Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2012, 09:55:53 AM
-
Hi folks,
Triggered by this comment of Evans, in Maverick's profile thread:
I suspect that Austrian one would be configured as a heavy interceptor. 'Twould be interesting to see the weapons fit on such an aircraft.
Her eis a thread for your dedicated Mirage IV Ideas and Inspiration.
To start with, I like Evan's idea...maybe also for France and Australia. What missiles though?
Regards,
Greg
-
Another idea is for a RAAF Mirage IV armed with pave tack pod on the centreline.
Regards,
Greg
-
What missiles though?
Bendix Eagles, of course. ;D
-
I was thinking of perhaps an active radar Matra R.530 or perhaps a Mirage IV able to guide multiple Matra R.530s. Maybe even a Mirage I'VE armed with a pair each of standard SARH and standard IR Matra R.530s - 2 under each wing. Would be a bit like a Soviet interceptor then.
-
Another idea is for a RAAF Mirage IV armed with pave tack pod on the centreline.
That would certainly be an interesting load out.
What about arming it with electro-optical guided weapons such as the GBU-8?
-
Another idea is for a RAAF Mirage IV armed with pave tack pod on the centreline.
Fitted with LGBs or with AS-30L and other laser-guided weaponry? I'd reckon most likely a mix to give the crew attack options. At least with Pave Tack you don't need to keep pointed at the target. I wonder how a laser-guided variant of the Martel or Exocet would look? For that matter, add laser-guidance to a Sea Eagle?
-
Maybe duplicate the "supersonic external fuel tank with hardpoints" idea from the Mirage III/5?
-
Evan, I'm a little confused as to using laser-guided AShMs. Given their range & internal active radar systems, where would the need/use of a laser guidance system come into place?
Regards,
John
-
For another idea, maybe a VG Mirage IV or perhaps a VTOL Mirage IV?
-
Evan, I'm a little confused as to using laser-guided AShMs. Given their range & internal active radar systems, where would the need/use of a laser guidance system come into place?
You'd need to launch from altitude to get the view while staying out of engagement range, but detecting getting painted with a laser designator is a bit more difficult to catch than being tracked by an active radar. It's about reducing the time the other side has to observe and react to an attack.
-
For my RAAF Mirage IV, I am actually thinking of one in the later years of their service life and in the same dark grey scheme as worn by the F-111Cs:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/121-A8-125FirstF-111tolandinAustraliain1973lasttolandin2010.jpg)
Armament might be either LGBs or even a pair of AGM-142s.
Regards,
Greg
-
You'd need to launch from altitude to get the view while staying out of engagement range, but detecting getting painted with a laser designator is a bit more difficult to catch than being tracked by an active radar. It's about reducing the time the other side has to observe and react to an attack.
Ok, but wouldn't the target's (or battlegroup's) radar pick up the launch aircraft if it was at altitude? I was always of the assumption that half the reason for AShM's effectiveness is their ability to get down amongst the waves fairly early in the flight profile to avoid detection in the first instance. Give the launch platform an altitude where it can paint a target with a laser and it has to stay there for all the world to see. At least conventional AShMs are fire & forget not requiring continuous illumination like a laser guided weapon. Their active radar (which I believe in some instances can be programmed to cycle anyway) was their main 'selling point' when the designs first came into play.
Regards,
John
-
The idea of using LGBs for anti shipping strikes isn't that odd - the RAAF used to do this with the F-111. A LGB is much less expensive then a AGM-84 or similar and you can also make use of a separate designator aircraft than the bomb carrier.
-
Too, there's always launch from far away and designate with a drone (though the swiveling optics of the Pave Tack pod do allow you to designate while moving away from the target).
-
Basically use an over the shoulder toss.
-
Basically use an over the shoulder toss.
That or just drop and turn away and track/designate using the swiveling optics head of the pod.
-
I'd think you'd still be at altitude though and therefore a greater chance of giving a radar return? Whilst this is all well and good (in fact, mandatory unless you're using off platform designation) with a guided bomb on a ballistic trajectory, I can't see the sense with a powered missile designed specifically to skim wavetops as part of its flight profile.
To my mind (mine, note) it seems a case of saying "hey guys, here we are up here shooting a missile at you" rather than launching a Harpoon or the like and exiting stage right as they say in the funnies.
Regards,
John
-
Another dowsed of the Missile over the LGB is that a missile is more prone to jamming etc. Either way, both have their uses so it doesn't really matter does it.
Now getting back to Mirage IV ideas:
An Israeli Mirage IV with J-79s and a pair of AGM-142s.
-
An Israeli Mirage IV with J-79s and a pair of AGM-142s.
That sounds like a winner. Perhaps carrying a few AAMs for self-defense?
-
Python 3s or Python 4s on outer pylons. :icon_ninja:
-
I seem to recal a certain Sentinel Chicken doing some alternate Mirage IV profiles ...maybe he will be able to repost them here.
-
Some Venezuelan Mirage IVs would certainly be interesting ...
-
Some Venezuelan Mirage IVs would certainly be interesting ...
Perhaps along side Brazilian ones? I can't see any other nation down there affording a squadron of them.
-
Python 3s or Python 4s on outer pylons. :icon_ninja:
Possibly a developed version with suitably sized canards?
-
Some Venezuelan Mirage IVs would certainly be interesting ...
Perhaps along side Brazilian ones? I can't see any other nation down there affording a squadron of them.
Oh, yes please!
-
RAAF Mirage IVO armed with a lot of 1000 pound bombs for a mission somewhere in SEA wearing the camouflage scheme seen on the Canberra.
-
RAAF Mirage IVO armed with a lot of 1000 pound bombs for a mission somewhere in SEA wearing the camouflage scheme seen on the Canberra.
Maybe in an extended Vietnam War scenario?
-
Another use for LGBs in anti-ship warfare come when you can get above the ceiling of the target's SAMs. I once, in a game of Harpoon, had the pleasure of "plinking" a Boris Chilikin class supply ship and it's escorting Krivak while their SA-N-4's spluttered and fell back 20,000 ft below my AV-8Bs.... 8)
2000lb LGBs are devastation in this scenario: they have about four times the warhead of typical AShMs and the hit vertically, going right down into the magazines.... :o
Re the Mirage IV, the "standard" Whiff must surely be an RAF one with Speys, which was proposed as a "high and fast" repalcement for TSR.2.
-
In my divided Austria alternate history, I came up with a storyline for an export version of the Mirage IV as a conventional strike platform.
I did away with the fuselage recess in favour of a redesigned lower fuselage with a series of hardpoints for pylons and moved the radar from the belly to the nose.
The removal of the recess and the relocation of the radar freed up an appreciable amount of internal volume for fuel and reduced the need for drop tanks in some mission profiles.
The revised forward fuselage provided better visibility to the crew and opened up space for newer avionics.
I felt such changes might have actually made the Mirage IV more attractive in real life as an export prospect.
Apophenia quite generously did up a couple of profiles:
(https://i.imgur.com/DUfJjr5.jpg)
I've also thought the Mirage IV might have some potential in anti-shipping, SEAD or ECM missions as well.
-
Egyptian. Then the Israelis get the F-111 to counter it.
Both withdrawn on a peace accord, retain color schemes but carry markings of country of origin.
-
How about a Swedish Mirage IV? Sweden continues nuclear weapons project but drops the A-36?
-
:). This.
-
Royal Norwegian Air Force, anti shipping or ELINT.
-
How about a Swedish Mirage IV? Sweden continues nuclear weapons project but drops the A-36?
Or a SAAB Draken IV, similar inconcept the Mirage IV, a larger twin engined bomber with a semi recessed nuc.
-
Hmmm...does anyone produce a 1/32 Draken?
