 |
 |
 |
 |
||
  |
|
|
#1
22nd January 2006, 14:30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Concorde for the RAF? (Zombie Thread from 2006)
When the negotiations were going on to sell Concorde to potential customers, does anyone know whether RAF Transport Command (or its French counterpart) were approached? And what would the barriers that would have needed to be overcome in order for the military to offer them? Given Concorde's performance the ability to get troops to a battle zone or in the role of humanitarian relief, to the scene of a disaster like the recent tsunami, very quickly would have been invaluable.
|
|
#2
22nd January 2006, 14:39
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'd have thought the relatively limited payload would have put the kybosh on any transport use.
Apparently in the late 1970s the MoD did charter a Concorde to simulate large supersonic aeroplane dashes at our air defence system. The late Mark Hanna used to gleefully relate that the Phantoms (or was it Tornados) had a maximum of about six seconds to get a lock on the target, after which it was long-gone!
|
|
#3
22nd January 2006, 15:00
|
|||
|
|||
|
As well as payload limitations I would think the aircraft's take off/landing requirements would have limited it's use in such scenarios.
I think I remember a suggestion many years ago the RAF might use Concorde as a bomber (with Skybolts?). Roger Smith.
__________________
A Blenheim, Beaufighter and Beaufort - together in one Museum. Who'd have thought that possible in 1967?
|
|
#5
22nd January 2006, 18:58
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is a picture of it, am just trying to find it.......
__________________
"I dont believe in miracles.... I rely on them"
|
|
#7
22nd January 2006, 19:17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Concorde as a bomber? I have this vision of the range 2 miles, lethal distance 2.5 miles comment from the approving junk thread. I think Concorde's range and fuel consumption would have put paid to any long distance flights...
__________________
I don't want to die, because I don't want to end up like Anita Dobson - Frank Sidebottom, actually. Thank you
|
|
#8
22nd January 2006, 19:32
|
||||
|
||||
I've scanned an article from the 1968 RAF Yearbook with an artist's impression of a Concorde carrying 3 Blue Steel, but I can't seem to upload it (again-very annoying)
__________________
The darkest hour is just before dawn, and the deepest sleep is just before the alarm.
|
|
#10
22nd January 2006, 19:57
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have found this one:
http://mg.photobucket.com/albums/v40...f-concorde.jpg
|
|
#11
22nd January 2006, 20:03
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yep, thats the one.....
__________________
"I dont believe in miracles.... I rely on them"
|
|
#12
22nd January 2006, 21:33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for the responses, its very interesting, especially the idea of a stripped-out Concorde as a stand-off missile carrier. I would have expected the range to be a problem and I don't know how difficult it would have been to give the aircraft in-flight refuelling capabilities. Still I'd love to see an image of Concorde in transport command livery.
|
|
#13
22nd January 2006, 21:45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Problem with it is that it's not actually that big inside and I guess it would have been of limited use. Getting troops around the world quick is handy but when it would take another day or so for their Landrovers and guns to arrive by Herc it would be a little embarrassing!
|
|
#14
22nd January 2006, 21:57
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/sy...le=rafconc.zip
For anyone with a copy of Flight Simlator 2000, the above link might be interesting, providing it works.
|
|
#15
23rd January 2006, 07:43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
She could have been in a hemp scheme today had BA been instructed to hand over their examples to the RAF back in 2003.......would have been the perfect and relatively cost effective replacement for the soon to retire Canberra PR.9's........
__________________
I was with it all the way until letting the brakes off.......... Last edited by Firebird; 23rd January 2006 at 07:45.
|
|
#17
23rd January 2006, 16:48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's a hell of a lot more thirsty on fuel, it has the need for a much longer runway, needs massive ground support, would have needed a wholesale rebuild to fit recon bits, and most important of all - in comparison with the very effective canberra in this role - You are going to see AND hear this coming!!! (hardly ideal if there is a need for a subtle approach in a conflict situation) Waiting with baited breath for the reasoning behind your comments 
__________________
Ex-RAF & Custodian of Hawker Hunter XF382 @ MAM Cotswold Airport Events Team
|
|
#19
23rd January 2006, 20:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
23rd January 2006, 20:20
|
||||
|
||||
|
[b]How many photos have you seen taken at Mach 2? Not such a good idea.
