PDA

View Full Version : Concorde chasing


Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Jan 2013, 09:00
I was listening to a lecture on Concorde last night, and the presenter postulated that a military version could have done everything the Blackbird did, but far more cheaply, more safely, and more practically (operating from any airfiled using Jet A1, not just the 3 it did use with its special fuel). Although only M2 compared to the SR71's M3, he argued that M2 was ample to avoid being shot down as no fighter had ever got a firing position on Concorde despite the RAF knowing when and where it would be and trying to simulate a shoot-down!

Does anyone know different? Plenty of fighters tried to get a firing position on the beautiful white bird. Did any succeed?

BOAC
22nd Jan 2013, 09:02
Well.................providing there was an 'r' in the month etc etc, the Lightning might have hacked it on a front attack - there would be plenty of IR for the missile. Stern attack - forget it.

keesje
22nd Jan 2013, 09:39
At the time Concordes entered service Mig31s did too and I heard Russian SAM weren't that bad in the seventies either (ask the Israeli's) radar cross sections of the concordes seems large, contrary to the SR71.

London Eye
22nd Jan 2013, 10:04
A few years ago while tooling around in a completely clean jet (not even pylons fitted) we were asked to provide an embellish target for Northern QRA. Having just refuelled we thought we might kindly provide a M2 (well it must have been 1.95 obviously!) target and the very helpful words from the fighter controller were "identify and shadow". A bit tricky from the 18 miles and opening rollout: the QRA crew did profess their gratefulness for our helpful profile over the radio and then over the phone :8. If we were grown ups we would have chosen another occupation...

sharpend
22nd Jan 2013, 10:20
Whilst serving at RAF Chivenor in the 80s I once tried to intcercept Concorde as it came up the Bristol Channel (possibly slowing down). I met it head on at some 50 miles range and started my turn behind it at some 20 miles. When I rolled out, it had gone :rolleyes: Not a hope.

Of course, it would have been an easy target for any fighter with a head on capability. Speed is no defence for such an intercepter.

Out Of Trim
22nd Jan 2013, 10:28
October 2004, Archive Story
*
LIGHTNING vs CONCORDE
The Lightning that once overtook Concorde was described as 'the best of the best' by Flt Lt Mike Hale at the roll-out ceremony for XR749 at Teeside Airport on September 28th 1995. Now an instructor with 56 Sqn at Coningsby, Mike flew 80 sorties in XR749 after the aircraft was allocated to 11 Squadron at Binbrook. He has a particular affection for the aircraft: "The Lightning was an exceptional aircraft in every respect, but XR749 was one of the best of the best.

It is probably the best aircraft that I will ever have had the privilege to fly. Because of her tail code BM, she was known as 'Big Mother', although the tail code changed to BO for her last few months on 11 before joining the LTF in January 1985. She was a very hot ship, even for a Lightning. She remained my aircraft for all her time on 11 Sqn despite my being entitled to an F6 as I moved up the squadron pecking order. I invariably asked for her to be allocated to me for the major exercises such as MALLET BLOW, OSEX, and ELDER FOREST despite her being a short range F3 - there were invariably plenty of tankers about!"

His memories include the time in April 1984, during a squadron exchange at Binbrook, when he and XR749 participated in unofficial time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. The Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat. This is not surprising when the records show that the year before on one sortie XR749 accelerated to Mach 2.3 (1500 mph) in September 1983.

It was also in 1984, during a major NATO exercise that he intercepted an American U-2 at 66,000 ft, a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Shortly before this intercept, he flew a zoom climb to 88,000 ft and, later that year, he was able to sustain FL550 while flying subsonic. Life was not entirely without problems, however, as in a three month period his No 2 engine seized in flight and its replacement failed during a take-off when intake panelling on the inside of the aircraft became detached and was sucked into the engine.

In April 1985, British Airways were trialling a Concorde up and down the North Sea. When they offered it as a target to NATO fighters, Mike and his team spent the night before in the hangar polishing XR749 which he borrowed from the LTF for the occasion, and the next day overhauled Concorde at 57,000 ft and travelling at Mach 2.2 by flying a stern conversion intercept. "Everyone had a bash - F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s - but only the Lightning managed to overhaul Concorde from behind".

