Stormbreaker

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
10 January 2007
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Curious to know if Concorde was ever considered in a military role, maybe as a recce aircraft or cruise missile platform?

Would this have been feasible?
 
Not know about Concorde, but Tu-144 definitely eas considered as platform for several military utility versions, from ALCM carrier to ECM aircraft.
 
As often, I cannot give the source, but in this case, it's just
because I found it in another forum : Mention of an version of
the Concorde for the RAF as a carrier for Blue Steel.
Don't ask me, how serious this proposal was ... ::)
 

Attachments

  • raf-concorde.jpg
    raf-concorde.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 1,623
Wow! I seem to remember reading about possible military uses of the Tu-144, perhaps in one of Gunston's books, but this Concorde concept is new to me and very interesting.
 
Just had some info on the "Bomcorde".

It was dreamt up by one Arthur Gibson who appears to be/have been a painter. He knocked up that pic as a what-if, as if Concorde could carry 3 x Blue Steels at 15000lbs apiece and maintain supersonic performance. Launching would have been fun with the trim control system working overtime. However, it was never an official or an industry study.

The only other military application for Concorde was its use to simulate Soviet Backfire bombers in the early 1980s.

GA of "Bomcorde" attached.
 

Attachments

  • Bombcorde_GA.jpg
    Bombcorde_GA.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 1,622
Ah, thank you very much, aemann !
So we can delete it from the "serious projects list" I think .
But on his painting, Arthur Gibson seems to show a non-drooping
nose. That makes it more difficult for the What-If addicts ... ;)
 
aemann said:
It was dreamt up by one Arthur Gibson who appears to be/have been a painter. He knocked up that pic as a what-if, as if Concorde could carry 3 x Blue Steels at 15000lbs apiece and maintain supersonic performance. Launching would have been fun with the trim control system working overtime. However, it was never an official or an industry study.

Realistically, the whole notion of a British manned, supersonic, strategic bomber died in 1957 with the Avro 730.
 
But on his painting, Arthur Gibson seems to show a non-drooping
nose. That makes it more difficult for the What-If addicts ...

Such as me! I broke the dropping nose system of my concorde while building. So I decided to finished it as a Bombcorde, with a fixed nose. I canted the whole cockpit instead of dropping the nose! ;)

The quote on the Avro 730 is the sad thruth... :(
 
To be honest if Concorde was considered as a Military Bomber than it would not have had the Blue Steels, they would have gone for the stand off cruise missile concepts that were envisioned for the TSR2 as supersconic cruise missiles or possibly the US Sram missiles.
I suspect they would have created a bomb bay of two to carry them or atleast have them semi recessed, with possibly a fairing to protect them during the outbound flight.

G
 
The timing of formation of MoS' Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee was just as M2.6 Avro 730 was deleted, partly due to SAMs, more to the pain of working in stainless steel. Try M2.2+alloy. RAE then had a wholly military ethos; the /Aero team that had defined the 730(Bristol/AWA T.188) layout moved to (to be) ogees, while /Weapons schemed means of conveying ASMs until they all realised that the weapon must have speed, the platform range. Hence 1961 sketches for Skybolt on VC10 and (Avro 776) DH.121(MR) - 3 view, D.Wood, Project Cancelled,1975, Ch.8 {P.146 in my {US}edition}. Not until March,1959 did RAE present to Ministers that what could best be transported was paying punters, and even then the peg was "to keep our position as a leading aeronautical power".

A factor in France buying in to this non-egalitarian project was a view that Mirage IV would benefit from structural fatigue data from a high-utilisation supersonic cruise vehicle, part-funded off-military budget.
 
Below is a note given to me by Phil Butler (the author) when I asked him if he knew what serial number the RAF Concorde might have got, he also added a very interesting note which seems to point to the idea that it was considered quite seriously:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My best guess would be XW520, which would be a mid-1968 number. As a matter of interest, when I worked on equipment to go on Concorde it was always classed as 'Common Aeronautical Supply' - that is not civilian (CAA or ARB), nor military (AQD), but in the unusual 'CAS' category, meaning it could go immediately to either civilian or military use without further formalities. It would be interesting to know how that came about.....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cheers, Robert
 
Interesting topic, I found out the same image of the "Concorde Bomber" in other forums.

I will try out to do a 3-views of the RAF Concorde (in V-Bomber fashion) taking into account that in the b/w image the nose is slight different from the civil version (fixed windshield and a bombing radar in the forward part).
 
Here it is my personal contribution to the matter treated also in this topic:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1460.0/highlight,concorde.html

Especially dedicated to my all UK friends...
Enjoy it!!
 

