10

[GeeRam]

In fact the only realistic military use for Concorde (other than a fast target and research airframe) that I could see would be as a VIP transport,

I was thinking with it's sustained Mach 2 and high altitude, they would have made a damn good recce platform, almost a mini-SR71, and with the PR9's withdrawl due only a few years after Concorde there would have just been time for them to have been refitted, equipped in time.......

But, of course, we don't need that capability, and we don't have any funds......:ugh:

[Jetex Jim]

Never heard the rumour about a Squadron of Concordes but I did hear that a Concorde was sometimes used to act as a high flying, supersonic target for Lighning and Phantom crews to practice intercepts on.


Just as well that the terrorist hijack SST threat has been eliminated now the F3's are on duty..

STOP PRESS Concorde grounded new conspiracy theory..:hmm:

[ORAC]

Yep, on either engine test runs, or charter "go supersonic" flights. Nope, specially planned and briefed flights.

Concorde flew a figure of eight route, NW up towards Scotland with a right hand turn followed by a SW leg back towards the Wash. Speed was M2.0 at FL560 with slight height variations to maintain constant speed.

Fighters had several prearranged CAP points and were only briefed for frontal fox 1 shots, the stern intercept IIRC was not briefed and resulted in an interview.

[Magic Mushroom]

Supposedly, on the one intercept, a Lightning was the only aircraft to get a "successful" head-on Fox One, followed by a stern shot Fox One

A Lightning Fox 1 eh? That I'd have liked to see!!;)

[ORAC]

Well, a frontal shot anyway. The Redtop had a theoretical frontal capability against a supersonic target based on skin temperature. Not sure if it was ever tested against a real target, but if it couldn't do it against Concorde I doubt it would have worked against anything.....

[Secretsooty]

I remember seeing on a concord undergoing base maintenance at Heathrow, a series of strong-point mounts on various frames along the fuselage, whilst she was de-panneled. I was told by one of the senior engineers there at the time that they were a modification to the original design spec, insisted upon by the then-current government as a condition of the financial assistance given to the project during it's "floundering" period. Their purpose, it was assured, was for the attachment of either a form of bomb-bay structure or external stores carriers. Whether either were ever developed is something I have never managed to find out.

[wiggy]

I'm not convinced it would have made a particularly survivable recce platform - in cold war Europe anyhow - compared with the SR-71 it hadn't got the speed, hadn't got the altitude, and certainly wasn't stealthy.

ORAC
I know of at least one instance of an F-4M :eek: doing a stern conversion on Concorde.. and taking the Fox 2 ( as to it's validity though - I wasn't a QWI so I can't possibly say :confused:). Whatever the outcome AFAIK it didn't result in an interview.

[GeeRam]

I'm not convinced it would have made a particularly survivable recce platform - in cold war Europe anyhow - compared with the SR-71 it hadn't got the speed, hadn't got the altitude, and certainly wasn't stealthy.

I didn't think Cold War Europe existed in 2003 when BA retired it's Concordes, which is what I was refering to with my 'what if' scenario of them being turned over to RAF use with impending PR.9 retirment.....

[mary_hinge]

To quote Secretsooty
I was told by one of the senior engineers there at the time that they were a modification to the original design spec, insisted upon by the then-current government as a condition of the financial assistance given to the project during it's "floundering" period. Their purpose, it was assured, was for the attachment of either a form of bomb-bay structure or external stores carriers
Crikey, a Civil registered aircraft that can be adopted to military usage at short notice, can’t see that happening……….hang on though.:E
Working on the Victors in the Late 1970s Operation T aircraft would return and on occasion the crew would mention the "intruder" was a Concord

[Jimlad1]

In all seriousness, has anyone put an FOI request into the MOD for information on this? The files would be nearly 40 years old, so should be releasable.

[wonderboysteve]

My ex-boss claimed that he did some work on the 'Concorde bomber' project as an apprentice at BAC, I would suppose in the early '70s. So it was certainly considered, although I have no idea in what form.