In October 1985, XR749 represented the LTF on the tenth anniversary of that unit's formation. It was given a new colour scheme - light grey underside, dark grey upper side, with the spine and tail fin dark blue. It was the only Lightning to be so coloured, and then only for two months, but that was its permanent livery at Teeside Airport.* Since then she has been sold to IVGTS a company who service Avon Engines, location Peterhead, Scotland.

In late July 2004 she was dismantled and began her journey to her new home in Scotland. IVGTS are carrying out a full restoration and treating corrosion before putting her back together as a gate guard within the foyer of their main building.

ORAC
22nd Jan 2013, 10:32
Concorde cruised at M2 at FL550-600, well inside the snap-up frontal attack envelope for the AIM-7/Skyflash. (150-180 TCA)

It flew a couple of trail sorties in the North Sea using a figure of eight route through a set of CAPs with Ltgs with Redtop and F-4s and successful practice shots were taken.

SR-71 flew at 70K+ and M3. Height was outside the snap-up envelope, plus the closing speed meant the missile fusing would detonate the warhead too late to engage.

wiggy
22nd Jan 2013, 10:59
he argued that M2 was ample to avoid being shot down as no fighter had ever got a firing position on Concorde despite the RAF knowing when and where it would be and trying to simulate a shoot-down!

Does anyone know different?

Yes, I heard the same **** from Concorde guys when I joined Big Airways ("you were never able to shoot us down, blah, blah")..now whilst they had of course flogged up and down the North Sea acting as target they were never privy to the military debriefs and never saw the radar films. They never understood the idea of a snap up and they certainly didn't like being told "but we didn't need to get the fighter up there to kill you";)

In other words both they, and the lecturer last night were misinformed.

radar cross sections of the concordes seems large,.

:ok: If you met one overflying you on a 180X0 :E over the Atlantic Tracks, Concorde used to stick out like the dogs proverbials even on a relatively low powered weather radar - you just needed to make sure you "looked" a long way up.

BOAC
22nd Jan 2013, 11:04
Who was the lecturer?

The Helpful Stacker
22nd Jan 2013, 11:28
Who was the lecturer?

One of the Phoenix 'Think Tank' perhaps? They seem to be the leading experts on knowing very little about air power, yet feel able to talk at length about it, even though their remit is apparently maritime. :ugh:

I bet Sharky would have caught a Concorde in his puffer jet.....;)

500N
22nd Jan 2013, 11:33
The Helpful stacker

"I bet Sharky would have caught a Concorde in his puffer jet.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif"

Thank you, you owe me a new keyboard :O

Courtney Mil
22nd Jan 2013, 11:33
NewsOfTheWorld,

Which bit didn't you like?

NewsOfTheWorld
22nd Jan 2013, 12:01
Courtney, I misread the previous post and have deleted my post. (I was calling hoop on the slug snap up.)

HalloweenJack
22nd Jan 2013, 12:40
if you read the quite large concord thread , a number of ex crew have a few stories ; 1 where they were asked as a target for an F3 tornado intercept , and when the tornado started its run, tail on, then concorde ` lit up` , the tornado went backwards in distance ;) - and another of where a US mission at FL60 was advised of traffic , thanks to a flight coming from Barbados; the US aircrew were in `bone domes and pressure suits and ofc in concorde they were in shirt sleeves eating canopes....

ORAC
22nd Jan 2013, 13:00
Well Concorde got one "kill"; a U-2 in the Nicosia FIR which got too close and severely bent out of shape. Had to be replaced and shipped home for repair.

Geehovah
22nd Jan 2013, 13:26
I told the story of our efforts against G-AXDN in "Phantom In Focus" (Chapter 5).

Marcantilan
22nd Jan 2013, 13:32
"I bet Sharky would have caught a Concorde in his puffer jet.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif"

Brilliant!!!

Kitbag
22nd Jan 2013, 15:06
I would think Concorde, despite its speed and altitude capability, would be vulnerable to SA-2 and successor defences. Sandys was sort of getting it right with the end of the manned fighter; sometimes you just don't need one.

ORAC
22nd Jan 2013, 15:30
I would think Concorde, despite its speed and altitude capability, would be vulnerable to SA-2 and successor defences. They all were, which is why the XB-70 was cancelled (http://markosun.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/deep-penetration-nuclear-armed-supersonic-bomber/).