Attachments

  • BAC - Concorde Bomber.jpg
    BAC - Concorde Bomber.jpg
    358.2 KB · Views: 933
Just choose your preferred configuration:

A: As in the good old Boeing AWACS

B: À la An-72 Madcap

C: As in the Nimrod AEW

Sorry for that, too much glogg during the last days, I think ! ;D
 

Attachments

  • Cocowacs.gif
    Cocowacs.gif
    49.5 KB · Views: 539
...Thanks! The "C" model was the one actually put into production, IIRC. There were only two - The Jimmie Durante and the Karl Maulden.
 
Absolutely right, after building two aircraft, there were public complaints about
associations and nicknames given to the type and especially about offers by
several british sex shops to pay for promotion campaigns using those aircraft.
And as the radar still wasn't better, than in the Nimrod AEW, the type was cancelled. :-\
 
A user called Vega ECM made the following interesting statement at the bottom of a related thread at https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?52969-Concorde-for-the-RAF-(Zombie-Thread-from-2006)/page2:

"A good few years ago I was in the Concorde archive legitimately looking for something but couldn't resist from typing 'Military Concorde' into the search. Only two documents came up;- the first dated 1970, was a study on how much of military value could be learnt by the Chinese if they bought a few, but the second dated 1974, was a proposal to the RAF for military versions. This report was about 40 pages and detailed 3 potential versions;- The first was a transport version , a drawing shows a swing nose and landrovers driving down a long ramp. This proposal was covered by just 2 of the 40 pages and really had very little detail. The next is a supersonic strike aircraft. A drawing shows 3 nuclear strike missiles (looking a bit like AGM-69 SRAM's) within the fuselage launched on angled tubes exiting the fuselage underside. This proposal runs to about 10 pages. There's quite a bit of info on mission profile, tactical equipment fit etc. The third proposal is for a tactical recon version. This occupies the majority of the report. Lots of info on camera / radar / eves dropping kit / decoys / ECM mission profiles etc. I would suggest the number of pages in the report probably represents the relative interest from the customer.

Good stuff, all history now."
 
we do all so much miss the Concorde.

That drawing of the transport version would be "priceless" :(
 
FICTIONAL 'RAF. Support Command' Concorde, RAF. Yearbook 1971
 

Attachments

  • 16114152_10208266857130582_4603806947419433110_n.jpg
    16114152_10208266857130582_4603806947419433110_n.jpg
    163.1 KB · Views: 665
  • 16195680_10208266864930777_1421618093437876657_n.jpg
    16195680_10208266864930777_1421618093437876657_n.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 640
Hey, look who posted on top of page 2. An aviation buff whose username was Archibaald. I wonder what hapened to him. ::) (runs for cover)
They even stole our very own Altertken. Bad guys.
 
aemann said:
Just had some info on the "Bomcorde".

It was dreamt up by one Arthur Gibson who appears to be/have been a painter. He knocked up that pic as a what-if, as if Concorde could carry 3 x Blue Steels at 15000lbs apiece and maintain supersonic performance. Launching would have been fun with the trim control system working overtime. However, it was never an official or an industry study.

The only other military application for Concorde was its use to simulate Soviet Backfire bombers in the early 1980s.

GA of "Bomcorde" attached.

If it was tried, armament configuration could not be that way.

Because shock wave or disturbed flow from the missile affect inlet severely, designer should kept weapon inside of the internal bomb-bay.

Space between the engine room is also possible position, but there are landing gears, unfortunately.

Anyway it is interesting
 
litzj said:
aemann said:
Just had some info on the "Bomcorde".

It was dreamt up by one Arthur Gibson who appears to be/have been a painter. He knocked up that pic as a what-if, as if Concorde could carry 3 x Blue Steels at 15000lbs apiece and maintain supersonic performance. Launching would have been fun with the trim control system working overtime. However, it was never an official or an industry study.

The only other military application for Concorde was its use to simulate Soviet Backfire bombers in the early 1980s.

GA of "Bomcorde" attached.

If it was tried, armament configuration could not be that way.

Because shock wave or disturbed flow from the missile affect inlet severely, designer should kept weapon inside of the internal bomb-bay.

Space between the engine room is also possible position, but there are landing gears, unfortunately.

Anyway it is interesting

This is exactly why I found the comment of Vega ECM so remarkable - the described arrangement keeps the weapons internal (assuming potential issues with the continuous centre wing structure and weapons deployment/ejection could be sorted out), and this is the only online reference discussing an armed or military Concorde variant that I'm aware of (and I've done a fair amount of searching on that topic) that does not start with some vague variation of "I heard...", but where the author (assuming (s)he is credible) refers to an actual concrete written report that (s)he firsthand found and read in an official database. Any additional insights would be welcome.

