PioneerWas it meant to be an interim type for Australia or the French?
And what was considered to be the more definitive type?
Sorry throbbed, I just saw this seconds after my last post! ??
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerAnd the Mirage III was never expected to serve for long – it was intended as an interim type, and cost was king.
Re reading this forum subject, and wanted to ask Jackonicko, have you got more information/referance to your comment? Is this comment in relation to the Mirage III period or to the RAAF’s requirement/expectation?
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneerthey could as russians had highly manoeuverable fighters from as far back as WWII (so the MIg being manouverable was credible from the beginning), and intelligence services told them so for the radar as well…
another thing is the credits to obtain from the congress: it’s much easier to get the money to do what you want when you have to face a really dangerous threat. If the threat is laughable, your credits vanish. Just look at the end of the cold war.. the threat literally vanished and all credits were cut severely
Thank for the reply TooCool_12f!
I appreciate that the Soviet’s had clearly demonstrated “highly manoeuverable fighters”, but Mach 3 and high manoeuverablity……
I appreciate your identification of “it’s much easier to get the money to do what you want when you have to face a really dangerous threat.”; but I guess this was the impitous of the American Military/Congressional Industrial Complex! 🙁
Just can’t believe the Pentagon could realistically play such a dubious card as the “Bomber Gap”, “Missile Gap” and the “Fighter Gap”, without government saying ‘are you guys for real?’ and ‘how do you expect to have credibility of the government and population? 🙁
I guess it’s like the old proverb of Hitler – ‘The bigger the lie, the more likely it will be believed!’ ??
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerNice bump there! :eagerness: Few months short of 18 years old thread.
Better late than never my friend ?
But seriously how could the USAF, with its irrefutable experience, development and lead in aerodynamic, avionics/radar – Republic XF-103, NAA XF-108, Lockheed YF-12B… believe that the MiG-25P at Mach 3 could be super manoverabile, have unjammable radars…..
The fact is, until the advent of the Tu-22M and Tu-160, either F-14 or F-15 were all overkill as far as an interceptor goes for ADC.
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer“mass-produced”, high-speed and “very maneovreable” MiG-25P, equipped with “jam-proof” radar and “long-range missiles” (OK, a good part of such infos was intelligence blunder, but nobody knew that at the time).
I don’t know, it sound as if the Pentagon was having another crack at another engineered “Gap” strategy, like their “Bomber Gap” and “Missile Gap” hysteria – but this time a ‘Fighter Gap’ so as to squeeze budget money out of Congress to build another USAF wet-dream program – aka Fighter Experimental (FX) program.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to get political, but with the intelligence budget and intelligence resource at its disposal, how could US intelligence get their estimates so continuously so majorly wrong time after time on such issues?, and yet nobody in the Pentagon were held accountable, and ridiculous funds were always granted regardless! ???
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerGents, it’s been a long time since we’ve seen this (2008).
I’ve just refund this post of mine, as I’m doing a ‘Alternative History Backstory’ on another forum, and my issue is spacifically this dilemma a V-bomber or B-47 as an interim bomber to replace the light and limited English Electric Canberra bomber, until more advanced supersonic all-weather strike/bomber platforms like the TRS.2 and or TFX are off the drawingboard and concrete in their physical development, bugs ironed out and proven to be workable.
So taking into consideration everyone’s replies and wealth of information, and of course ‘real factors’/’considerations’ like unit costs, through-life operating costs, cost of needing to upgrade runways and facilities; I’ve come to favour the idea/notion of low flight hours second hand B-47’s, modified with Rolls-Royce Avon turbojets, for thrust, economy and commonality. These RAAF B-47’s will also employ the specialised RATO packs designed for the B-47, to elevate the issue/needs of costly lengthening /strengthening existing runways.
I envisage the money saved in an expected ‘U.S. friendly deal’ will afford funds for specialised airborne refuelling tanker’s like the ubiquitous Boeing KC-135’s, which will benefit the whole ADF, as opposed to just the B-47’s.
Thank you again for your time and input!