B Fraser
22nd Jan 2013, 15:43
the US aircrew were in `bone domes and pressure suits and ofc in concorde they were in shirt sleeves eating canopes....

And after the sortie, the US aircraft would require 50 man hours of servicing. Concorde would have required someone to run a hoover up and down and put fresh flowers in the loo.
;)

Bengo
22nd Jan 2013, 16:14
B Fraser

Unfortunately not. Concorde servicing costs in BA days before the accident were well over 20 MMh/Fh and rising. Rolls Royce military engines division was one of the top 10 BA suppliers by cost... (for the fleet of about 30 reheated Olympus- the RB211's etc were in the civil division and costed separately.)

The thing was built like a 50's/60's military aircraft design and they leaked on the ground in much the same way.

Still bloody impressive though, and generated a lot more supersonic flight hours than the world's militaries.

N

Wizzard
22nd Jan 2013, 16:37
[QUOTE
In late July 2004 she was dismantled and began her journey to her new home in Scotland. IVGTS are carrying out a full restoration and treating corrosion before putting her back together as a gate guard within the foyer of their main building.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. She stands proudly on a concrete plinth outside the factory in full view of the North Sea helicopter crews on their way into Aberdeen!

Apologies for the thread drift

B Fraser
22nd Jan 2013, 18:52
Bengo,

Of course there was a maintenance schedule however I was referring to a turn-around between same-day supersonic cruises i.e. they did not require a trip to the hangar. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

(I was also being slightly flippant as fresh newspapers would also be required on-board.)

;)

Lima Juliet
22nd Jan 2013, 19:23
The Lightning intercept at Post #6

I know Mike "SID" Hale well and I can confirm that he hired an electric floor polisher and used it to polish his aluminium aircraft (no paint) all over with it. I confirmed this fact through his Mrs who also had helped him prep the jet for the attempt. Don't forget, this is well before today's "Elf and Safety" madness!

SID was short for SIDITIO and stood for "Seen It Done It Ticked It Off" - and he had, jumping out of various jets (and halfway out of one!), landing on Swinderby's short runway in Lightning after his weather divert had clagged in... to name but a few. He was awarded an MBE last year for his services to aviation before he retired. When He retired he had over 4,000hrs on various Air Defence aircraft and even more 'ear offence' with his stories! He was also a keen glider pilot that probably came useful on the Lighning :eek:

LJ :ok:

Scruffy Fanny
22nd Jan 2013, 20:33
I've read the SID story many times and I have to laugh- first off in 1985 there were only two silver un painted Lightnings in UK - one at Warton and One at ETPS. So quite how SID polished his camouflaged F3 I'm not sure- also the paint was applied by roller brush - no joke. The internal fuel of the F3 was around 7000lbs there is no way you could do an intercept on Concorde doing Mach 2.2 and roll out behind it and overtake it sorry but its all BS - Most Lightnings in 1985 would do about Mach 1.8 at a push and no one I knew ever went above 70,000 feet - but who knows

atakacs
22nd Jan 2013, 20:41
Fun discussion - just a small tidbit: the Concorde was performance limited by it's "artificially" designated max altitude of 60'000 ft (in order to give some survival chance to the paxs in case of decompression). As is it was capable of M2.3 and 70'000 ft without problem (and probably much better fuel efficiency). I would think that a "militarized" version, assuming some optimizations, could most probably get M2.5+ / 80'000 ft. Not the SR71 but darn close.

Lima Juliet
22nd Jan 2013, 20:45
SF

Fair enough, you have WIWOL time, I don't. You're right SID does tell a good yarn, but it was his Mrs who told me at a DI Night, so I took this as corroboration!

I did M2.15 in a clean Tornado F3 with OC Ops from CGY around 1993/4 - it had just come from the factory and had no launcher rails. Even that would not be good enough for a stern conversion on Concorde at max chat.

LJ

ORAC
22nd Jan 2013, 20:48
Most Lightnings in 1985 would do about Mach 1.8 at a push and no one I knew ever went above 70,000 feet - but who knows Only a controller, but watched a Mirage IV doing M2+ intercepted by an F3 doing a stern intercept in 1976. Call me a liar if you wish. But I was there.

