RAF Concordes ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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,
But, of course, we don't need that capability, and we don't have any funds......
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
STOP PRESS Concorde grounded new conspiracy theory..
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Yep, on either engine test runs, or charter "go supersonic" 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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moray
Age: 58
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
ORAC
I know of at least one instance of an F-4M
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 
). Whatever the outcome AFAIK it didn't result in an interview.
ORAC
I know of at least one instance of an F-4M
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 ). Whatever the outcome AFAIK it didn't result in an interview.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Would a bomber Concorde be called a Discord?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: west midlands
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never again..(will it fly)
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.
B50.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: [loh-key-shuhn] 1. a place of settlement, activity, or residence 2. a place or situation occupied
Age: 52
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never again..(will it fly)
* Route, method of transport, orrifice filler and choice of artist subject to change
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.