-
Hmmm...does anyone produce a 1/32 Draken?
Not as off 2007 according to the PAK-20 book Greg. 2007 is the last issue before the author retired, but Jeff Garrity of Rare-Plane Detective/Nostalgic Plastic tells me he is taking in any info on corrections to the books. I'm wondering if he will continue the work --
-
If the SAAB Draken bomber is to be twin-engined like its French counterpart, then from a modelling
standpoint I think it would be easier to Draken-ize the old Heller 1/48 Mirage IV than to turn a single
engine 1/32 Draken kit into a twin.
If such kit even existed, of course. ;D
-
If the SAAB Draken bomber is to be twin-engined like its French counterpart, then from a modelling
standpoint I think it would be easier to Draken-ize the old Heller 1/48 Mirage IV than to turn a single
engine 1/32 Draken kit into a twin.
If such kit even existed, of course. ;D
i'd argue that working with a 1/48 Draken to make a 1/72 twin-engined bomber would work, though my take on a hybrid A-36 is a F-105F/Draken cross - 1/72 and 1/48 base kits respectively (using the old Lindberg/Addams Draken kit).
-
I always thought the Mirage IV would look great in RAAF markings, the ARDU "Fanta Can" scheme would look particularly fetching on it.
Great idea. Hopefully someone will take that and create something in RAAF markings.
Changing the nose on the Mirage IV to an actual radome instead of the IFR probe and camera ports would also be good. Add an IFR probe from the Tornado somewhere near the cockpit area and adapt the radome from another Mirage variant to fit up front. The other radome on the underside of the fuselage would also need to be removed to free up space for more fuel and external stores such as the stores pylons mounted on the fuselage of the Panavia Tornado. With all of that space under the Mirage IV you could spread them out a little more so you could have all three in use at the same time.
-
Radome and air-to-air missiles to be a long range interceptor to deal with Russian and Chinese bombers and maritime patrol aircraft.
Can pack Harpoon and Tomahawk and ? for attack missions.
-
Radome and air-to-air missiles to be a long range interceptor to deal with Russian and Chinese bombers and maritime patrol aircraft.
That almost sounds like a Western answer to the Tupolev Tu-128 "Fiddler"
-
Radome and air-to-air missiles to be a long range interceptor to deal with Russian and Chinese bombers and maritime patrol aircraft.
That almost sounds like a Western answer to the Tupolev Tu-128 "Fiddler"
Yes, thatz it. Couldn't remember the designation.
Wonder what happend to them - like date of last flight? Don't think therez any kits of the Tu-128 !
-
I think there's an A-Monster kit of the Tu-128, but be prepared for the damage it'll do to a) your wallet and b) your back....
-
Radome and air-to-air missiles to be a long range interceptor to deal with Russian and Chinese bombers and maritime patrol aircraft.
That almost sounds like a Western answer to the Tupolev Tu-128 "Fiddler"
Yes, thatz it. Couldn't remember the designation.
Wonder what happend to them - like date of last flight? Don't think therez any kits of the Tu-128 !
Most references give 1990 as the retirement date of Russia's remaining "Fiddler" fleet. The AA-5 "Ash" missile that was peculiar to it was retired at the same time.
The MiG-31 "Foxhound" replaced the Tupolev in several units during the 1980s.
-
Yes, thatz it. Couldn't remember the designation.
Wonder what happend to them - like date of last flight? Don't think therez any kits of the Tu-128 !
According to the PAK-20 book, you should really be looking at Tu-28/128.
In 1/72 scale there's; Cramer-Craft, Elliot, Leoman, Sanger (Contrail) and A-Model
-
What about an internal weapons bay where the original recessed area was located for the nuclear device? With the removal of the bombing/navigation radar just ahead of this the space could then be allocated to fuel and equipment that may need to be moved from between the engines. The weapons bay would not be very deep (think of something like that found on the TSR.2), just enough room for two to four 1000 pound class general purpose bombs depending on configuration.
