Not only that, but the methods, processes, materials, and overall technology has evolved so dramatically in the last 40 years that anything they did on Concorde would be of minimal value today.

Gouli - it's unlikely they'd base such an aircraft on titanium - there are new synthetic materials that would be more suitable.

It won't happen quickly - when you get right down to it commercial aircraft today still trace their roots to the 707, but take a look at what a state of the air flying machine looked like in 1918, and then then tell me what aircraft will look like in another 50 years :confused:

The "why now?" might be related to any new improvements in the sonic boom footprint. Maybe they're making progress there. To make it viable for anything other than trans-oceanic routes, they have to make it less obnoxious to hear the wealthy 1% flying overhead.

I wish I could participate in such a program....I didn't force my way thru "Engineering Supersonic Aerodynamics" For nought

Oh well a boy can still dream :)

I wonder how much value there is in very fast transport for passengers. If the journey is long enough for high speed to make a difference, you've probably passed through several time zones and the time to reset the body clock will become more important than actual travelling time. I suppose for a quick there and back, staying on place of departure time all the way, would be useful for those occasions when a power handshake is absolutely crucial for a transaction, but that's a case for executive jets, not airliners.

Flashy PowerPoints and videos, fast talking hype, maybe some corporate welfare from Uncle Sam. Who knows what they can talk Donald Duck ...er Trump... into. Couldn't build a supersonic transport in the 70's. Bilked the tax payer out of millions in the 90's. Why not "go fa$ter"?

Leave LHR 10am.
Assuming 2 hour crossing at FL95+ and Mach 5 or more.
Arrive JFK or LGA at 7am (do I have my sums right?)
Do deal and shake hands with Masters of Universe in midtown.
Leave at 5pm.
Presume you're well above any westerly jet-streams etc on the way home!
Back at LHR by midnight - and tucked up in bed in the Home Counties by 1am.
But what sounds really appealing is SYD-LAX in 4 hours or so.
Now that would be very cool...
And imagine flying the thing.
"Speedbird 001; top of descent, established on 100 mile final..."
That'd beat Brian Shul's speedcheck story hands down.
Sigh...

There is some transpacific market for supersonic or even hypersonic travel no doubt. The Gulfstream crowd would go faster if they could and they had the money to do it.

Would that really requre Mach 5 ?
I can really not see an according market for hypersonic travel. I think it is quite safe to assume, that cost will increase at least linearly with Mach, so would it really make sense to go that fast/high with all the implications it means?
The decision to only go for Mach 2 made the Concorde reality, the plan to go higher killed the American SST. Technology may be different today, cost probably still is the same.

I can see a market for supersonic travel, on high demand routes at barely 3 times the speed of today (which would require less than Mach 2.5, still manageable with "conventional" technology). What difference does it make, to take 1.5 hours instead of 2.5 hours NYC-LON, if you anyway need another hour to get from the runway to your meeting? Would anybody pay the extra for such a small gain? Does it make sense to accelerate/climb to Mach 5 and the according altitude for a 2 hrs flight? Would scramjets be really that more efficient?
Hypersonic probably is not the answer to civil air transportation issues. But anyway it is highly interesting technology.

The idea that BA under its current CEO would ever operate such an aircraft is amusing. He's not exactly interested in the super-premium segment, to say the least.

Mach 5 is pure military demand. The idea is to attack sensitive strategic Installations.
I can't see any civil elements in the Boings drawing. Or would a VIP px wear a astronauts suit, because supersonic air transport would happen above FL500? Indeed, a commercial VIP supersonic aircraft would have a double hull, for the case of rapid decompression. To highlight one point. If it is not a patent to claim one, it looks like a covered civil project to develop for military requirements.
Like friction stir welding, very "necessary" for VLJ, but a huge advantage for rocket fuel tanks.

Very cool, BUT ..... where is the advantage in waiting for the 3 flights per week service when 50 A380's have arrived at destination in the meantime?

trouble with Mach 5 capability is it takes us back to "launch on warning"......

I understand materials and methods may have changed, in some cases, dramatically, but I still believe there remains some value in lessons from the past to be learned from Concorde, from design to development to operation.

The advantage would be not having to sit in the back of Biggus Birdus, stuffed with 500 of your closest mates for a relative eon. And for the truly time-pressed, there and back with business complete before the gooney bird is done flapping her wings on the first go. ;)

Now, from the perspective of the front end, I would imagine the pay packages would be rather attractive for the FL950 elite, compared to a long haul flight deck crew.

I think you may have missed the point.
You are correct only if you have booked ahead and the hyper-jet schedule matches your requirements.

But, like the never-to-happen Concorde flights to Oz, unless you have the frequency of service (which is highly unlikely) then, when coupled to mega-bucks to use it, you'll be scratching for bums.

If it's going to work at all, then it'll be on something like the old Concorde routes where the affluent population lies..

She looks pretty lean. I can't imagine a real lot of fuel wedged into that shape.

True.
Maybe engines or someone else on the site who's really clever with numbers and payload range calcs can give us an idea of the airframe size/weight for a 100 pax mission.
I assume it would burn JP-7...

That Airbus URV linked to earlier has the following specs:
Range: 4800 nm (not sure if that is with legal reserve, or absolute range).
Drift-up cruise altitude: 104000-114000 feet.
Fuselage capacity is 80% liquid H2 tank, 15% payload (2727 kg/6000 lbs), 5% boost rocket and retractable turbojet space.
Would take at least one fuel stop to fly LHR-SYD.

...true, but isn't a lot of the research in the US at the moment focused on burning hydrocarbon based fuels (such as the X-51) rather than liquid hydrogen?
Admittedly the X-51 looks more like a prototype hypersonic missile than a passenger carrier.
I thought that burning LH2 meant you needed a massive tank - meaning there's a whole cascade of consequential structural issues if you need to carry passengers at hypersonic speeds.

Whats the hurry?