[mike1964]

When I were a lad in the 70s I remember the odd rumour in publications like "Air International" of a bomber version/development of the Soviet TU144 Mach 2 transport. Ram-H is a term that springs to mind. Obviously, to the extent it was ever more than a rumour, the item in question was just a stepping stone to the TU160. But as the TU144 was a direct (though lethally inferior) equivalent of Concorde, presumably the idea of developing the aircraft into a bomber was considered feasible by some.

Would a bomber Concorde be called a Discord?

[blandford50]

I weep to myself whenever I think of Concord! Opportunities missed, by HMG and by me. They should have kept it on as a military tool, it wouldn't have cost them anything- in terms of development, they owned each one many times over, and it was very much a proven airframe. HMG would have been able to succeed where BA failed in persuading the makers to continue the support systems. The cause of the terrible accident at CDG was known, and had been fixed. In my own case, when it was doing 'last' flights I should have got my credit card out and flown on it, at least once; I've been kicking myself for not doing so, and will continue to regret it! I was abed with 'flu when it made its last visit to BHX, and I missed it. I remember its 'booms' in the sky when I was a teenager in South West Wales- an aircraft unseen but very much making its presence felt! But most of all, it was an aircraft that engendered pride in the British public, and the French, no doubt- because it WAS a joint-development. And it is symptomatic of the state of our once-great nation that we let it die so ignominiously.
B50.

[MostlyHarmless]

Never again..(will it fly)
Quite. I will personally unicycle around every station in the RAF (All 5 of them) with a lit roman candle in every orifice whilst performing a medley of the Spice girls greatest hits on a banjo if that old girl gets off the ground again.*


* Route, method of transport, orrifice filler and choice of artist subject to change

[Yellow Sun]

They should have kept it on as a military tool,

Sorry Blandford but just what role would you see Concorde fulfilling?

YS

[The Adjutant]

After leaving the RAF I worked at Heathrow for many years and managed to arrange a trip on Concorde on a dickie seat behind the Captain in the cockpit from JFK back to UK.
Although I had my camera with me I figured it was poor form just to take photos without asking, (anyway an unanounced flash might have upset people) so once the aircraft was settled in the cruise and everybody was relaxed, I asked the capt if he minded me taking a photo. He replied by getting out of his seat, putting me in it and taking a photo of me. Now how many of you have a photo of themselves in the drivers seat of Concorde at M2+ and goodness knows what flight level Well I have.
Never got a trip in a Lightning T bird though when I was a GD(FC)

[The Helpful Stacker]

I was lucky enough to get a jump seat flight on a Concorde when I was an air cadet (to the US and back). It was at very short notice, I had a phone call from my then CO on the Monday asking if I wanted to go on the Wednesday and even though it was the school term my parents (bless them) didn't have to think twice about saying yes. Luckily I had only recently got a new passport too.

What an experience and I was a saddened as many when the air transport industry took a backwards step on the retirement of the Speedbirds.

[LowObservable]

Provision for weapon mods?
It sounds a bit urban legendy to me.
1. Supersonic stores separation is nontrivial.
2. At the time this would have been considered, the absence of a targeting radar would have put the accuracy in the "all weapons will hit the ground" realm. Close counts in horseshoes and thermonuclear bombardment, but there are limits.
3. Survivability would not have been much better than a Vulcan. OK, you're moving faster; but you have no EW whatsoever, not even situational awareness.

[RETDPI]

I don't think that it is necessarily totally an urban legend.
The story of the Duxford Concorde having the modified fuselage frames ties in well with the "Brit " Concorde 002 at Yeovilton allegedy having a similar configuration under the skin -possibly even so far as including the sway brace hardpoints. The "French" prototypes it seems did not have this.
The story could now be fairly easily verified or disproved I would have thought.

[mike1964]

At least one problem would seem to be, where to put any weapons? The Blue Steel shown in the pictures was big & heavy (let alone 3 of them!). The space around the CG in a Concorde is all taken up by wheel bays and engines. While no expert I'd have thought that trim problems in releasing heavy stores so far ahead of CG as shown in the picture would have been insuperable.

[225Turbo]

what a brilliant thread !!:D

Makes you wonder what lies under the FOI act doesn't it?

[LowObservable]

Well...
Maybe that was where all the time and money went. Time for the history anoraks to see whether 01 or 202 disappeared for a while in the 1970s, doing weapons release and tests of an astro-inertial nav fit someplace in Nevada.