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
litzj said:
aemann said:
Just had some info on the "Bomcorde".

It was dreamt up by one Arthur Gibson who appears to be/have been a painter. He knocked up that pic as a what-if, as if Concorde could carry 3 x Blue Steels at 15000lbs apiece and maintain supersonic performance. Launching would have been fun with the trim control system working overtime. However, it was never an official or an industry study.

The only other military application for Concorde was its use to simulate Soviet Backfire bombers in the early 1980s.

GA of "Bomcorde" attached.

If it was tried, armament configuration could not be that way.

Because shock wave or disturbed flow from the missile affect inlet severely, designer should kept weapon inside of the internal bomb-bay.

Space between the engine room is also possible position, but there are landing gears, unfortunately.

Anyway it is interesting

This is exactly why I found the comment of Vega ECM so remarkable - the described arrangement keeps the weapons internal (assuming potential issues with the continuous centre wing structure and weapons deployment/ejection could be sorted out), and this is the only online reference discussing an armed or military Concorde variant that I'm aware of (and I've done a fair amount of searching on that topic) that does not start with some vague variation of "I heard...", but where the author (assuming (s)he is credible) refers to an actual concrete written report that (s)he firsthand found and read in an official database. Any additional insights would be welcome.

Martin

I would love this possible project, however Concorde had serious problem for ‘military conversion’

1. when I saw this in Paris air museum, it has tall landing gear and very high height in order to obtain enough aoa at the ground. But it means that weapon load for internal bay and maintenance are very hard to ground crew.

2. as I talk in previous comment, external pylon for concorde is also not easy. this explains why b58 hustler has bizzare shape compare to concorde

3. age of supersonic bomber without stealth performance was already gone

4. fuselage of concorde is very narrow, it is not easy to integrate bomb bay on this beauty
 
In the proposal there wasn’t a bomb bay, so no big chop out of structure or doors.

The 3 SRAMs would be carried inside the fuselage, there just 18inches in diameter, with one missile in front of each other along the length of the fuselage. The missile diameter is easily small enough to fit between the wing carry through spars which span across the fuselage floor. The launch tube are angled, one tube per missile.

When they first trialed Concorde as supersonic target, the RAF and others couldn’t get anywhere near it. The trials were suspended while there was a rethink of procedures. The latter trials did result in some successful interceptions but even these were very marginal. The interception turns had to be timed to very fine margins and profiles flown very precisely. There’s an account of an F4 that failed because he arrived at a key turn in the profile just a second and half late. The pilot noted his amazement at quickly the gap opens and the incept fails. I believe there were 18 flights in all over, about 3 years, I think in 3 batches. This was all done without the target and others deliberately messing with the tracking radar, launching decoys, radar killing missiles etc

Concorde probably had at least the same chance of getting through as a B52.
 
From memory, French Air Force Mirages (all three generations of them, III, F1 and 2000) played that game against concorde and failed repeatedly. They were already in trouble against Mirage IVs simulating Tupolev bombers, and Concorde was even worse.
 
There is a useful PPrune thread on the topic of Concorde interceptions.

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/505899-concorde-chasing.html

It seemed entirely possible to engage a high-fast with a snap-up attack, if you had enough time to position the interceptor in the target's path... which is why you had such things as the DEW Line and AEW.
 
There was a magazine article on those Concorde intereceptions not so long ago. ISTR it was in 'Aviation Historian', can't find it at the moment.
 
I don't know if A Military Concorde run under this Concept

There were British study for "The Very Rapid Reaction Force" in 1960s
a Supersonic, later Hypersonic transport Aircraft carry seventy Troops and there Equipment to needed Mission.
later study went to Mach 7 transporter like Hawker Siddeley HS.681
i wonder if Concorde even was under consideration for this "VRRF" proposal.

Just a Theory of me: misconception of BAC Warton P.42 as Military Concorde ?
BAC made several studies for Military hypersonic aircraft at mach 5, under Studies EAG.3273 to EAG.4446
Some of those design look very like a Concorde. could this design be mistaken by authors as Military Concorde ?

Source:
British Secret projects
Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles
by Chris Gibson & Tony Buttler
 
Zootycoon said:
In the proposal there wasn’t a bomb bay, so no big chop out of structure or doors.

The 3 SRAMs would be carried inside the fuselage, there just 18inches in diameter, with one missile in front of each other along the length of the fuselage. The missile diameter is easily small enough to fit between the wing carry through spars which span across the fuselage floor. The launch tube are angled, one tube per missile.

