Could the Boom Overture have a Military Application?

[nomorecatering]

There is a long history of civilian aircraft being adapted to military roles. P8 Poseidon, Wedgetail AWACS, A330 MRT, KC10, KC767 etc etc

Could the Boom Ovature with it's M1.7 cruise speed and fairly long range work as a missile truck. The P8 has 2 x internal weapons bays. The Ovature could have a similar arangement to carry 30 or so long range cruise missles. Sort of like a low cost B1 sucessor.

Thoughts anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPYm2oE3Og

[ATSA1]

It will not get built, so no...

[Ninthace]

Surely they still have the same issues as Concorde had? Noise and the boom. Calling your company Boom rather draws attention to it. As to military applications, would it be stealthy enough?

[rattman]

Surely they still have the same issues as Concorde had? Noise and the boom. Calling your company Boom rather draws attention to it. As to military applications, would it be stealthy enough? It’s Boom Overture by the way


Firstly they are using the Nasa research on quiet sonic booms, also FAA are looking at changes to sonic boom moratorium and general noise conditions to make these style aircraft more practical as part of the concept has them as more fuel efficient than current jets

[Video Mixdown]

There is a long history of civilian aircraft being adapted to military roles. P8 Poseidon, Wedgetail AWACS, A330 MRT, KC10, KC767 etc etc
Could the Boom Ovature with it's M1.7 cruise speed and fairly long range work as a missile truck. The P8 has 2 x internal weapons bays. The Ovature could have a similar arangement to carry 30 or so long range cruise missles. Sort of like a low cost B1 sucessor.
Thoughts anyone?
My thoughts are it's pretty depressing that on seeing a proposed new civilian airliner your first reaction is to ask how we can use it for war.

[T28B]

My thoughts are it's pretty depressing that on seeing a proposed new civilian airliner your first reaction is to ask how we can use it for war. Did you notice that this is the Military Aviation forum? ;)

[Ohrly]

They are not only building their own supersonic airliner, but the engines as well.

I can't help but think that if there were real money to be made in this market Airbus or Boeing would be developing such a thing.

How many supersonic aircraft are there with "podded" engines? Never mind ones without reheat. I can think of a few from the 1950s, and that's about it.

[melmothtw]

Surely they still have the same issues as Concorde had? Noise and the boom. Calling your company Boom rather draws attention to it. As to military applications, would it be stealthy enough?

The whole point of the Boom project is to fix those problems that Concorde had.

[Ninthace]

Not sure how an aerodynamic look alike will do that - but one lives in hope. It reminds me of an enlarged B-58 Hustler

[tdracer]

Hard to see how - given that drag increases as velocity squared - they can make an SST that has seat-mile fuel burn competitive with subsonic while going twice as fast. Mach 1.7 is too slow for any of the high efficiency 'exotic' jet engine philosophies to work (e.g. RAM/SCRAM jets), so unless there is some huge revolution in propulsion, they're still looking at low bypass turbofans...

[grizzled]

the concept has them as more fuel efficient than current jets

Nope. Even the company (BOOM) says that's not the case. BOOM says the aircraft will not be as fuel efficient as current subsonic aircraft and "must use sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and/or purchase high-quality carbon removal credits" to reduce the environmental impact. Check the current and predicted state of SAF.
And those civilian aircraft mentioned as examples in the initial post were all derivatives of proven airframes. If the Overture is built, and is operated by enough carriers for long enough, then we could reasonably discuss possible military uses. If you like the looks of this aircraft, buy a scale model and admire it on your desk. I'd wager that will be the only reminder a decade from now.

[magyar_flyer]

If (very big if) this thing ever gets to being a certified airliner it is because DOD would have paid for it.
Not sure what value they would see in it (not saying it is not interesting but the cost will be astronomic).
So yes if it becomes reality there will be military use.

[Lonewolf_50]

Just out of curiosity, will that be Mach 1.7 "in a dive" or in straight and level flight? (One would hope the latter ...)

[Video Mixdown]

If (very big if) this thing ever gets to being a certified airliner it is because DOD would have paid for it.
Not sure what value they would see in it (not saying it is not interesting but the cost will be astronomic).
So yes if it becomes reality there will be military use.
Why would anyone pay an astronomical cost to develop such an aircraft, then pay as much again to convert it for some unspecified military role? Are there not enough proper (and also astronomically expensive) military aircraft projects already on the books?

[artee]

Just out of curiosity, will that be Mach 1.7 "in a dive" or in straight and level flight? (One would hope the latter ...)
Mach 1.7? Why bother...

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1505x1818/concorde_at_mach_2_458e7de4c62b58106e31ed99455bddbfbf287497. jpg

[Commander Taco]

There was an excellent Aviation Week “Check Six” podcast about a year ago discussing the numerous challenges this project faces. The panel also had quite a bit to say (not in a good way) of how this aircraft is being marketed. Worth the listen.

[falcon900]

Meanwhile, back on planet earth……

[Davef68]

Military applications for a large supersonic transport aircraft - rapid transport for SF teams in crisis situations?

[meleagertoo]

​​​​purchase high-quality carbon removal credits​​​

The catholic Church ran a nice little scam just like that for hundreds of years - paying to 'remove' sins...
Didn't prevent the sins from happening in the first place though, nor did it ameliorate their after-effects. It just made the scammers very very rich and the sinners passed themselves off publicly as pious, virtuous and forgiven. Ha!

rien plus ça change!

[Captain Dart]

'Boom' demonstrator has flown, with the military interested. They must have read Davef68's post!

https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-supersonic-test-jet-takes-to-the-skies

[tdracer]

'Boom' demonstrator has flown, with the military interested. They must have read Davef68's post!

https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-supersonic-test-jet-takes-to-the-skies
Wake me up when it goes supersonic and they have a chance to measure fuel burn and sonic boom footprint.

Then I'll take another nap while they raise the many billions of dollars needed to put something into production.

[V_2]

Surely they still have the same issues as Concorde had?

I thought the issue Concorde had was that by flying at Mach 2, the military version would fly so fast that when firing missile or bullets, it would suffer the small misfortune of flying back into them and shooting itself down. Or so the joke went

[IFMU]

'Boom' demonstrator has flown, with the military interested. They must have read Davef68's post!

https://www.twz.com/air/booms-xb-1-supersonic-test-jet-takes-to-the-skies
Well done. I am curious if they had any up elevator left. The videos and pictures seem to show most or all of the up elevator being used.

[whowhenwhy]

It's worth noting that neither the demonstrator nor the Overture aircraft will utilise 'low boom' technologies currently being researched by NASA through their X59 program. Overture will be a 'traditonal' SST in the sense that it will boom.

The company originally aimed for M2+ but derated the performance requirement to M1.7 around 18-months or so ago. About the same time that Rolls Royce pulled out of their agreement with Boom as the engine development partner. It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.

[Thud105]

I also noted the significant and near permanent application of lots of up elevator.

[Ninthace]

It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.
Given both ac have similar wings, though the Overture has the addition of a tailplane, what handling foibles would these be and how do they hope to eliminate them?

[tdracer]

It's worth noting that neither the demonstrator nor the Overture aircraft will utilise 'low boom' technologies currently being researched by NASA through their X59 program. Overture will be a 'traditonal' SST in the sense that it will boom.

If it's a 'proof of concept' prototype, what good is it if it doesn't address the show-stopping aspect of the 'boom'? After all, we've been building supersonic aircraft since the 1950s - the basic technology is well known and understood - so why go through all the trouble and cost of building a prototype if it doesn't demonstrate the technology that's consider new (and - most importantly - critical) to the success of the concept?
Or is just something to show prospective investors to trick them into thinking their money would be going into a viable concept?

[artee]

Well done. I am curious if they had any up elevator left. The videos and pictures seem to show most or all of the up elevator being used.
Maybe Boeing could let them use MCAS.