[blandford50]

How about MORALE BOOSTER...?
Or multi-student fast-jet trainer. Give Wales a break, run it around the Home Counties, Monday to Friday.
I know the dreadful realities of life too well, but we need to dream sometimes. Those who dreamed of getting a Vulcan up again managed it, four Olympus too, but I think that's a dream too far for Concord- too much technology. The Vulcan's a Meccano set compared to Concord.
B50.

[aluminium persuader]

I believe the French have kept one airworthy just in case. Can't recall the museum it's in but ex-Conc engineers have kept up with the work. :ok:

[aZooZa]

My father was a QFI and was last stationed at Upavon. He retired from the RAF voluntarily in 1965, age 44 to go on to work as an instructor for Airwork Services and then BAC in Saudi. When he took me to see the Concorde at Yeovilton, he told me he had been involved in some of the radar work on that aircraft (002 I think?) - sorry to open up such an old thread, but does this ring a bell with anyone?

He joined up in 1939 at age 18 and after much flying was part of the RAF mission to Germany in 1958 to teach Luftwaffe pilots to fly jets. His name was Arthur "John" Hubbard.

Anyone who might have known him, please reply. I'd give out his service number, but I'm not sure if that's de rigeur.

Thank you all!

[chopper2004]

From RAF Yearbook 1971
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/705x960/16114152_10208266857130582_4603806947419433110_n_e3f5336c4da 967438bc77234a61b4799f5e279c4.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/628x187/16195680_10208266864930777_1421618093437876657_n_31ab6e5d728 85998b7c1a689722ca1b0fdbf734d.jpg

and somewhere else, depiction of it carrying Blue steel or skybolt

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x198/raf_concorde_2a7183e903ff42f5ee356661d06686395e00e7fd.jpg

cheers

[aZooZa]

Thank you!

[Asturias56]

the article is interesting - as ever any mention of financial restraints are missing - and one might also muse on an industry that seemed incapable of producing an exportable aircraft after the Canberra and the Hunter and maybe the Harrier

[Davef68]

the article is interesting - as ever any mention of financial restraints are missing - and one might also muse on an industry that seemed incapable of producing an exportable aircraft after the Canberra and the Hunter and maybe the Harrier

Hawk?

[minigundiplomat]

To be fair the Tristar and the VC10 must be among the safest airliners ever built.

To be fair, in the case of the VC10 that was probably attributable to the fact it was U/S most of the time.

[Martin the Martian]

Hawk?
Far more exportable than the Harrier.

[Asturias56]

Hawk?

designed over 50 years ago....................

[CAEBr]

designed over 50 years ago....................

But continuously developed over that time, over 1000 sold, the last one delivered just a year ago.
In terms of design royalty payments, although they decreased as the design evolved from the original TMk1, supposedly the second most profitable export programme ever across all sectors.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

aZooZa, my Dad was also at Upavon in 1965 having gone from spec-rec for promotion to Wg Cdr to redundancy in the latest round of defence cuts within a matter of months. His last flying tour as an A1 instructor had been 2i/c Transport Command Examining Unit at Benson, after which he did the Russian interpreter's course at Tangmere. Long story involving air crash in Russia killing many military and air attaches meant him dipping out on a diplo tour in Moscow, so he finished his operational time as Ops O for a SIGINT Wing at Butzweilerhof near Cologne. Sadly, he departed the fix 2 years ago so am unable to find out if he knew your Dad; HQ 38 Gp did seem to be a clearing-house for people departing the service.

If chopper2004 :ok: hadn't already done so, I'd have uploaded the Arthur Gibson black-and-white pic from the Yearbook.

[Asturias56]

Its not just the aircraft - we continually build & buy military equipment of all types which rarely sells - tanks? destroyers?..................

tho they do seem to be selling the plans for the T26 frigate

[Jhieminga]

To be fair, in the case of the VC10 that was probably attributable to the fact it was U/S most of the time.
Which variant and period are you talking about? It served BOAC/BA and several other operators for several years without any serious safety issues.