I was also a controller at Boulmer just before the Lightning went out of service and when they were trying to see how high they could go. Measured using the HF200 we had many who exceeded 70K+, and a few beyond.

Call me and the guys who flew them liars. I believe the evidence of my own eyes.

Scruffy Fanny
22nd Jan 2013, 20:58
LJ - I'm just trying to keep the facts correct!! Yes SID told a good yarn I'd love to hear about how he almost ejected from an F3 by accident !!!!- The ADV and LTG were quite different the ADV in my opinion was pretty awesome from sea level to about 5000 - sit at 300kts select max reheat and it would effortlessly accelerate to 900 Kts - no noise just a smooth ride. The Lightning would accelerate like crazy to 500 kts then frankly it all got a bit scarey ! Because most of them were so bent as you went past 500kts the ball started to drift out and you ended up with a whole boot full of rudder on and a load of aileron to fly straight. I flew a couple of silver Lightnings before they were painted and they were much faster and smoother. there was a pilot who flew quite high near the end of the lightning on an air test and the canopy seal blew- it's only a bit of thin rubber and then 20 years old !!! - besides in the 1960s they wore the tailor Baxter pressure suits in the 1980s all you had was a Mk3 bone dome and a P or Q mask - so just for the record despite what wicked idea says I take the story about XR749 going into orbit at Mach 2.8 with a very large pinch of salt !!!
The Lightning was a great aircraft but the F3/ ADV was a lot less scarey - next thing I expect is Sharkey telling us he could Viff his Sea Jet behind a Mach 2.0 Concorde !!!

glad rag
22nd Jan 2013, 21:08
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQro6MhzHDeW_9pZDFl09UbIUlpzc5Tv86E9Ff_C1w vIfxi1raVXIoXI-zk

Leon, mate,

when Mrs Sid said she polished her old mans rocket ship, she didn't mean his rocket ship....

Pitts2112
22nd Jan 2013, 22:56
Fun discussion - just a small tidbit: the Concorde was performance limited by it's "artificially" designated max altitude of 60'000 ft (in order to give some survival chance to the paxs in case of decompression).

Have you got a source reference for that? As it was explained to me, once Concorde was supersonic, she was left in full dry power and was allowed to naturally gain altitude as fuel weight burned off. I don't think 60k was mentioned as a limitation as the height it would hit would be a matter of atmospheric conditions.

Bellerophon
23rd Jan 2013, 01:45
Pitts2112

Concorde used reheat to accelerate from M0.95 up to M1.70, when they were switched off and full dry climb/cruise power took her up to M2.00.

Once at M2.00, with the power setting unchanged, she drifted up (and sometimes down) as the OAT changed and her weight burned off, with pitch controlling her speed at M2.00.

FL600 was her maximum permitted altitude in commercial service - normally only reached on LHR-BGI sectors - and this was a Flying Manual limitation, although it was well known the aircraft had been much higher (and faster) during test flying.

There was one Concorde co-pilot I flew with - ex Lightnings, ETPS and BBC documentary - who might have an informed opinion about what could have caught her or shot her down, but frankly the rest of us wouldn't have a clue!

Best Regards

Bellerophon

atakacs
23rd Jan 2013, 01:53
Have you got a source reference for that? As it was explained to me, once Concorde was supersonic, she was left in full dry power and was allowed to naturally gain altitude as fuel weight burned off. I don't think 60k was mentioned as a limitation as the height it would hit would be a matter of atmospheric conditions.

My understanding is that the ultimate limiting factor was heat, with a limit at 127C for the nose. There was indeed a "sweet spot" around FL60 / M2.02 but with extremely cold atmospheric conditions the plane would continue to gain speed and altitude above the max allowable ceiling which was definitely 60000 ft. If memory serve the highest speed recorded was with prototype 101 at M2.23 and highest altitude 68000 ft. I'm pretty sure that these figures could have been improved for a military declination of the design.

Lightning Mate
23rd Jan 2013, 06:55
I find the story at post 6 intriguing to say the least.

XR749 was an F3. I have a fair amount of time on the F3.

