Bombcorde

[Jure Miljevic]

Thank you, Giorgio N and Work In Progress, points taken. But let us say Concorde had been mass produced as initially planed, which would reduce her price. Let us also presume BrahMos supersonic missile originated from India, that it had became operational several decades earlier and also that it had been exported to UK. It is ˝what-if˝after all. A stretch too far? Cheers

Jure

[Kushan_Farsight]

1 minute ago, Work In Progress said:

1st point: that is a good one to raise because we have not taken it into consideration so far. By the time the first Concorde flew in  March 1969 the RAF was already quitting the business of being the strategic nuclear arm of the British armed forces, handing over to the Polaris submarine fleet in July the same year, replacing the nuclear role of the V-force. So first strike in the context of strategic nuclear exchange was already by a means far faster and less interceptable than any Concorde. 

 

I must admit my inexperience here, as i am not really sure what the doctrine was in the 70s, but theoretically with the Navy taking over the nuclear protector mantle, Bombcorde could have given you a  'strike bomber' capable of deploying non nuclear munitions to defended targets/ aa emplacements. With Vietnam going on, 1000's of tons of non nuclear munitions being dropped and not 1 nuclear, i assume there may have been a consideration for 'non nuclear combat missions' going on in Warsaw pact states or proxy wars. 

 

The fundamental here i think is that you cant make this horse a zebra by painting stripes on it. It 'Could' be made into a bomber, but your better starting with a dedicated platform than expending a lot of effort on an already quite unique air-frame to get a half solution. 

That doesn't mean it cant live on in 1/72 form though @Adam Poultney! 
 

[Adam Poultney]

15 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

1st point: that is a good one to raise because we have not taken it into consideration so far. By the time the first Concorde flew in  March 1969 the RAF was already quitting the business of being the strategic nuclear arm of the British armed forces, handing over to the Polaris submarine fleet in July the same year, replacing the nuclear role of the V-force. So first strike in the context of strategic nuclear exchange was already by a means far faster and less interceptable than any Concorde. 

 

2nd point: They already were, because all the tankers on which western air power depended, and many of the recon types  that kept an eye on the Soviet Union, looked exactly like airliners (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 )

 

And all of this brings out a big truth of military procurement, which supplies the answer to the question "why was there never a military Concorde" as well as the answer to many similar questions. When you are specifying bombers the starting point is not "can we do something cool with airframe X?", it is "we want to deliver this weapon to this target under these assumed circumstances - what sort of delivery system do we need to do that?"

Since we're talking what-if builds, we can assume alternative timelines perhaps where the RAF remains our primary instant sunshine delivery method

[Richard E]

A "Snoopcorde" ELINT/SIGINT reconnaissance platform would probably be a realistic WIFF, perhaps with a modified nose and a streamlined RA-5C style under fuselage sensor canoe.

 

You might even be able to justify a suitably dark SR-71 style paint scheme. 

[Work In Progress]

4 minutes ago, Richard E said:

You might even be able to justify a suitably dark SR-71 style paint scheme. 

I do not have chapter and verse on the thermodynamics of this but I understand that it needs to be white in order to perform properly, and that the temporarily blue-fuselaged Pepsi Concorde was not able to go over mach 1.7 for that reason (and even then they insisted on keeping the wings white).  

 

Aha, you ask, "but what about the SR-71A, eh? Why doesn't that have to be white? And anyway black radiates heat doesn't it?"

And that's a fair enough question on the face of it, which I looked into once. Turns out the two aircraft are not comparable cases at all. 

 

A Concorde is substantially aluminium alloy skinned and the hottest point in normal cruise is at 120 degrees Celcius, so enough to cook a chicken fairly slowly. An SR-71A is substantially titanium skinned and its hottest point in normal cruise was about 327 degrees celcius, enough to incinerate a chicken in moments.

 

So the radical differences in materials and operating parameters can reasonably be presumed to give different answers on "what colour does it need to be". 

The Blackbird needs to radiate like crazy because there is so much heat coming from skin friction that it is far more significant than high altitude solar heating of the structure.  So radiating is more important than reflection.

 

Whereas for the Concorde, presumably solar heating was the dominant factor for the airframe overall, with fuel being used to carry away localised heating in some particular hot spots. So in that case the reflectiveness of white is more important than its radiating qualities.

 

Most composite aircraft have to be certain colours on the upper surfaces too, usually white or another approved very light colour.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

27 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

1st point: that is a good one to raise because we have not taken it into consideration so far. By the time the first Concorde flew in  March 1969 the RAF was already quitting the business of being the strategic nuclear arm of the British armed forces, handing over to the Polaris submarine fleet in July the same year, replacing the nuclear role of the V-force. So first strike in the context of strategic nuclear exchange was already by a means far faster and less interceptable than any Concorde. 

 

2nd point: They already were, because all the tankers on which western air power depended, and many of the recon types  that kept an eye on the Soviet Union, looked exactly like airliners (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 )

 

And all of this brings out a big truth of military procurement, which supplies the answer to the question "why was there never a military Concorde" as well as the answer to many similar questions. When you are specifying bombers the starting point is not "can we do something cool with airframe X?", it is "we want to deliver this weapon to this target under these assumed circumstances - what sort of delivery system do we need to do that?"

 

The Polaris system was not really a good "first strike" weapon as lacked the accuracy required to guarantee the destruction of missile silos and similar targets.

Not that this was necessarily a negative thing, afterall the main role of the UK's nuclear arsenal was mainly that of a deterrent against attacks and in this role SLBMs are very good, being overall a more survivable retaliation weapon compared to other assets.

Of course with such a view, it's hard to think of why the RAF would have required any true first strike capable weapon in the '70s...

[Work In Progress]

Just now, Giorgio N said:

 

The Polaris system was not really a good "first strike" weapon as lacked the accuracy required to guarantee the destruction of missile silos and similar targets.

Not that this was necessarily a negative thing, afterall the main role of the UK's nuclear arsenal was mainly that of a deterrent against attacks and in this role SLBMs are very good, being overall a more survivable retaliation weapon compared to other assets.

Of course with such a view, it's hard to think of why the RAF would have required any true first strike capable weapon in the '70s...

tbh I assumed he meant "first response" rather than actually starting a nuclear holocaust, but your point is well made for strategic weaponry. However, first use of tactical nukes was definitely within NATO doctrine throughout the Cold War. In the event of the Soviets rolling into Germany the general plan was to use all the conventional forces you had onm the flanks to compress the attacking force into the smallest, narrowest killing field, and then nuke them.

[Adam Poultney]

Regarding the paint, could a scheme with a white fuselage and lower wing, but camouflaged upper wing surface and tail be feasible?

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

3 hours ago, Oldynewby said:

If the aircraft is being converted the CG is liable to change depending on what equipment is fitted.

 

Not if it's still going to fly it won't. CofG can move a little bit but not much. Getting nose-heavy rapidly reduces control authority and any control deflection equals drag - not ideal for a high speed cruise. Getting tail-heavy makes an aircraft unstable and quite quickly completely unflyable.

 

If it's to be a semi-credible What-if then any substantial payload needs to be at or very close to the existing CofG.

[Adam Poultney]

1 minute ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Not if it's still going to fly it won't. CofG can move a little bit but not much. Getting nose-heavy rapidly reduces control authority and any control deflection equals drag - not ideal for a high speed cruise. Getting tail-heavy makes an aircraft unstable and quite quickly completely unflyable.

 

If it's to be a semi-credible What-if then any substantial payload needs to be at or very close to the existing CofG.

Think I might have to go with the entirely more realistic recon version....

[Work In Progress]

23 minutes ago, Adam Poultney said:

Regarding the paint, could a scheme with a white fuselage and lower wing, but camouflaged upper wing surface and tail be feasible?

Not if it is to go any serious speed for any length of time. The upper surfaces are the important ones. 

In any case, disruptive dark-coloured disruptive camo is only operationally helpful at lower levels. At 55,000 to 60,000 feet, which is where any Concorde mission has to be for the use of that airframe to be worthwhile, amd given an airframe with a very hefty IR and radar signature, you gain nothing from visual camouflage.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Ed Russell]

If I was going to do one, it would be the recon version in the (1960s) newly-developed high-reflectivity PRU Special Pink or Special Light Blue. If I can find a 1/144 or (preferably) smaller Concorde I'll develop a RAF Stores Category and Number for this paint!

[Work In Progress]

If I were playing around with that idea I would consider borrowing the Air Superiority Blue that the very early F-15A flew in at the start of its service.

It looked very nice and the early pure-fighter F-15 was quite a hot-rod. Two shades, lighter on top,  FS numbers on the attached. 

https://www.usaf-sig.org/index.php/reference/112-color-schemes/153-f-15-air-superiority-blue-scheme

 

The last hint of colour before the universal boring grey fighter era. But I'd make it shiny. And yes, it's FS paint, but it can be adopted into a UK military standard at the stroke of a pen if the will is there.

 

Here's an F-15A in that scheme in 1974, which is the right sort of time frame probable for your Concorde

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Work In Progress]

It occurs to me that creating a what-if mission is greatly helped by knowing the flight envelope for the aeroplane - basically in terms of what speeds can it do at what heights - and the headline numbers are all on this chart

 

[Graham Boak]

I've looked in Gibson's Vulcan's Hammer, and in all the weird, exotic or just plain wonderful concepts for British supersonic bombers, there is not a single reference in the index, nor that I can see in a quick glance, to Concorde or any project with similar configuration.   Which I suspect says all that needs to be said about the suitability of the configuration for the military requirements.  It seems that Vickers were much more interested in pushing VC10s with stand-off missiles.