[petit plateau]

It's worth noting that neither the demonstrator nor the Overture aircraft will utilise 'low boom' technologies currently being researched by NASA through their X59 program. Overture will be a 'traditonal' SST in the sense that it will boom.

The company originally aimed for M2+ but derated the performance requirement to M1.7 around 18-months or so ago. About the same time that Rolls Royce pulled out of their agreement with Boom as the engine development partner. It's hoped to eradicate some of the handling foibles associated with Concorde to allow the aircraft to be operated and managed in much the same way as any other airliner.

DARPA keep hoping that they can leverage civil funds to develop M2.2 x 5,200 mile range, (i.e. transpacific) at low (civilian) costs as opposed to high (military) costs and thereby open up large civilian volumes to get a virtuous circle of industrial development & application restarted for the benefit of the USA. Whilst the current paradigm has a fairly static commercial frontier (exemplified by Airbus, perhaps we can stil include Boeing) the competition can pull closer, i.e. China with Comac etc. This worris DARPA as they well know how exposed Boeing is in civil aerospace market, as is increasingly becoming publicly obvious.

In contrast pretty much every time realworld civilian money is at risk on the table they realise that the outcome is M1.7 x 4,250 mile (i.e. goodly transatlantic/etc) and that to push further requires acceptance of very steep cost & technology increases and commensurate programme risk, without a commensurate civilian return reward.

It is quite fun to watch DARPA/etc struggling with this. Repeatedly.

[Ohrly]

If it's a 'proof of concept' prototype, what good is it if it doesn't address the show-stopping aspect of the 'boom'? After all, we've been building supersonic aircraft since the 1950s - the basic technology is well known and understood - so why go through all the trouble and cost of building a prototype if it doesn't demonstrate the technology that's consider new (and - most importantly - critical) to the success of the concept?
Or is just something to show prospective investors to trick them into thinking their money would be going into a viable concept?

It is also using J85s to power it, whereas the real deal is meant to be powered by engines designed and built by Boom themselves. Really I suspect it is just to keep investors happy and the company in the media spotlight.

[waito]

Oh, here we are. Had to ultimately searchtool for a thread discussing the XB-1 prototype firstflight

Now I see the reason for the underwhelming response of this kinda milestone. Really not anyone believe they will achieve some breakthrough advancement? Will it just be a rich peoples' toy at smaller scale, thus reducing the boom by some %?

​​​​​​
​​

[Commander Taco]

It is also using J85s to power it, whereas the real deal is meant to be powered by engines designed and built by Boom themselves. Really I suspect it is just to keep investors happy and the company in the media spotlight.

Your comment forms much of what the “Check Six” podcast dwelled on.

[whowhenwhy]

Given both ac have similar wings, though the Overture has the addition of a tailplane, what handling foibles would these be and how do they hope to eliminate them?
Probably mis-lead you by using the word "handling". Things like transferring fuel around the aircraft and thermal management of the airframe.

[Ninthace]

Probably mis-lead you by using the word "handling". Things like transferring fuel around the aircraft and thermal management of the airframe.
Thanks.
Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in, especially after the addition of a strake (running board) below and aft of the cockpit. (Don’t see one on Overture, perhaps they will add it later :))

[Asturias56]

"Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in,"

how long before they found you a desk in an office?

[Ninthace]

"Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in,"

how long before they found you a desk in an office?
:D
They never did, I worked on the models, getting them ready for the tunnel and helping out in the control room. Research and playing with planes, great fun for a young lad.

[324906]

"Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in,"

how long before they found you a desk in an office?
boom, boom!

[MechEngr]

"Concorde always flew pretty well in the wind tunnel I worked in,"

how long before they found you a desk in an office?

It kept his desk cleared of clutter.

[Asturias56]

"The real deal is meant to be powered by engines designed and built by Boom themselves."

Sure - of course you can design, build and certify a new supersonic engine for about £ 10 I understand................