When they first trialed Concorde as supersonic target, the RAF and others couldn’t get anywhere near it. The trials were suspended while there was a rethink of procedures. The latter trials did result in some successful interceptions but even these were very marginal. The interception turns had to be timed to very fine margins and profiles flown very precisely. There’s an account of an F4 that failed because he arrived at a key turn in the profile just a second and half late. The pilot noted his amazement at quickly the gap opens and the incept fails. I believe there were 18 flights in all over, about 3 years, I think in 3 batches. This was all done without the target and others deliberately messing with the tracking radar, launching decoys, radar killing missiles etc

Concorde probably had at least the same chance of getting through as a B52.

As noted in subsequent comments there is plenty of evidence that the UK and contempories abandoned high altitude high speed bombers before or roughly the same time any theoretical Concorde bomber would have been available. Even the stunning B-70 didn’t survive this reality.
The B-58 had to get used operating at low level before it was retired at an early age.
And the reality was that updated B-52s were more survivable and more effective when operating at low altitude then these later aircraft
 
litzj said:
martinbayer said:
litzj said:
aemann said:
Just had some info on the "Bomcorde".

It was dreamt up by one Arthur Gibson who appears to be/have been a painter. He knocked up that pic as a what-if, as if Concorde could carry 3 x Blue Steels at 15000lbs apiece and maintain supersonic performance. Launching would have been fun with the trim control system working overtime. However, it was never an official or an industry study.

The only other military application for Concorde was its use to simulate Soviet Backfire bombers in the early 1980s.

GA of "Bomcorde" attached.

If it was tried, armament configuration could not be that way.

Because shock wave or disturbed flow from the missile affect inlet severely, designer should kept weapon inside of the internal bomb-bay.

Space between the engine room is also possible position, but there are landing gears, unfortunately.

Anyway it is interesting

This is exactly why I found the comment of Vega ECM so remarkable - the described arrangement keeps the weapons internal (assuming potential issues with the continuous centre wing structure and weapons deployment/ejection could be sorted out), and this is the only online reference discussing an armed or military Concorde variant that I'm aware of (and I've done a fair amount of searching on that topic) that does not start with some vague variation of "I heard...", but where the author (assuming (s)he is credible) refers to an actual concrete written report that (s)he firsthand found and read in an official database. Any additional insights would be welcome.

Martin

I would love this possible project, however Concorde had serious problem for ‘military conversion’

1. when I saw this in Paris air museum, it has tall landing gear and very high height in order to obtain enough aoa at the ground. But it means that weapon load for internal bay and maintenance are very hard to ground crew.

2. as I talk in previous comment, external pylon for concorde is also not easy. this explains why b58 hustler has bizzare shape compare to concorde

3. age of supersonic bomber without stealth performance was already gone

4. fuselage of concorde is very narrow, it is not easy to integrate bomb bay on this beauty

Once again, the described concept had internal weapon launch tubes, so no need for any external pylons.
 
And nobody bought a military Concorde;- if anyone really wanted to chuck SRAM’s around they would have been much better off buying F111 which could carry 4 and fly at low level (or integrating it on Tornado) . The whole Concorde strike aircraft probably amounted to little more than a dozen or so pages in a futile attempt to sell just a few more when the writing was on the wall for the whole project.

That said;-
Tu 95 was not known for its low level performance but like B52, it’s still in service;- B52 has been used quite a bit but seldom if ever has it needed its low level capabilities;- most of it’s work is at medium level (even Nam). As has the B1 and when Tu160’s have come steaming inbound to test the UK air defences they’ve not been particularly low. SR71 was a high alt, high speed but it’s frequently claimed that it’s never been intercepted or missile locked. Does the real experience of the last 40 years really rule out high level high speed?

Maybe the real reason to kill ambitious projects/small fleets was far more mundane in particular the very high operating costs.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to consider if the Tu-160 had settled on this delta wing design. Range would have suffered somewhat, but in return, it would have much faster time-to-target.
 

Attachments

  • Tu-160 Delta.png
    Tu-160 Delta.png
    241.3 KB · Views: 469
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Interesting to consider if the Tu-160 had settled on this delta wing design. Range would have suffered somewhat, but in return, it would have much faster time-to-target.

Thx for Post. As far as I remember, Yefim Gordon's book also showed similar pic. of model.

Finally, VG was adopted to consider various flight region.
 
The beginning of the Tu-160 were the blended-wing 160M, that one above is from later on- from the Tu-160 book by A. M. Zatuchny, V. Rigmant and P. M. Sineokiy.

More appropriate to the topic is this Tu-144 with ballistic missiles - the mechanism is interesting.
 

Attachments

  • Tu-144_BallisticMissile.jpg
    Tu-144_BallisticMissile.jpg
    129.8 KB · Views: 823

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom