Concorde - military option ?

[Mr_B]

Was Concorde ever subject to miltary tests or evaluation of any kind ? Was there ever contingency plans for its use or requisition in event of war ?

[NismoGT]

I know BA once offered a Concorde for NATO fighters to intercept.

Don't know much else.

[Mr_B]

NismoGT said:

I know BA once offered a Concorde for NATO fighters to intercept.

Don't know much else.

I just read that in the link on the Thunder City thread, thats what got me thinking.

[davepoth]

NismoGT said:

I know BA once offered a Concorde for NATO fighters to intercept.

Don't know much else.

They did that all the time, still do with normal planes. IIRC only a Lightning could catch up.

[aeropilot]

Mr_B said:

Was Concorde ever subject to miltary tests or evaluation of any kind ? Was there ever contingency plans for its use or requisition in event of war ?

From the 1968 RAF Yearbook



IIRC, there was also a rumour circulating that BAC did acctually get to at least a mock up feasability level for this potential, as when the team were restoring G-BBDG at Brooklands, evidence was found of some underwing hardpoints.

Edited by aeropilot on Wednesday 5th October 20:39

[TheEnd]

aeropilot said:

IIRC, there was also a rumour circulating that BAC did acctually get to at least a mock up feasability level for this potential, as when the team were restoring G-BBDG at Brooklands, evidence was found of some underwing hardpoints.

Yes, I'd heard that one too.

[dr_gn]

Mr_B said:

Was Concorde ever subject to miltary tests or evaluation of any kind ? Was there ever contingency plans for its use or requisition in event of war ?

At the time, didn't the Mach 2 bomber concept effectively die with the TSR2 a few years before?

[Ultuous]

I always assumed (quite possibility incorrectly) that TSR2 'was' the military equivalent of Concorde technology and era wise!

[AAGR]

Ultuous said:

I always assumed (quite possibility incorrectly) that TSR2 'was' the military equivalent of Concorde technology and era wise!

IIRC except that the TSR2 was about one-third its size I think ....

[mph1977]

had skybolt not been cancelled in 1962 and with it the Mk3 Vulcan the next step may have been a concorde derived cruise missile launcher in the early - mid 1970s ....

but with the move to submarine launched ICBMs the need for a strategic bomber was much less in favour of interdictors such as TSR2, the bucanneer, the F111,Tornado etc

common point of reference between the Vulcan, TSR2 and Concorde are Olympus series engines

[mildmannered]

I seem to remember one of my old work colleagues talking about how they would practice ground control intercepts GCI with Concorde.

I think they would approach supersonic in a reciprocal direction, turn in behind, then rapidly climb to the altitude that of Concorde (travelling sub-sonic, but very high) trading off the massive speed for height.

[Simpo Two]

mildmannered said:

I think they would approach supersonic in a reciprocal direction, turn in behind, then rapidly climb to the altitude that of Concorde (travelling sub-sonic, but very high) trading off the massive speed for height.

If I read that right, they would then be at the same height as Concorde but going half the speed while Concorde legs it into the distance...

[Inertiatic]

mph1977 said:

had skybolt not been cancelled in 1962 and with it the Mk3 Vulcan the next step may have been a concorde derived cruise missile launcher in the early - mid 1970s ....

but with the move to submarine launched ICBMs the need for a strategic bomber was much less in favour of interdictors such as TSR2, the bucanneer, the F111,Tornado etc

common point of reference between the Vulcan, TSR2 and Concorde are Olympus series engines

Interesting! Can't find anything about a mk3 Vulcan...was it significantly different?

[mph1977]

Inertiatic said:

Interesting! Can't find anything about a mk3 Vulcan...was it significantly different?

iirc from family friends who were Vulcan crew (both air and ground crew ) the mark 3 would have been the definitive skybolt carrier with a bigger wing, better engines and the next step on in avionics etc... and the ability to carry more than just a pair of missiles

[bob1179]

aeropilot said:

From the 1968 RAF Yearbook



IIRC, there was also a rumour circulating that BAC did acctually get to at least a mock up feasability level for this potential, as when the team were restoring G-BBDG at Brooklands, evidence was found of some underwing hardpoints.

Edited by aeropilot on Wednesday 5th October 20:39

That is the coolest thing I've seen in a long time. Are there any more pictures or information on a military version of Concorde?

It would have been fantastic if we had built such an aircraft.

[jimmyjimjim]

In The Fuller Memorandum, by Charles Stross, the RAF get 4 recon versions of Concorde to keep an eye on the dead plateau.

There's another couple of fictional mentions of RAF concordes that I've come accross, but I'm buggered if I can remember them tight now.

[mildmannered]

Simpo Two said:

mildmannered said:

I think they would approach supersonic in a reciprocal direction, turn in behind, then rapidly climb to the altitude that of Concorde (travelling sub-sonic, but very high) trading off the massive speed for height.

If I read that right, they would then be at the same height as Concorde but going half the speed while Concorde legs it into the distance...

Sorry, after re-reading what I'd posted I realised it was a little unclear.

Fighter, say heading 360, 20K feet, Mach 1.5
Concorde heading 180, 55K feet, Mach 0.9 (subsonic, but very high)

The fighter would have a really low rate of turn at that speed, so would require a huge turn radius, would roll out a few miles behind, then climb rapidly, trading off speed for height, finishing in a position suitable for a stern attack missile.

I think that there were two issues, the first being that (I guess it was lightnings?) could reach that altitude, but not make turns (the air is so thin it would plummet) so, by commencing the intercept turn at medium altitude this wouldn't be an issue.

The second issue (again this is all from memory about a conversation fifteen years ago!) was that the aircraft could do speed and altitude, but just not at the same time!

[c7xlg]

I think it was in the techheads section of pprune that I read about a Concorde that was visiting the middle east and giving a local royal a ride. A couple of F-4IIs were trying to fly 'protection' for the big white bird. THey had to radio Speedbird asking him to slow down as they climbed supersonically through 30-60K' as the F-4II engines couldn't keep up through the transition from mid to high altitudes due to lack of automation/sophistication in their inlets.

The comment I'd always heard about a fighter trying to 'catch' a Concorde was that if Concorde had any element of a head start they would never catch up, and run out of fuel trying!

Though naturally the interceptor version of the Sr-71/A-12 would have been able to if it had got beyond the initial prototypes...

[andymadmak]

I used to fly out of Filton in the early 80s and I recall that the USAF visited more than once for a ride out on the Concorde there..

[Boatbuoy]

I seem to recall a documentary in the 80's where Noel Edmunds took a ride on the flight deck. He was talking about the performance to the crew and the reply was "there's only three fighters that could keep up with us, and then only for 15 minutes!".