If you could reintroduce into service an upgraded new build of a proven design.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, wasn't one problem with Concorde (travelling faster than a bullet etc) that if it opened fire, it would shoot itself down. 
I know the drill. Hat, coat and acknowledgment to David Gunson
I know the drill. Hat, coat and acknowledgment to David Gunson
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,943 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Ohh I think we had some cracking ideas back then
About the concept
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/i...ded&pid=194297
About the concept
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/i...ded&pid=194297
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,943 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Hi everyone, my latest offering comes in the form of an early proposal for a nuclear missile equipped variant of the ubiquitous VC10, one of several such interesting proposals submitted by the Vickers Corporation and BAC in the early sixties. A bit of background for those interested. The VC10 was seriously looked at for adaption to a variety of roles including ballistic missile carrier, maritime and electronic recon, AEW, and even the worlds largest interceptor!!!.To meet these roles Vickers and BAC proposed using multi role modular aircraft with interchangable noses and fuselages, totally unique at the time. These nuclear equipped aircraft were to have worked alongside then gradually have replaced the V-Bombers in time.
This version the ALBM carrier was based on the Type 1106 variant ,(as used by Transport Command) but had the standard 1100 airliner fuselage matched with the Super's 1150 wings (to take the weight of the Skybolts and which had a more appropriate Mach rating) and uprated Conway Co.43 engines.The nose was heavily re profiled to encase the NBS and H2S systems and tanks were fitted to the extreme wing tips. Up to eight Skybolts could be carried pushing the total payload up to a massive 40,000lbs, this is the main reason that I added a new beefier undercarriage with a lower pressure footprint enabling it to be flown from more RAF airfields.There was also mention of fitting reheat to the Conways, RATO packs or even replacing them altogether with Bristol BS.81 turbofans of 36,000 lbs thrust each.
An impressive way of looking at the strike potential would be to say that it would take 72 Vulcans and 32 Victors to carry a creditable deterrent whereas only 42 VC10's would have been needed to do the same job!
Weapons to have been carried were 8 (or more usually 4) Douglas Skybolts, 4 Z.89's or 6 Bristol X.12's....a truely frightening war load!!!
This version the ALBM carrier was based on the Type 1106 variant ,(as used by Transport Command) but had the standard 1100 airliner fuselage matched with the Super's 1150 wings (to take the weight of the Skybolts and which had a more appropriate Mach rating) and uprated Conway Co.43 engines.The nose was heavily re profiled to encase the NBS and H2S systems and tanks were fitted to the extreme wing tips. Up to eight Skybolts could be carried pushing the total payload up to a massive 40,000lbs, this is the main reason that I added a new beefier undercarriage with a lower pressure footprint enabling it to be flown from more RAF airfields.There was also mention of fitting reheat to the Conways, RATO packs or even replacing them altogether with Bristol BS.81 turbofans of 36,000 lbs thrust each.
An impressive way of looking at the strike potential would be to say that it would take 72 Vulcans and 32 Victors to carry a creditable deterrent whereas only 42 VC10's would have been needed to do the same job!
Weapons to have been carried were 8 (or more usually 4) Douglas Skybolts, 4 Z.89's or 6 Bristol X.12's....a truely frightening war load!!!
http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/x...090683-1-1.jpg
More info on the proposal and pics
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/i...howtopic=57686
Not because they were popular or in widespread use, but I'd like to see either the Avro Canada CF-105 or the North American XB-70. Just to see how these prototypes might have turned out.
Some good ones already mentioned, but I agree with Bob Viking that several nominated may rate very high on the nostalgia scale, but perhaps not so much on the usefullness side.
I agree with the A-10, OV-10, Buffalo/Carribou, A-4. I also nominate a turbo prop Skyraider for COIN work and a fresh F-15 with the latest avionincs.
I respectfully question serveral nominations so far, while again they may be high on the nostalgia scale, even with a major upgrade some inherit design limitations may limit utility:
-Vulcan- Yes very sound design, but high radar cross section. Fine for a standoff launcher.
-Buccaneer- high radar cross section.
-Lightning- poor range, manueverabilty nowhere near later generation fighters due to wing design. New engines would help. See it as point interceptor only- not multi-role.
-Harrier- mixed thoughts. Yes a sound design that would greatly benefit from a refresh, but nozzle layout makes it vulnerable to IR threats. Great when you really need V/STOL, but how often do you REALLY need V/STOL? And no I don't want to start a Falklands debate.
