Concorde in the Falklands

But, wouldn't the Concordes be flying the same missions as the Vulcans? At the very most that might allow them to make more bombing runs (if maintenance for the Concorde isn't slower than for the Vulcan). And since the Argentinean Air Force never tried to intercept the Vulcans and said bombardments weren't effective, I don't see the Concordes making a difference, except perhaps as PR
 
I'd like to see them stick air-to-air missiles on it, like they did on the Nimrods. That would be cool. Maybe Concorde will get lucky and shoot down a high flying Canberra or Learjet? Or is it possible tos strap some Exocets on the Blue Steel hard-points, so maybe it sinks the Argentine carrier?

Mainly I posted because it was a pretty cool pic though.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'd like to see them stick air-to-air missiles on it, like they did on the Nimrods. That would be cool. Maybe Concorde will get lucky and shoot down a high flying Canberra or Learjet? Or is it possible tos strap some Exocets on the Blue Steel hard-points, so maybe it sinks the Argentine carrier?

Mainly I posted because it was a pretty cool pic though.

The carrier never went out of port after the Belgrano got hit, so I don't know as that was a real option. To be honest, using it as a modded refueler or AWACS-type aircraft doesn't seem like it would be out of the realm of possibility, though the AWACS-mod would probably be the one that kept it in the supersonic realm.

You've got to remember that it was able to go so fast because of it's smooth external lines. If you throw an Exocet or Durindal on it, then the Concorde's having to pull that missile through the wind. Almost the equivalent of flying with it's landing gear down, if not worse.
So if there was an internal weapons bay taking up some of the room where the people would normally be sitting and more fuel capacity, then I could see it being able to carry weapons. I suppose. But not much, I'd think...
 
One idea that was apparently considered vaguely by the experts at some point was an internal rotary SRAM launcher (similar to what the B-1 had).

I suppose you could put AA missiles in a similar launcher, but you're not going to do it on short notice. So maybe Concorde with internal AA missiles, is a long-range escort fighter, intended to escort the V-bombers?
 
The carrier never went out of port after the Belgrano got hit, so I don't know as that was a real option. To be honest, using it as a modded refueler or AWACS-type aircraft doesn't seem like it would be out of the realm of possibility, though the AWACS-mod would probably be the one that kept it in the supersonic realm.

You've got to remember that it was able to go so fast because of it's smooth external lines. If you throw an Exocet or Durindal on it, then the Concorde's having to pull that missile through the wind. Almost the equivalent of flying with it's landing gear down, if not worse.
So if there was an internal weapons bay taking up some of the room where the people would normally be sitting and more fuel capacity, then I could see it being able to carry weapons. I suppose. But not much, I'd think...

An AWACS Concorde. Oh the possibilities of THAT. :D

And one problem that must be considered - the Concorde has a 4500 mile range, which means you'd need tankers for it to get from friendly airbases to the Falklands, and I imagine a Concorde would require a helluva lot of jet fuel to do that job. It's maximum fuel load is just shy of 211,000 pounds - which is a bit more than the capacity of a KC-135 Stratotanker or a VC-10. So even assuming you are using Concordes as missile carriers, they would require a bunch more fuel than the RAF could probably deliver. That was what killed the Concorde in passenger service - the thing is very thirsty.

What I imagine MIGHT work is if you fitted it with turbofans capable of supercruise. Doing this would help the range, though I don't know if that would make it regularly capable of supercruising.

I had one more thought about Concordes in military service, what about using them as VIP transport? France and Britain for sure, perhaps other nations? Perhaps we get Canada or Australia willing to fly the Concorde as a VIP plane? Perhaps even one for the Queen?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Concorde was a pure civilian aircraft. Very fast, very expensive to operate, VERY fragile.

There is way more to making a civilian aircraft into a warplane than just installing some hardpoints (BTW: given any thought to what the drag of all that exteral weaponry is going to to do to speed and range?).

If the RAF wanted heavy bombers, they HAD heavy bombers. The RAF decided, quite reasonably, that their mission didn't call for a long range manned penetration bomber (No Triad=no need for manned bombers), so they parked the heavies so the budget could be spent on something worthwhile.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
There is way more to making a civilian aircraft into a warplane than just installing some hardpoints (BTW: given any thought to what the drag of all that exteral weaponry is going to to do to speed and range?).

As I said in my post there, Cal:

MacCaulay said:
You've got to remember that it was able to go so fast because of it's smooth external lines. If you throw an Exocet or Durindal on it, then the Concorde's having to pull that missile through the wind. Almost the equivalent of flying with it's landing gear down, if not worse.

You're preaching to the converted, man!

Though I'm standing by it being possible to turn it into an AWACS or refueller, kind of like what they did with the 707, etc., for Australia and Japan.
It certainly wouldn't be cheap, and there wouldn't be a reason. But I suppose we're not letting a little thing like utility get in the way of military spending, eh? :D
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As I said in my post there, Cal:



You're preaching to the converted, man!

Though I'm standing by it being possible to turn it into an AWACS or refueller, kind of like what they did with the 707, etc., for Australia and Japan.
It certainly wouldn't be cheap, and there wouldn't be a reason. But I suppose we're not letting a little thing like utility get in the way of military spending, eh? :D


Why would you want a MACH 2 AWACS?
 

wormyguy

Banned
THERE'S some Department of Defense logic! Are you sure you're not from the Joint Chiefs?
Of course not. If I were from the Joint Chiefs, I'd be saying that the AWACS are not adequately protected, therefore we require stealth AWACS. And carrier AWACS. Stealth carrier AWACS on the new carriers.
 
Of course not. If I were from the Joint Chiefs, I'd be saying that the AWACS are not adequately protected, therefore we require stealth AWACS. And carrier AWACS. Stealth carrier AWACS on the new carriers.

Stealth AWACS? That's kinda an oxymoron, because an AWACS bird emits so much radar power that any anti-radiation or radar-homing missile is gonna find the thing regardless of however stealthy it is.

Carrier AWACS already exists.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I stand corrected. I didn't know that a plane that big could work on a carrier.

Normally the Navy has never let a logical thing like "size" stop them from putting something on a carrier. That's just a reason to buy a bigger arrestor cable.
 

wormyguy

Banned
That's just a reason to buy a bigger arrestor cable.
A bigger arrestor cable? That sounds terribly inexpensive. We need bigger carriers. Or, failing that, we could just put bigger arrestor cables in the new nuclear-powered carriers that are of the exact same design as the old diesel-powered carriers, heaven forbid we just replace the diesel engines with nuclear reactors instead of letting the old ones rot in the reserve fleet for 20 years before scrapping them.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
A bigger arrestor cable? That sounds terribly inexpensive. We need bigger carriers. Or, failing that, we could just put bigger arrestor cables in the new nuclear-powered carriers that are of the exact same design as the old diesel-powered carriers, heaven forbid we just replace the diesel engines with nuclear reactors instead of letting the old ones rot in the reserve fleet for 20 years before scrapping them.

Hmmm...we can make them bigger...stronger!!!

For some reason I just want to make some odd techno-wank where the only purpose is to see how illogical and out of bounds the US military can get if it's written with no regards to how much things will cost.
 

wormyguy

Banned
For some reason I just want to make some odd techno-wank where the only purpose is to see how illogical and out of bounds the US military can get if it's written with no regards to how much things will cost.
President McCarthy surveyed the crowd. It had worked itself into a frenzy of cheering and fist-pumping and saluting the Commander-General-in-Chief. General of the Armies Vice-President MacArthur stood to his right, and Admiral of the Navies Nimitz to his left. He began his speech. "My fellow Americans, we are gathered here today to discuss one of the most frightening, terrifying threats to our nation today. This threat, a threat that strikes fear into the heart of every God-fearing American and freedom-loving human on the planet is the tank gap between us and the Communists. I have received intelligence, and this is genuine first-rate intelligence, from the CIA, that there are as many as ten times as many tanks being operated by the Communists in Europe. Think about it! We're sitting ducks, over there, in Europe, should the Communists ever decide to launch a tank attack! And they will, let me tell you, if we don't show the what we're made of first! But we're gonna close the tank gap, and we're gonna beat the Commies back to the flaming heap of rubble that used to be Moscow should they ever even think about attacking us!"

The crowd roared. A good thing, it was necessary to have a great military when war was so close, after the intervention in Hungary last year. It was time of a unity of strength, of purpose.

Of power.
 
Top