 

Lots of lovely other WIF ideas, however, but with rather more work required.

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

tbh I assumed he meant "first response" rather than actually starting a nuclear holocaust, but your point is well made for strategic weaponry. However, first use of tactical nukes was definitely within NATO doctrine throughout the Cold War. In the event of the Soviets rolling into Germany the general plan was to use all the conventional forces you had onm the flanks to compress the attacking force into the smallest, narrowest killing field, and then nuke them.

 

I well remember during my days in the Army how, even at the very end of the Cold Warl, our Lance equipped units were supposed to destroy massed formations of enemy tanks practically within our own Country territory..  it sounded crazy that in order to avoid an invasion we were supposed to turn our own towns into radioactive wasteland.

But I guess it was just one of the many absurdities of the Cold War

[Giorgio N]

Regarding a potential scheme for a whif Concorde bomber, white would have been the most immediate answer. Previous British bombers had operated in overall white before to switching to low level penetration, although for different reasons, and the XB-70, itself designed as a supersonic high altitude bomber, was also supposed to wear a white scheme.

Now if you want something a bit different, then you could look into previous high altitude schemes.. during WW2 it was found that the best camo scheme used a light colour on the upper surfaces and a blue on the lower. Tests showed that the higher the altitude, the darker the blue. You could think of a very pale grey on the uppersurfaces and a very dark blue on the lowers, similar in principle to the Medium Sea Grey over PRU Blue scheme previously carried by RAF high altitude fighters and a number of Meteor PR.10. Bringing things to the extreme, we could even imagine a white over a very dark blue scheme, with roundels on fuselage sides and uper wings only, as was done during WW2 on the high altitude scheme but in low visibility colours.

 

Mind, if you think as I do that a bomber variant would be too far from any real possibility, there's always the VIP transport option I mentioned at the start, or maybe a even a white over Light Aircraft Grey transport scheme, complete with blue cheatline. Both options could benefit from a few ECM bumps here and there as well as chaff and flare launchers. Who knows, maybe in an alternate reality the RAF could have decided to have a small force of very fast transport aircraft to be able to carry company sized units in only a few hours...

[Des]

I was under the impression that when the RAF started to camouflage everything in sight during the early 1970s it was not only to do with the then perception that low level was best but also to offer some protection for aircraft while parked on the ground which moved on from Dark Green/Dark Grey to Hemp in the 1980s.

[Adam Poultney]

1 minute ago, Des said:

I was under the impression that when the RAF started to camouflage everything in sight during the early 1970s it was not only to do with the then perception that low level was best but also to offer some protection for aircraft while parked on the ground which moved on from Dark Green/Dark Grey to Hemp in the 1980s.

That's what I was thinking with yet surface and tail camouflage

[Orso]

I built a BAC Conqueror in 1/144 once  https://www.baecklund.eu/scalemodels/tiny/concorde.html a nuclear bomber

[Richard E]

@Work In Progress a very thorough explanation, thank you 

[Adam Poultney]

So if I were to do a recon or ELINT variant, what modifications would be likely then? Obviously a PR aircraft would need cameras, but where would be the best place for them?

I think I've ruled out bombcorde as a pure fantasy rather than a realistic what-if. 

[Ed Russell]

11 hours ago, Orso said:

I built a BAC Conqueror in 1/144 once  https://www.baecklund.eu/scalemodels/tiny/concorde.html a nuclear bomber

............ very nice. Which kit?

[andyf117]

I recall discussions back in the day about the prospect of a military Concorde; some wag commented that - frequently pointed out at the time - as the aircraft flew faster than a rifle bullet, an armed version was out of the question, because if it opened fire, it would shoot itself down!

Back then, I think a reconnaissance version was considered the only viable option - with camera-bays replacing the baggage holds...

[Giorgio N]

8 minutes ago, andyf117 said:

I recall discussions back in the day about the prospect of a military Concorde; some wag commented that - frequently pointed out at the time - as the aircraft flew faster than a rifle bullet, an armed version was out of the question, because if it opened fire, it would shoot itself down!

Back then, I think a reconnaissance version was considered the only viable option - with camera-bays replacing the baggage holds...

 

Did people really comment that at the time ? An interesting view, totally wrong but interesting anyway 😁

Said that, one of the preseries F-11 Tiger did manage to shoot itself down in a weird accident.. even if the Tiger was much slower than a bullet