P. S. Logan Hartke, would you be up to doing an couple of WhatIf RAAF Boeing B-47 profiles?
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneerroberto asks
CW illuminator in the pointy end of a drop tank to allow for Sparrow (and then Skyflash)
Why CW illuminator in the tip of a drop tank?
Couldn’t the CW illuminator be incorporated into the actual airframe?
I’m intrigued, how big is this illuminator?
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerOK, revisiting this post in the hope that we might have more info and more substantiated answers with time
Came across this interesting article:
http://retromechanix.com/vought-v-383-v-384-day-fighter-original-f8u-crusader-proposal/nggallery/image/the-rocket-installation-consisted-of-an-internal-tandem-two-row-package-carrying-sixty-2-air-to-air-folding-fin-rockets-the-rocket-pack-was-located-on-the-aircrafts-belly-well-aft-of-the-nose-air-i
As my original question pertained to my want and need to fit a radar supporting Aim-7 Sparrow AAM to the Vought V-383 Crusader, I find it intriguing that the manufacturers brocher clear says that ‘four Sparrow missiles’ could be carried by the V-383 and smaller and lighter V-384, I again can’t help but wonder if it only required a CW Illuminator, and where would this have gone?
Looking at these fantastic insightful drawings of the original V-383 and V384, would such a CW Illuminator have been carried in place of one of the rocket packs?
Also, the four under-wing hardpionts/pylons (two under each wing), were these two hardpoint totally eliminated from the ‘production standard’ F-8A Crusader?
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerJust found this interesting snippet piece of information, which I think IMO would support the notion that the Avon-powered Mirage III for the RAAF would have been superior –
“However, when Australian operations required the addition of two supersonic external fuel tanks and two Sidewinder missiles, plus the Matra, a lack of available power was apparent. As a result, the RAAF Mirage 111O was underpowered in the configuration required for our conditions. This would have been a definite handicap if offensive air interceptions had been required.”
(Source: http://www.raafa.org.au/mirage)
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerBadger 1968, by chance do you have any further details pertaining to your:
“Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.”?
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerSo, could anyone confirm if the F-11F-2 Super Tiger would have been able to operate from the confines of a Majestic class carrier like HMAS Melbourne – re approach speed and catapult capacity?
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer1. Massive cruise missile volleys may work but they need a secure air space launch basket.
3.Russian jamming may work but I dont know how well versus a near peer.
I have to agree with your analogy of jamming, in combination with ARM and drone volleys!
The Russian’s have not neglected the imperative importance of EW. They’re own importance they put on their ‘layered ground-based air-defence’ assets and doctrine means they more than anyone else would make me think that they would appreciate suppression of air defence as a high and critical importance.
One would think that along with their suppression of force-multipliers like enemy AWACS, I’m thinking the Russians would most likely adopt the likes of the 200km range Novator K-100 air-to-air missile designed as an AWACS killer into an ARM.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerAh yep, my SAM system just malfunctioned 😉
PioneerI’m not sure the JK200 even existed operationally, but I’ve found this nice picture of the JL100:
http://www.abload.de/img/mirage_iii_ez_831_01fpjvq.jpg
Nic
Yeah nice Nicolas10!
You know, I’ve seen this picture a thousand time Nicolas10, but never took notice of the JL100 configuration before :apologetic:
As my late father use to say: “A picture tells a thousand stories!” And I missed it!!
Thanks for your contribution Nic
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerWell the theme of the Whatif was described in the 1st post. EE Lightning for AtoA intead of Mirage III, and buccaneers instead of SuE. I suppose the same number of airframes.
I think the 30 Daggers, being Israeli, could remain. So that’s 17 EE Lightning, which would probably be used to defend mainland for eventual Mirage IV bombings (like they did to defend from the Vulcans), & 4 buccanneers for the Argentinian navy.
Nic
I don’t think the Mirage IV had the range compared to the Vulcan as per Operation Black Buck. Nor do I think the French AF have the tanker numbers to support such an ‘intercontinental’ mission!
Regards
Pioneer
Sign In