Ask the americans ; they spent the equivalent of 4 olympic games to get mostly fuzzy shots from the chinese nuclear plants at Lop Nor in the seventies with the dronethingyblackbirdlike creature launched from the B52. It woud drop from the mothership, then fly off and then itself launch a drone that later dropped a not so waterthight box into the ocean with the holidaypics on it. In one case it was waterthight but runover by a navy destroyer offering a helping hand
|
|
#22
23rd January 2006, 20:43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sadly Hunter you seem to have not seen the optical images taken at M3.3 and 80,000ft by the A-12....with a 3 inch resolution.. meaning you can see an object as small as 3 inches by 3 inches on the images...
Perhpas it has not occured to you that cameras tha are used to take optical recon images have continous film carriage in order to avoid the blurring.... Or maybe both the US/ USSR and French have been faking their supersonic recon images all these years. (RA-5C/SR-71/RF-4C/RF-101C/ RF-8G/ F-14 TARPS/ MiG-25R/ Mirage IV) Perhaps you have not been under Concorde as she passed overhead at M2 in the Atlantic..... the sound was quite some time after she passed overhead.. and unless you were tracking her she was very easy to loose sight off. And she was white, pulling a contrail and heading east into the sun......See Operation Tresgo....Had she been painted a darker matt colour.. say the same FS blue as the SRs (its officially blue according to the code) and flying the other way without the contrail I doubt anyone would have seen her, hear her ues but not seen. Get serious indeed...maybe it applies to you..
|
|
#23
24th January 2006, 04:41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, but it would have been very usefull in a "air policing" scheme against those troublesome Scandinavians... 
__________________
There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.
|
|
#24
24th January 2006, 12:17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
(pic from Colin Body/Milavia) Last edited by GASML; 24th January 2006 at 12:19.
|
|
#25
24th January 2006, 12:31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, if it had been designed as a bomber from the original piece of paper it might have worked but I somehow doubt it given that its internal capacity is not that great compared to a Backfire. And yes, I've stood under an open Backfire bomb bay so have seen for myself how big it actually is.
__________________
I don't want to die, because I don't want to end up like Anita Dobson - Frank Sidebottom, actually. Thank you
|
|
#26
29th January 2006, 10:58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by F/A-18RN; 29th January 2006 at 21:58. Reason: Make addition
|
|
#27
29th January 2006, 14:57
|
|||
|
|||
|
I recently read a book - "The Backroom Boys: The Secret Return of the British Boffin". It stated that Concorde was specifically designed to fly London - New York. Full, it could not fly Frankfurt - New York, and the need to increase wing area to accommodate more fuel and a greater aerodynamic lift was inpractical due to the constant need to "push the boundaries" with regards to materials and production methods. A bomber, therefore, would only have been capable of firing stand-off missiles.
In short, concorde as a bomber would only have been practical if the target was in Western Europe ( assuming a UK basing). As a recon model... cool... but not really needed. By that time NASA was offering the UK free recon.sat. launches, and the images, while not 100%, mean't that the RAF no longer needed to fly death-wish missions over the USSR to keep the US happy. The CIA also always shared what they knew with SIS, and in turn one would imagine the RAF would also benefit. As regards air-to-air refueling, again, I think while it sounds really nice.. the engineering and practicalities would have been a pig - reference the SR-71 KC135 relationship and the need to have a massive tanker network exclusively available. Another what if... 
|
|
#28
29th January 2006, 22:16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
29th January 2006, 23:02
|
|||
|
|||
|
The B model would certainly have helped...
AS for the SR-71/ KC-135 relationship there are certain crucial differences.. the Sr used JP-7 fuel, not JP-5 as other USAF aircraft...and the booms were equiped with a secure 'intercomm' via hard wire to permit secure comms, remember this was prior to the frequency jumping radios.. The need to have the hardwired booms, keep the main refuelling tanks clear of JP-5 and the mod to the engines to allow the JP-7 to be burned by the tanker meant a dedicated fleet. Concorde burns the same grade fuel as other aircraft and so this dedication would not be needed.. even if better comms were required.
|
|
#30
5th September 2006, 18:50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's mine...
Here's a Concorde bomber (or Bomborde)
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2...e/101_0788.jpg
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
