RAF Concordes ?
 

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

An interesting one if correct?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...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/a...ictures/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/

Lurk mode off...
 

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:

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.

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

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 :)

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

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!

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........;)

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

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?

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.:)

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.

Surely that should read 'did anyone really fall FROM that?'
Sorry.

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

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

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:

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:

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.

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

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.....

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 :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.

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.....

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

YS

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)

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.

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.