Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 6th, 2012, 05:31 PM
Luath Luath is offline
I like Trains
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CF 105 III cockpit
Posts: 528
Concorde as a bomber

Hello all, over on the whatif forum there has been some debate and some fantastic models of the Concorde airline as a Bomber or Bomcorde. I'm not signed into whatif so I can't ask there, and I've recently started to wonder about the practicality of this idea. I unfortunately know little about aircraft physics and will have to do some reading on Concorde. So is there any merit to this idea?

The screamingly obvious economic factors not withstanding.

EDIT

I heartily recommend http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php for anyone who is interested in modeling alternative aircraft
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 6th, 2012, 06:08 PM
Just Leo Just Leo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
This has been said to be Concorde-like.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 6th, 2012, 06:22 PM
Luath Luath is offline
I like Trains
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CF 105 III cockpit
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Leo View Post
This has been said to be Concorde-like.
Damn it Leo! Now I've got drool all over my best shirt
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 6th, 2012, 07:02 PM
viewcode viewcode is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 303
Military Concorde: brief overview

Suggested uses include a BlueSteel/SRAM carrier, a *very* fast paratroop deployment method, an AWACS aircraft, a reconaissance aircraft: i.e. in competition with a B1, a Hercules, a 707, a SR-71. It's a tribute to the general scrumptiousness of the design that it could compete in those disparate roles.

Advantages
  • One of the few aircraft ever that can do supersonic without reheat/afterburners and for a prolonged (>1hr) period of time

Disadvantages
  • Vulnerability to SAMs,
  • Usefulness (there is always another more specialised aircraft that does a better job)
  • Range - it can *just* about do transatlantic but no further, so London-NY or London-Boston but not London-Chicago.

Pictures:
Search terms:
  • XW520,
  • Arthur Gibson,
  • Bombcorde,
  • Bomcorde

Links:
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 6th, 2012, 07:08 PM
AndyC AndyC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 842
Merit would be similar to that for the XB-70 Valkyrie, I guess, other than Concorde being slower and with less range.
__________________
The Fourth Lectern; Maybe the Horse Will Learn to Sing/The Fifth Lectern
- UKIP enter the 2010 UK Election debates
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 6th, 2012, 07:24 PM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Or if you really want to go nuts, do a Charlie Stross and build a Tsar Bomb into the fuselage for a one-way mission....
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 6th, 2012, 08:30 PM
Just Leo Just Leo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
The Soviet Union would have to react, arms races being what they are, until one side is broke.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 6th, 2012, 08:31 PM
hairysamarian hairysamarian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luath View Post
The screamingly obvious economic factors not withstanding.
I have to admit, that's what came to mind for me. The damned thing was a gas-guzzler to say the least.

Still, it seems like a plausible idea to me. A purpose-built aircraft like the Lancer would have to be better, but it wouldn't be the first time that a civilian craft had a useful military version.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old October 7th, 2012, 06:02 AM
Ming777 Ming777 is online now
CF-184 Triple Ace/UASR slayer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1000 or more
I always wondered if say as a last ditch defense, they decided to turn an entire Concorde into a massive missile. Fly it radio controlled or automated, packed with explosive or a massive nuclear warhead...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old October 7th, 2012, 12:16 PM
zippy zippy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewcode View Post
Suggested uses include a BlueSteel/SRAM carrier, a *very* fast paratroop deployment method, an AWACS aircraft, a reconaissance aircraft: i.e. in competition with a B1, a Hercules, a 707, a SR-71. It's a tribute to the general scrumptiousness of the design that it could compete in those disparate roles.
the blue steel / Skybolt/ ALCM launcher suggestion is valid - if the cold War had been a little hotter then the UK could have ended up with both Polaris and Blue Steel / Skybolt

equally if the political will had been there and the Vulcan hadn't been able to cope at low level - TSR2 / F111 / interdictor concorde ?

very fast paratroop deployment -it's a possibility; presumably with a 727 style rear belly airstair / jump ramp and a hi -lo- hi mission profile

AWACS - perhaps not the reason the UK originally went for a Nimrod based solution was becasue of the known layout advantages for loiter time of the comet derived airframe ( i.e. the close set engines making 2 and 3 engine running much less of an issue than with a 707 type layout ) and eventually ending up with the Sentry when the AEW Nimrod program collapsed

a strategic recon aircraft why not - could have also provided a EW /ELINT / SIGINT platform given the cabin size but again it;s the trade off of penetration vs loiter ( and hence the use of the EC135 by the US and the Comet / Nimrod R1 by the UK )

Last edited by zippy; October 7th, 2012 at 01:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old October 7th, 2012, 02:33 PM
viewcode viewcode is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 303
And you win a powerboat. But I live in Sheffield, Jim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
the blue steel / Skybolt/ ALCM launcher suggestion is valid - if the cold War had been a little hotter then the UK could have ended up with both Polaris and Blue Steel / Skybolt

equally if the political will had been there and the Vulcan hadn't been able to cope at low level - TSR2 / F111 / interdictor concorde ?

