Not only can they land with them… if the landing gear fails they can even land ON them (saves the airframe)!

There’s even a story of a Super Etendard doing a “touch & go” on its drop tanks. 😀 The pilot realized his mistake and was able to get back in the air… then did another circuit for a proper wheels down landing!

*CORRECTION*

The Spanish F-1Ms have a lot more life in them than I thought apparently… 1,300 hours/aircraft prior to overhaul (according to last week’s Spanish news reports). So they probably haven’t flown more than 4,000-4,500 hours. Add another 1,500 hours+ after overhaul (cost: ~1MEur) and the total life remaining is more like 2,800-3,000 hours per aircraft… suddenly makes a small BVR upgrade rather worth it.

P.S. The F1 remains a very dangerous fighter… in the right hands. Not that long ago it achieved kill ratios of 6-2 vs. Mirage 2000s and 8-0 vs. F-16 MLUs 😎 by playing to its strengths: high-speed slash & dash attacks, low-level terrain-masking escapes, excellent ECM jammer, low-speed vertical maneuvers pushing beyond opposing fly-by-wire aircrafts’ envelope limits etc. So add a new radar and MICA and it might cause even Chile’s F-16 Blk 50s some problems…

Please don’t be so simplistic! If Argentina could get aircraft within range (note that they’d have to overfly parts of the Falklands to get within Apache release range, they’d take losses, & I don’t think Argentina currently has any aircraft which could carry it), they’d have a good chance of damaging the runways. How completely, & for how long, would depend on how many hits were achieved. Note that for local air defence operations, one runway, or even part of a runway, is enough.

You see? It’s a very useful weapon, but mere possession of it doesn’t guarantee victory.

There’s also the question of whether it would be sold. It falls foul of agreements regarding cluster munitions, which is why Sweden withdrew the DWS-24 from service (in storage, last I heard), so I doubt Germany would sell the proposed (but I think cancelled) dispenser version of Taurus, for example. Also, the British government’s lobbying to block it (on the grounds that its sole purpose would be to attack MPA) would probably be successful, even without the cluster munition ban.

My comment was tongue in cheek – looks like you missed that part!

I agree of course that no European government is likely to sell an anti-runway weapon to Argentina. It’s a quasi-strategic weapon – very hard to stop a surprise low-level attack. Even if you detect the launch aircraft before it reaches its release point (which probably requires an AEW platform), you won’t have time to vector in interceptors unless they’re already in the air… and AFAIK the RAF doesn’t keep a permanent CAP at MPA.

My point was just that when comparing aircraft types, we need to remember that some come with strategic capabilities (typically: standoff strike, SEAD, reconnaissance, and/or anti-shipping). Others don’t. And that’s often a bigger decision factor than the inherent performance of the aircraft itself.

(BTW, the cluster munitions ban doesn’t apply, since anti-runway submunitions – the French ones at least – are >20kg)

TF-306 was a custom TF30 turbofan for Dassault until the M53 flew. No different than Rafale using F404 until M88 flew.

The plan was for a small run (50-odd) of the Mirage G8 as a reconn plane. It had no useful load and the only picture I found with an underwing load was the G4 prototype. There is no indication the underwing pylons were pivotable on wing sweep changes. No box glove pylons. No internal bay. It’s utility was pretty low potential-wise.

Not quite. You’ve got your details and versions mixed up… the Mirage G was FAR from an underarmed recon plane.

The Mirage G/G3 was originally designed as a follow-on to the the failed Anglo French AFVG, to meet the requirement for a carrier-capable, multirole strike/interceptor. The TF306 (TF30 with an uprated French afterburner) was perfect for this role and was favored by the French Navy, French MoD technical services, and Israel (involved as a potential launch customer). Why? Because it had the highest thrust and lowest fuel consumption of all Western engines at the time. No other engine allowed for a multirole strike/interceptor powerful enough to replace the F-8 Crusader/Mirage III, small-enough (10t empty) to operate from Clemenceau/Foch, and with long-enough legs at low-level for maritime strike/interdiction.

(Incidentally, one of the reasons AFVG failed was because the UK refused to accept the US-derived TF306, and kept pushing for a twin-Rolls-Royce solution too heavy for carriers and too slow for interception – guys, meet the Tornado! :applause:)

Only later did the Mirage G requirement evolve. The carrier capability was dropped, and the French Air Force was free to specify a larger, twin-engined aircraft for reconnaissance (Mirage G4 RAGEL) or nuclear strike/interception (Mirage G8). Both of these requirements could be met by French engines, without the TF-306’s problematic export and spare-parts restrictions (a major concern for a nuclear-capable aircraft).

As far as weapons load… pivoting pylons were in the pipeline and were in fact tested on the Mirage G8. There was also space under the fuselage for tandem or side-by-side charges. External tanks would not be required most of the time, with 4,900kg internal fuel for the Mirage G (originally 4,200kg, plus 2x 450l wing tanks added) and 40% lower fuel consumption for the TF306 vs. the Atar.

Pivoting pylons tested on the Mirage G8

Here are three questions for raising this topic:
1) Why there is no scaled models presented on-line while I searched google? If anyone made this model, I hope he would share photos when this thread would be seen.
2) Mirage G-8 vs MiG-23, I’m inviting your position and your reason.
3) Is is possible the Mirage G-8 became a same generation fighter as F-14 Tomcat?

1) Search in French, “Mirage G maquette.” Looks like there are 1/50 and 1/72 scale models.

2) The single-engine Mirage G is similar to the ground-attack Mig-23B/BN (i.e. lots of internal fuel, engine optimized for low fuel consumption). Compared to the fighter Mig-23M/ML, it has less thrust but is somewhat lighter and has a lot more range.

3) Same generation as the F-14 yes, but smaller airframe. In fact the Mirage G was tested by the US Navy when the F-14 was still being designed. But it obviously couldn’t fit the same electronics and radar.

Pics of the Mirage G 1/72 scale model: http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=178287

Mirage G vs. Mig-23

Mirage G vs. F-8 Crusader

Mirage G vs. larger brother Mirage G8

Mirage G vs. smaller brother Mirage F1

I love this aircraft… It would have looked awesome in Canadian navy colors.

That’s an interesting what if… F11F Tigers (or Super Tigers) on Colossus-class carriers!

It would be very tight in terms of catapult & weight limits… the F11F is basically a supersonic Super Etendard (in terms of weight and stall speed). A couple of thousand lbs heavier and 5-10kts faster stall speed than the A-4…

AFAIK the Super Etendard was marginal on 25 de Mayo. But IF it could have been made to work, the Super Tiger in particular (with provisions for 2 Sparrow AAMs) would have been a much better interceptor than the Skyhawk. Passable strike aircraft too, but that would probably blow right past the catapult weight limits.

Drum roll… cue in the F11F-1F Super Tiger with J79 engine. 😉

…solved all the issues with the J65.

The Super Tiger could have had a massive production run, no, SHOULD have had a massive production run instead of the F-104 Starfighter and F-8 Crusader… On technical merits at least.

Possibly could also have bern an alternative to some of the thousands of A-4 Skyhawks and F-4 Phantoms built, using specialized ground attack and all-weather interceptor variants (like the Viggen… since there was in fact a Grumman proposal to fit the Super Crusader’s avionics on the Super Tiger)

Or so I argued in this hotly debated thread: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?97615-Best-naval-fighter-of-the-mid-1960s/