-Canberra- for what? As a medium bomber I think it would be very vulnerable in todays threat environment.
-Concorde Bomber- yes very sexy looking, but do you really need that speed and height to launch cruise missles?
-JAG. Mixed thoughts here as well, yes an upgade would help, espcially with better engines, but payload was limited.
-Gannet- I think other designs have more to offer (E-2, S-3)
-ducks for cover
I agree with the A-10, OV-10, Buffalo/Carribou, A-4. I also nominate a turbo prop Skyraider for COIN work and a fresh F-15 with the latest avionincs.
I respectfully question serveral nominations so far, while again they may be high on the nostalgia scale, even with a major upgrade some inherit design limitations may limit utility:
-Vulcan- Yes very sound design, but high radar cross section. Fine for a standoff launcher.
-Buccaneer- high radar cross section.
-Lightning- poor range, manueverabilty nowhere near later generation fighters due to wing design. New engines would help. See it as point interceptor only- not multi-role.
-Harrier- mixed thoughts. Yes a sound design that would greatly benefit from a refresh, but nozzle layout makes it vulnerable to IR threats. Great when you really need V/STOL, but how often do you REALLY need V/STOL? And no I don't want to start a Falklands debate.
-Canberra- for what? As a medium bomber I think it would be very vulnerable in todays threat environment.
-Concorde Bomber- yes very sexy looking, but do you really need that speed and height to launch cruise missles?
-JAG. Mixed thoughts here as well, yes an upgade would help, espcially with better engines, but payload was limited.
-Gannet- I think other designs have more to offer (E-2, S-3)
-ducks for cover
The Nomad proposal had 3000 hp driving a single 4 bladed 13 ' prop. One wonders if the prop could have handled that much power, since the Griffon, at 2435 hp drove 2 three bladed 13' props.
Well, as we have them already, let's have Typhoon and GR4s with all the systems right and the full-up capability. Do it right this time without all the mistakes/politics/stuff.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VC10, re-engined and made out of modern materials and avionics would be a venerable beast! High sub-sonic cruise, increased payload (and armed if needed), modern lift-augmentation add-ons. You could even make it a tanker!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,943 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Would of been nice to see supersonic version of the Harrier to have come to fruition..
Still think a re-engined Hunter with something like a reheated RB199 in it, cheap off the shelf modern avionics and weapons systems.. Would be a cheap, simple proven fighter and a export sales winner.
As for the VC 10 there was a study I think to put 3 engines per side using the core of the V2500? Myself I always thought it would have made sense to re-engine them with a couple of Trents, after all they tested the RB211 on one side, why not simply duplicate that... Ahh a new version of it would be sweet.
Still think a re-engined Hunter with something like a reheated RB199 in it, cheap off the shelf modern avionics and weapons systems.. Would be a cheap, simple proven fighter and a export sales winner.
As for the VC 10 there was a study I think to put 3 engines per side using the core of the V2500? Myself I always thought it would have made sense to re-engine them with a couple of Trents, after all they tested the RB211 on one side, why not simply duplicate that... Ahh a new version of it would be sweet.
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Apr 2012 at 20:06.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the Harrier again. Predictable. Maybe the message is that aircraft chopped 'before their time' were due for culling. Sadly that includes a jet or two I would like to have seen kept, but things move on. Better things in service now. Better things to come. Best suggestion here is the re-engined VC10. Thinner wings to improve mpg. Make a lovely VIP cruiser.
"The Andover. Then re-form The Queens Flight"
Pleeeeease re-form 115 Sqn first after I've done a refresher course on how to play bridge - happiest of all my days service - thanks DB & all the crews .......
Pleeeeease re-form 115 Sqn first after I've done a refresher course on how to play bridge - happiest of all my days service - thanks DB & all the crews .......
Last edited by Rocket2; 1st May 2012 at 11:47.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Liverpool
Age: 32
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A vulcan fighter bomber, made of carbons and with something like P&W F119 engines, loaded with bombs as well as guns and air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles .......
.......excuse me whilst I fetch a tissue
.......excuse me whilst I fetch a tissue
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you could take the world's premier MPA - the Nimrod MR2 - and re-engine it - say with RR BR700 type engines. You could give it a 14 hr unrefuelled endurance as well as increasing, exponentially, the amount of information that could be processed. It could be capable of monitoring 64 sonobuoys as well as carrying the full arsenal of weapons. And, of course, it could be crewed by highly professional, determined and motivated individuals.
Or not.
Duncs
Or not.
Duncs