very fast paratroop deployment -it's a possibility; presumably with a 727 style rear belly airstair / jump ramp and a hi -lo- hi mission profile

AWACS - perhaps not the reason the UK originally went for a Nimrod based solution was becasue of the known layout advantages for loiter time of the comet derived airframe ( i.e. the close set engines making 2 and 3 engine running much less of an issue than with a 707 type layout ) and eventually ending up with the Sentry when the AEW Nimrod program collapsed

a strategic recon aircraft why not - could have also provided a EW /ELINT / SIGINT platform given the cabin size but again it;s the trade off of penetration vs loiter ( and hence the use of the EC135 by the US and the Comet / Nimrod R1 by the UK )
Hmm, agreed. If the UK wanted to get stuff done really cheap and come up with something really useful, it'd go for the very fast paratroop option: shove a refuelling probe on the forehead, replace the forward left-hand door with a sealed unit to let the fuel pipe come thru into the passenger cabin and thence to the internal tanks, take the seats and overhead racks out, replace them with floor/ceiling rings to attach webbing to, the 'troops exit out the back doors using a telescoping pole similar to the Orbiter emergency egress method[1] to avoid the Olympus engines and wings. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy, cheap as chips, 18 months max, five birds, you can put 200x5 paratroops on hostile ground anywhere on Earth in 12-24 hours and resupply them every day until they get bored. Global reach for the UK, marvellous.

Of course, it won't go like that. So we'll turn it into a Blue Steel/Skybolt launcher. It'll be too expensive and go over budget....
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 7th, 2012, 04:52 PM
FlyingDutchman FlyingDutchman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewcode View Post
Hmm, agreed. If the UK wanted to get stuff done really cheap and come up with something really useful, it'd go for the very fast paratroop option: shove a refuelling probe on the forehead, replace the forward left-hand door with a sealed unit to let the fuel pipe come thru into the passenger cabin and thence to the internal tanks, take the seats and overhead racks out, replace them with floor/ceiling rings to attach webbing to, the 'troops exit out the back doors using a telescoping pole similar to the Orbiter emergency egress method[1] to avoid the Olympus engines and wings. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy, cheap as chips, 18 months max, five birds, you can put 200x5 paratroops on hostile ground anywhere on Earth in 12-24 hours and resupply them every day until they get bored. Global reach for the UK, marvellous.

Of course, it won't go like that. So we'll turn it into a Blue Steel/Skybolt launcher. It'll be too expensive and go over budget....

? You're kidding right?

Of all the things one could use the Concorde for and for which it wasn't designed, the 'fast paratroop' option is probably the least needed, the least practical, the least likely and the most costly, considering anybody can see the Concorde is completely unsuitable for that because:

- it's too fast (you'll scatter your paratroops over 3 different countries and the chance of injuries is massive);
- no rear ramp for fast egress (you'll scatter them over yet more countries), the pole is a neat idea, but designed to exit a handfull of people, not 60ish heavily-laden paratroops as quickly as possible;
- max 128 passengers (which equals to what 60ish paratroops at most, which is equal to what a cheap, versatile C-130 carries);
- cost;
- not versatile;
- no refueling possible yet, so that'll need to be developed too, which'll cost you;
- it'll need to be redesigned for depressurization etc, opening a big door during flight isn't exactly in the original design specifications;
- I must have missed the need for a superfast paratroop carrier

Furthermore, designing an aircraft for dropping paratroops isn't as easy as it might seem. The C-17 had bucketloads of issues and wasn't cleared for paratroops untill after quite a delay and quite a lot of cost, and unlike the Concorde, the C-17 was actually designed to carry paratroopers.

The only possible use for the Concorde would be as a missile carrier, but even that's fraught with problems. I'd rather use the VC-10 for that, which would actually be a cheap, usefull conversion. However, the UK chose never to use them for that, despite buying quite a few on the cheap in the '80s.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 7th, 2012, 05:20 PM
zippy zippy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman View Post
? You're kidding right?

<snip>

- it's too fast (you'll scatter your paratroops over 3 different countries and the chance of injuries is massive);
- no rear ramp for fast egress (you'll scatter them over yet more countries), the pole is a neat idea, but designed to exit a handful of people, not 60ish heavily-laden paratroops as quickly as possible;
i caqn see your concerns

Hi-Lo-Hi mission profile negates parts of that - the difference being the speed and range is potential far greater

- it;s not too fast if your paradrop is undertaken as a speed similar to that of other airframes - concorde is perfectly capable f behaving like a subsonic jetliner

- hence my suggestion of a 727 style rear airstair / ramp which would achieve similar through put to normal side door static line ops - the big tailramp is great for equipment / supplies / 'display' free fall but not essential

- depressurisation would only be an issue for high level drops - but most military parachuting is not HALO or conventional free fall it;s static line ...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 7th, 2012, 05:29 PM
viewcode viewcode is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 303
All we need is a big saw and some pliers. I'll make the tea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy View Post
i caqn see your concerns

