Concorde chasing
 

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?

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.

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.

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...

Intercepting Concorde
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

: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.

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.....;)

The Helpful stacker

"I bet Sharky would have caught a Concorde in his puffer jet.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif"

Thank you, you owe me a new keyboard :O

NewsOfTheWorld,

Which bit didn't you like?

Courtney, I misread the previous post and have deleted my post. (I was calling hoop on the slug snap up.)

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....

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.

I told the story of our efforts against G-AXDN in "Phantom In Focus" (Chapter 5).

"I bet Sharky would have caught a Concorde in his puffer jet.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif"

Brilliant!!!

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.

They all were, which is why the XB-70 was cancelled.

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.
;)