[minigundiplomat]

Which variant and period are you talking about? It served BOAC/BA and several other operators for several years without any serious safety issues.

The RAF variant (This is the Military Aviation Forum, not the 1950's Airliner Nostalgia Forum) that so often failed to materialise at the end of a deployment.

[NutLoose]

To be fair, in the case of the VC10 that was probably attributable to the fact it was U/S most of the time.

We very rarely had them unavailable in my time. Ther main problem we had was the stupid running rules that messed up getting them sorted at night.

[Video Mixdown]

The RAF variant (This is the Military Aviation Forum, not the 1950's Airliner Nostalgia Forum) that so often failed to materialise at the end of a deployment.
You must have been exceptionally unlucky. I can't remember a single time that happened to me.

[minigundiplomat]

You must have been exceptionally unlucky. I can't remember a single time that happened to me.

Or you were exceptionally lucky, I can remember multiple times......

[andytug]

The real explanation, from this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM&list=LL&index=175

"Concorde flies at Mach 2, 1500mph, which is faster than a bullet from a gun. Which is why they've never made a military Concorde, because if it opened fire it would shoot itself down........"

[tdracer]

The XB-70 Valkyrie predated the Concorde by well over a decade - and would have been a far more capable military platform than the Concorde ever would (Mach 3, a large internal bomb load, and range).
It was cancelled because it had become apparent that 'high and fast' simply wasn't enough against the emerging air defenses - and that was in the 1960's.
So my first question would be - "What could a military Concorde bring to the table that the XB-70 wouldn't have done better?"

[Buster15]

The real explanation, from this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM&list=LL&index=175

"Concorde flies at Mach 2, 1500mph, which is faster than a bullet from a gun. Which is why they've never made a military Concorde, because if it opened fire it would shoot itself down........"

Hey? That doesn't make sense.
It can fly faster than a bullet from a gun. Then that being the case, how could it possibly shoot itself down. Because the bullet it fired would not be able to catch up with the Concorde.

[pr00ne]

The real explanation, from this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KbUNzi58wM&list=LL&index=175

"Concorde flies at Mach 2, 1500mph, which is faster than a bullet from a gun. Which is why they've never made a military Concorde, because if it opened fire it would shoot itself down........"

So, each and every air combat aircraft since the F-100 has been a myth?
Who knew…

[57mm]

Never mind all that. T'would have been a brilliant transport for the AOC on his annual inspection.....

[ICM]

You must have been exceptionally unlucky. I can't remember a single time that happened to me.

Just caught up with this as regards the VC 10 (C)1 - and I can only add that my recollection of the 10's early days - both on a squadron tour and in posts related to the daily tasking of the aircraft - back up what you say. Serviceability was at least as good as that achieved by any of our transport aircraft of the time and management of the force was not a problem.

[Jetset 88]

Having flown the RAF VC10s for six years in the 1980s, I can only say that the serviceability rate was never a problem affecting my small part in that sphere of operations. Of course there were the occasional times when snags occurred.<br />One such event happened to me when the centre windscreen started double-delaminating whilst climbing up through FL290. A return to the departure airfield after a lower level jettison of fuel was carried out. As soon as a few of the windscreen securing bolts were removed by the ground engs, the whole screen shattered into a million small pieces. We weren't going anywhere.<br />A new windscreen was ordered from the nearest RAF base holding one (HKG) but it was then was lost in transit by the civilian carrier in Melbourne, Aus. A new window had to be ordered from the UK but would take a week to reach us. - Oh I forgot to say that we were climbing out of Nandi in Fiji when we had the failure and it was in mid-December. We had to suffer a week in Fiji getting a suntan, before returning home just in time for Christmas. As a penance for our enjoyment we later had to suffer many a night flight to Cyprus and back, as recompense for a week in the South Pacific whilst all at home were shivering.

[aZooZa]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time! I might find the 'Like' button at some stage :ok:

[West Coast]

Hey? That doesn't make sense.
It can fly faster than a bullet from a gun. Then that being the case, how could it possibly shoot itself down. Because the bullet it fired would not be able to catch up with the Concorde.

An amusing sidebar to the conversation

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/

Amusing unless your the pilot who shot himself down. New call sign, bullet catcher.