"overhauling Concorde at 57,000 ft at M2.2"

:mad:

Perhaps BOAC and/or newt would care to add a comment or two.

hval
23rd Jan 2013, 07:40
Dennis Tuck, in his book "From The Piper Cub To The Concorde Sst", writes the following on page 12:

"... we flew the entire flight envelope from the minimum speeds to 565 knots equivalent airspeed, and Mach 2.17, from sea level to 65,000 feet altitude where the combinations were appropriate. The approved range was 530 knots, Mach 2.04 and 60,000 feet altitude."

Lightning Mate
23rd Jan 2013, 07:51
I presume Mr. Tuck is talking about Concorde.

Scruffy Fanny
23rd Jan 2013, 12:47
LM - I'm glad you agree re post 6
It's just fiction - lots of the facts don't add up - to do a stern conversion on Concorde and overtaken it doing Mach 2.2 would have used up most of the North Sea and the F3s meagre fuel - I think Fireball XL5 might have hacked it but even the mighty Lightning .....,

ORAC
23rd Jan 2013, 12:54
It's just fiction - lots of the facts don't add up - to do a stern conversion on Concorde and overtaken it doing Mach 2.2 Seen it done by a Wattisham F3 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/491374-really-fright-e-ning-5.html#post7329945) against a Mirage IV at M2.0 back in 74/75. IIRC the pilot was Dave F****r.

Marcantilan
23rd Jan 2013, 13:09
"I presume Mr. Tuck is talking about Concorde."

Probably a wingless Piper Cub dropped from the Space Station could reach Mach 2.17 or higher.

ORAC
23rd Jan 2013, 13:12
Probably a wingless Piper Cub dropped from the Space Station could reach Mach 2.17 or higher. I believe a winged one dropped from the Space Station would reach the same velocity. It would just dispense with them along the way..... ;)

Lightning Mate
23rd Jan 2013, 15:27
It's just fiction - lots of the facts don't add up

There are many myths about the Lightning.

Those of us who have flown it know the facts!

There are many posts here, mostly by people who have never been near one, let alone flown it.

I rest my case.

Pitts2112
24th Jan 2013, 16:05
Bellerophon, Akatacs,

Thanks for the info. I didn't remember that FL600 was a limitation and only remembered the "she kind of does what she wants within these parameters" part.

Cheers!

Geehovah
24th Jan 2013, 17:58
Coming back to facts, Lightnings and Phantoms were sent against Concorde. The Lightnings tried to intercept using airframe capability and the Phantom using Sparrows.

I wasn't lucky enough to fly the actual sortie but flew the profile a few times in the Sim. The Sparrow would have worked if we got the radar work right and, more importantly, pulled up at the right time and the right speed.

Being really geeky, the F4 radar had a velocity switch for the pulse Doppler radar and, for Concorde, we needed the higher setting that was never used.

A number of the shots were validated.

Heathrow Harry
25th Jan 2013, 13:42
the point is, as pointed out earlier, that while Lightning pilots were having to construct all sorts of clever plans and polish their aircraft the Concorde was full of old grannies and fat businessmen gorging on smoked salmon and champagne served by beautiful ladies

putting some in the RAF would have done wonders for recruiting............

BOAC
25th Jan 2013, 15:38
the Concorde was full of old grannies and fat businessmen gorging on smoked salmon and champagne served by beautiful ladies - and then there were the passengers............:}

wrecker
25th Jan 2013, 16:34
I never saw any beautiful ladies on the dart!

OIFMedic
30th Jan 2013, 08:31
Yes my father was talking about the Concorde

OIFMedic
30th Jan 2013, 08:35
If you know about the first man that jumped from an air balloon, then you know his ultimate speed would not reach mach2 unless Einstein got it wrong.

maxburner
1st Feb 2013, 21:25
I flew one of the F4 intercepts on the trial (Alvernia, if I remember correctly) in 1979. We did a head-on, snap up. The contact range was huge, probably 70+ miles, giving us plenty of time to accelerate to well into the supersonic range (can't remember exactly) and zoom up to well within 10,000 ft.

A long, hard look at the film afterwards (it was a QWI course project) confirmed that the shots were valid.

I do remember looking up into the dark blue as Concord flew over and thinking she must be the most beautiful aircraft ever built.