Concorde - military option ?
Discussion
dr_gn said:
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? c7xlg said:
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...
I thought the Mig 25 could - easily, but again lacked the staying power. They were supposed to be good for well over Mach 3.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...
rhinochopig said:
c7xlg said:
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...
I thought the Mig 25 could - easily, but again lacked the staying power. They were supposed to be good for well over Mach 3.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...
Odie said:
Or as a refueling platform for use in war zones etc due to its speed compared to most fighters of the time.
I used to think this, but changed my opinion once I'd been on an RAF Tristar tanking sortie. We had RAF Jaguars taking on fuel while flying with one engine on re-heat just to keep up!rhinochopig said:
I thought the Mig 25 could - easily, but again lacked the staying power. They were supposed to be good for well over Mach 3.
The Mig 25 was only good for a sustained Mach 2.8 A recon varient was once tracked over the Middle East at just over Mach 3 but the engines were little more than scrap when it landed. I'll check when I get home but I think the Israelies even managed to shhot one down with an F-4If the YF-12 had come to fruition then then it would've been able to cruise at Mach 3.2 with a "Dash" capability in excess of Mach 3.5 Even after all these years the USAF have never come clean about just how fast the Habu was!
scubadude said:
What kind of payload could Concord handle? 100 fat industrialists plus luggage, crew and champers- approx 30tonnes? Thats seems like a reasonable amount of bombs :-)
I wonder if it would have had more potential speed in military guise- no need to be comfortable or as reliable :-)
More like 15 tonnes. I'd be surprised if a reconnaissance variant wasn't considered though. I wonder if it would have had more potential speed in military guise- no need to be comfortable or as reliable :-)
Figures from wikipedia/google so could be wrong:
Vulcan payload = 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) = 9.45 tons.
Vulcan max range = 4600 miles.
Concorde Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Concorde Range: 3,900 nmi (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
So 'out of the box' civil Concorde has greater payload than Vulcan, and a range with that payload equal to the max range of the Vulcan. I'm guessing the max-range of Vulcan is not with the full payload so in all likely hood Concorde had significantly longer range.
And all that with Concorde cruising at Mach 2 vs 0.8ish for Vulcan.
So very much doubt a Military Concorde was discounted on range/payload grounds.
Vulcan payload = 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) = 9.45 tons.
Vulcan max range = 4600 miles.
Concorde Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Concorde Range: 3,900 nmi (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
So 'out of the box' civil Concorde has greater payload than Vulcan, and a range with that payload equal to the max range of the Vulcan. I'm guessing the max-range of Vulcan is not with the full payload so in all likely hood Concorde had significantly longer range.
And all that with Concorde cruising at Mach 2 vs 0.8ish for Vulcan.
So very much doubt a Military Concorde was discounted on range/payload grounds.
c7xlg said:
Figures from wikipedia/google so could be wrong:
Vulcan payload = 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) = 9.45 tons.
Vulcan max range = 4600 miles.
Concorde Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Concorde Range: 3,900 nmi (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
So 'out of the box' civil Concorde has greater payload than Vulcan, and a range with that payload equal to the max range of the Vulcan. I'm guessing the max-range of Vulcan is not with the full payload so in all likely hood Concorde had significantly longer range.
And all that with Concorde cruising at Mach 2 vs 0.8ish for Vulcan.
So very much doubt a Military Concorde was discounted on range/payload grounds.
Shock-load of releasing x tonnes of bombs in one go on the Concorde airframe would undoubtedly have been a major factor.Vulcan payload = 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) = 9.45 tons.
Vulcan max range = 4600 miles.
Concorde Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Concorde Range: 3,900 nmi (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
So 'out of the box' civil Concorde has greater payload than Vulcan, and a range with that payload equal to the max range of the Vulcan. I'm guessing the max-range of Vulcan is not with the full payload so in all likely hood Concorde had significantly longer range.
And all that with Concorde cruising at Mach 2 vs 0.8ish for Vulcan.
So very much doubt a Military Concorde was discounted on range/payload grounds.
c7xlg said:
Figures from wikipedia/google so could be wrong:
Vulcan payload = 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) = 9.45 tons.
Vulcan max range = 4600 miles.
Concorde Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Concorde Range: 3,900 nmi (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
So 'out of the box' civil Concorde has greater payload than Vulcan, and a range with that payload equal to the max range of the Vulcan. I'm guessing the max-range of Vulcan is not with the full payload so in all likely hood Concorde had significantly longer range.
And all that with Concorde cruising at Mach 2 vs 0.8ish for Vulcan.
So very much doubt a Military Concorde was discounted on range/payload grounds.
That useful load capacity includes fuel load though doesn't it?Vulcan payload = 21 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) = 9.45 tons.
Vulcan max range = 4600 miles.
Concorde Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Concorde Range: 3,900 nmi (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
So 'out of the box' civil Concorde has greater payload than Vulcan, and a range with that payload equal to the max range of the Vulcan. I'm guessing the max-range of Vulcan is not with the full payload so in all likely hood Concorde had significantly longer range.
And all that with Concorde cruising at Mach 2 vs 0.8ish for Vulcan.
So very much doubt a Military Concorde was discounted on range/payload grounds.
Here has fuel capacity at approx. 95,000kg and resulting payload at around 13,000kg.
Add in the gubbins for holding/releasing bombs/missiles and the strengthing required for bay doors and I suspect there wouldn't be a lot left.
Although there were apparently plans for a Concorde B with 25% more fuel efficent engines which would have improved things.
Sorry I was being a numb-nuts there.
Concorde payload is more like 13 tons. That 111 ton figues must be including fuel.
Still, Concorde still has larger payload than vulcan, and travels mroe than twice as fast. But as mentioned would probably fall apart if it tried to 'release' its payload all at once, especially if at mach2+...
Concorde payload is more like 13 tons. That 111 ton figues must be including fuel.
Still, Concorde still has larger payload than vulcan, and travels mroe than twice as fast. But as mentioned would probably fall apart if it tried to 'release' its payload all at once, especially if at mach2+...
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Where would you put the weapons, given that Concorde wasn't designed with a bomb bay?
Hang them under the wings and you won't make Mach 1 let alone Mach 2!
Linear bomb bay, like the Vigilante? - that didn't work particularly well, I gather, but I think they'd abandoned the bomber role at such an early stage they never really put the effort into ironing out the bugs.Hang them under the wings and you won't make Mach 1 let alone Mach 2!
Johnnytheboy said:
I suppose the yanks got pretty close with the Valkyrie?
My favourite aircraft of all time....hence my name!I have a book somewhere in storage that showed a concept for a 747 converted to carry a number of rotary launchers for cruise missiles used in the B1A (as it then was). Something like 100 of them from memory.
As a stand-off weapons platform, that is exceptional. Huge range (and time on station can be extended via refuelling - see the E4B and 'Air Force One'); massive load capacity; ease of maintenance, spares and repair and excellent reliabilty.
Thanks to the net:
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff