BAC Vanquish B.3

[AndrewF]

That's a great-looking model.

[Wardukw]

Rick your mates bro might have worked on Concorde but remember that a military verison would be rather different .
Most of the passenger area.if not all of it would be modified for military use..areas which needed strengthened would be ..
The craft would a crew of probably 4 or 6 which leaves alot of space for all the other military gubbins they'd use.
Just take a look at all the civilian aircraft which have been converted to military use..DC-3/C-47 for example.

[kitnut617]

OK, this is what Phil Butler told me, the following I've pulled from The Airfix Tribute Forum where I had a build thread going.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is another project completely influenced by a picture I had seen in a magazine many years ago, 1968 in fact.  My Dad had taken me to Farnborough that year and I had bought that years RAF Year Book which just happened to be the RAF Golden Anniversary issue and there was an article about the 'future' Concorde and how it would fit into the RAF as a bomber.  This was a year before the first Concorde ever flew remember and recently while building my model I had chatted (by email) to the noted aviation author, Phil Butler, who told me he had worked on the Concorde project around this time in the equipment procuring department and he told me that Concorde was built to an unusual requirement spec.

This is part of the reply I got from him:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of interest, when I worked on equipment to go on Concorde it was always classed as 'Common Aeronautical Supply' - that is not civilian (CAA or ARB), nor military (AQD), but in the unusual 'CAS' category, meaning it could go immediately to either civilian or military use without further formalities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wardukw]

Its been proven many times in the past that civilian aircraft cant stand up to the riggers of military operations..they all have to be modified in one form or another ..its like the TU 95 Bear..the differences between the civilian verison and the military verisons are extensive ..range..speed..altitude and load carrying and most of all ..protection..offensive and defensive ..Concorde would have had to go thru the same things.
It might be simlier on the outside but the inside is totally different..structural differences would be a pretty long list as weapon stations will need a strengthened area cause those missles are not light and the wiring will need installed with the controls for them also fitted ..there would be bumps and bits added to the outside ..the radar could be a factor..a civilian radar wouldnt cut the mustard so that will need to be changed ..or added..that could require a large amount of work to get one to fit in the nose or somewhere on the plane..theres tons of hidden issues they would need to sort out as they went.
We do the exact same thing with cars.

[Devilfish]

Its been proven many times in the past that civilian aircraft cant stand up to the riggers of military operations..they all have to be modified in one form or another ..its like the TU 95 Bear..the differences between the civilian verison and the military verisons are extensive ..range..speed..altitude and load carrying and most of all ..protection..offensive and defensive ..Concorde would have had to go thru the same things.
It might be simlier on the outside but the inside is totally different..structural differences would be a pretty long list as weapon stations will need a strengthened area cause those missles are not light and the wiring will need installed with the controls for them also fitted ..there would be bumps and bits added to the outside ..the radar could be a factor..a civilian radar wouldnt cut the mustard so that will need to be changed ..or added..that could require a large amount of work to get one to fit in the nose or somewhere on the plane..theres tons of hidden issues they would need to sort out as they went.
We do the exact same thing with cars.

As far as radar goes, I was limited by the tiny nose cone on the production Concorde.  If I could have modified it to prototype standard, I could have fitted a larger radar.  So I went with the TSR2 solution (as TFR wasn't needed), and fitted side looking radar for navigation.
Internally, it would have been strengthened and extra fuel tanks fitted. 
ECM equipment installed at the rear end.  Crew area would consist of the cockpit (Pilot, co-pilot, Air Eng, EW Op, and Wea Op), a galley, and a rest area, where a second crew could be carried for long "deterrent" patrols

[kitnut617]

As far as radar goes, I was limited by the tiny nose cone on the production Concorde.  If I could have modified it to prototype standard, I could have fitted a larger radar.  So I went with the TSR2 solution (as TFR wasn't needed), and fitted side looking radar for navigation.
Internally, it would have been strengthened and extra fuel tanks fitted. 
ECM equipment installed at the rear end.  Crew area would consist of the cockpit (Pilot, co-pilot, Air Eng, EW Op, and Wea Op), a galley, and a rest area, where a second crew could be carried for long "deterrent" patrols

I had thought the same thing with mine. I decided on a larger nose radome, more like the image in the 1968 picture. I figured that as it was to be a V-Bomber replacement and that miniaturization hadn't progress much it would probably used a radar the size of what was in the V-Bombers. I was told that the bomber would have dispensed with the drooping nose and what-not, and the reverser buckets on the exhaust would have been done away with too. I thought I had a thread on this forum but I can't find it if I did.

This radome fitted quite nicely.

[Devilfish]

As far as radar goes, I was limited by the tiny nose cone on the production Concorde.  If I could have modified it to prototype standard, I could have fitted a larger radar.  So I went with the TSR2 solution (as TFR wasn't needed), and fitted side looking radar for navigation.
Internally, it would have been strengthened and extra fuel tanks fitted. 
ECM equipment installed at the rear end.  Crew area would consist of the cockpit (Pilot, co-pilot, Air Eng, EW Op, and Wea Op), a galley, and a rest area, where a second crew could be carried for long "deterrent" patrols

I had thought the same thing with mine. I decided on a larger nose radome, more like the image in the 1968 picture. I figured that as it was to be a V-Bomber replacement and that miniaturization hadn't progress much it would probably used a radar the size of what was in the V-Bombers. I was told that the bomber would have dispensed with the drooping nose and what-not, and the reverser buckets on the exhaust would have been done away with too. I thought I had a thread on this forum but I can't find it if I did.

This radome fitted quite nicely.

I built this a few years ago based on the old Airfix prototype. The nose looks so much better with a metal heat shield! 

20181113_205147 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

20181113_205316 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

[kitnut617]

That does look nice like that Paul.

This is my progress, I was building it back in 2006-ish but it got packed away for our house move and that's where it still is unfortunately. Most of my build thread on ATF was how I was fixing all the problems with the kit, probably why in the end I lost interest with it although the only problem left was working out the missiles.

Apologies for the pic size, pre-digital era for me.



I had added some extra detail to the cockpit

[Pellson]

Where does that nose cone come from, originally?

[PR19_Kit]

If they'd not fitted the droop snoot the landing speed would have been HORRENDOUS! Just so the crew could see where they were landing, and then they'd have NEEDED reverse thrust to stop before they ran into the next county!

Doesn't sound as if they thought that idea through properly.

[kitnut617]

If they'd not fitted the droop snoot the landing speed would have been HORRENDOUS! Just so the crew could see where they were landing, and then they'd have NEEDED reverse thrust to stop before they ran into the next county!

Doesn't sound as if they thought that idea through properly.

Yeah, I agree -- but that's what I was told  I think the idea deleting all the drooping nose and the moving windshield was to avoid complexity and extra maintenance. Not sure why the reversers wouldn't have been used though. 

[kitnut617]

Where does that nose cone come from, originally?

Have a guess Pelle  -- here's a clue --- It's upside down

[Pellson]

Where does that nose cone come from, originally?

Have a guess Pelle  -- here's a clue --- It's upside down

Sorry, mate. I'm too daft. 

[kitnut617]

Where does that nose cone come from, originally?

Have a guess Pelle  -- here's a clue --- It's upside down

Sorry, mate. I'm too daft. 

Tu-22M-3   

[Rheged]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of interest, when I worked on equipment to go on Concorde it was always classed as 'Common Aeronautical Supply' - that is not civilian (CAA or ARB), nor military (AQD), but in the unusual 'CAS' category, meaning it could go immediately to either civilian or military use without further formalities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a rumour that the Concorde used to carry the Queen did have "several active and passive defence features, including the facilities for air to air missiles"     I'd seen the mention of CAS equipment, in Hansard, but I can't find the reference just now.