Hi-Lo-Hi mission profile negates parts of that - the difference being the speed and range is potential far greater

- it;s not too fast if your paradrop is undertaken as a speed similar to that of other airframes - concorde is perfectly capable f behaving like a subsonic jetliner

- hence my suggestion of a 727 style rear airstair / ramp which would achieve similar through put to normal side door static line ops - the big tailramp is great for equipment / supplies / 'display' free fall but not essential

- depressurisation would only be an issue for high level drops - but most military parachuting is not HALO or conventional free fall it;s static line ...
I agree that a tail ramp would be better but there is a fuel tank[1] behind the rear bulkhead and for military spec pprune reckon you'd need to fit a auxiliary power unit, poss in the tail. So there may not be room for it.

[1] http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/42398...-question.html
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old October 7th, 2012, 05:43 PM
viewcode viewcode is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman View Post
? You're kidding right?

Of all the things one could use the Concorde for and for which it wasn't designed, the 'fast paratroop' option is probably the least needed, the least practical, the least likely and the most costly, considering anybody can see the Concorde is completely unsuitable for that because:

- it's too fast (you'll scatter your paratroops over 3 different countries and the chance of injuries is massive);
- no rear ramp for fast egress (you'll scatter them over yet more countries), the pole is a neat idea, but designed to exit a handfull of people, not 60ish heavily-laden paratroops as quickly as possible;
- max 128 passengers (which equals to what 60ish paratroops at most, which is equal to what a cheap, versatile C-130 carries);
- cost;
- not versatile;
- no refueling possible yet, so that'll need to be developed too, which'll cost you;
- it'll need to be redesigned for depressurization etc, opening a big door during flight isn't exactly in the original design specifications;
- I must have missed the need for a superfast paratroop carrier

Furthermore, designing an aircraft for dropping paratroops isn't as easy as it might seem. The C-17 had bucketloads of issues and wasn't cleared for paratroops untill after quite a delay and quite a lot of cost, and unlike the Concorde, the C-17 was actually designed to carry paratroopers.

The only possible use for the Concorde would be as a missile carrier, but even that's fraught with problems. I'd rather use the VC-10 for that, which would actually be a cheap, usefull conversion. However, the UK chose never to use them for that, despite buying quite a few on the cheap in the '80s.
Yes, I am kidding...and no I am not...

Being less glib for a moment, if the question is "how do I transport paratroops?" you are correct: the answer is not "retrofit concordes". However, if the question is "Here are 5 concordes. BA don't want them any more. The RAF can have them for free. What can it do with them, assuming a very low development budget?", then one of the viable answers is "transport paratroops with them"

The air-to-air refuelling bit is easyish: weld probe to front (which is a big pipe with a valve on the front), replace front door with sealed unit, feed pipe from probe into cabin thru sealed unit. Then to internal fuel tanks via cabin floor. External skin not penetrated, so no problems.

The speed issue is perhaps untractable. Concorde stall speed is ~180knots and I think throwing somebody out of an airplane at that speed is difficult. However, I think (cross fingers) that's the same problem the Shuttle had when post-Challenger it had to develop an emergency egress procedure (the telescoping tube)[2] and it seems to work.

Decompression? Open door at low level (the hi-lo-hi profile Zippy mentioned), close it before getting outta Dodge.

Cost? Petrol is cheaper than milk. Very few structural changes equals low cost.

Need? Probably not much, but you know they're gonna drool when they see them.

[2] http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/335675/enlarge
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old October 7th, 2012, 05:49 PM
viewcode viewcode is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 303
I see bare bricks, strip down the floorboards, perhaps some matting. Let's go to Ikea

Incidentally, if you want to see what a civilian airliner looks like when you adapt it for (quasi)military use and strip out everything inside, you get this YouTube[3] of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a former (American Airlines?) civilian 747

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGApUvcJk4
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old October 7th, 2012, 08:08 PM
Luath Luath is offline
I like Trains
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CF 105 III cockpit
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewcode View Post
Suggested uses include a BlueSteel/SRAM carrier, a *very* fast paratroop deployment method, an AWACS aircraft, a reconaissance aircraft: i.e. in competition with a B1, a Hercules, a 707, a SR-71. It's a tribute to the general scrumptiousness of the design that it could compete in those disparate roles.

Advantages
  • One of the few aircraft ever that can do supersonic without reheat/afterburners and for a prolonged (>1hr) period of time

Disadvantages
  • Vulnerability to SAMs,
  • Usefulness (there is always another more specialised aircraft that does a better job)
  • Range - it can *just* about do transatlantic but no further, so London-NY or London-Boston but not London-Chicago.

Pictures:
Search terms:
  • XW520,
  • Arthur Gibson,
  • Bombcorde,
  • Bomcorde

Links:
Viewcord I just want to thank you for the mine of information you've provided here.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.