-
I love the idea of a Mirage IV heavy interceptor. Maybe arm with boosted Matra R.530s?
-
I seem to recal a certain Sentinel Chicken doing some alternate Mirage IV profiles ...maybe he will be able to repost them here.
Speaking of which:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsb1994024.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps7bec2e21.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps7100fb20.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpseff86c2c.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsa27287f2.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsf3b158b5.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps5ec8f6b0.jpg)
-
And one from Jeremy:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps25f249a3.jpg)
-
And finally, just a nice photo:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps68b83ac6.jpg)
-
oooh, now that is nice! :D
-
I like to picture it as a pair of heavy interceptors...
-
How many Matras?
-
I like the RCAF version myself. :icon_ninja:
Load it up with AIM-47s or AIM-54s.
-
Random idea: Venezuelan Mirage IV in this sort of scheme:
(http://panamericandefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/3319927505_6ca3fe351c.jpg)
Enough to make the USA a little more concerned…maybe ;)
-
Apparently there were plans for variants with either RR Speys or TF-106 engines. What about some other options:
- J79
- M53 - presumably a late '70s/early - mid '80s update
- GE110 - presumably an update to the TF-106 variant
-
Some photos of the Mirage III and Mirage IV together to give a sense of the size difference:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VclYm45-dp0/UZy7vlZ4jiI/AAAAAAAACFs/QqCbcFYG6fs/s1600/Dassault_Series-01.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dAowwvDn7Ss/UZyHLWWmRAI/AAAAAAAACCc/0Ty_AVvRbI0/s1600/4898151871_26135d0f97_z.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0b/16/7c/0b167cc8206b685bc9451310b6d904b5.jpg)
-
Apparently there was a real world study, that never went beyond that, for a Mirage IVRJ version for Israel. It would have been optimized for reconnaissance by with a secondary ground attack capability. It suggests several interesting whif possibilities.
-
I keep thinking of an Israeli Mirage IV with a recessed Pave Tack pod and LGB's hung on combined fuel tank/ejector rack units under the wings.
-
Apparently there was a real world study, that never went beyond that, for a Mirage IVRJ version for Israel. It would have been optimized for reconnaissance by with a secondary ground attack capability. It suggests several interesting whif possibilities.
Considering Israel is supposed to have nuclear weapons, it would be a way to deliver them too ---. The Heller 1/72 kit I have comes with a 'shape' ----
-
I keep thinking of an Israeli Mirage IV with a recessed Pave Tack pod and LGB's hung on combined fuel tank/ejector rack units under the wings.
I have considered similar for a late '80s era RAAF version.
-
According to the 50tj Anniversary history of Dassault, the Mirage IVR was a recce and conventional strike variant with all nuclear capability removed. It apparently was proposed to Australia and Germany. The Germans wanted enhanced fuel tankage and, for commonality with their fighter fleet, J79 engines. Stretching the fuselage and adding the cooling scoops for the J79s (IIRC, they run hotter than the ATAR 9K engines) would make a nice whif, especially if other countries operating J79-powered aircraft took an interest.
-
Any drawings?
-
Any drawings?
Unfortunately, no. Just the written descriptions.
-
According to the 50tj Anniversary history of Dassault, the Mirage IVR was a recce and conventional strike variant with all nuclear capability removed. It apparently was proposed to Australia and Germany. The Germans wanted enhanced fuel tankage and, for commonality with their fighter fleet, J79 engines. Stretching the fuselage and adding the cooling scoops for the J79s (IIRC, they run hotter than the ATAR 9K engines) would make a nice whif, especially if other countries operating J79-powered aircraft took an interest.
Flying an aircraft designed for ATAR 9s on J-79s would have been sporty, indeed. The J-79 has 50% more thrust on burner than the ATAR 9. In fact, the J-79 has almost as much thrust "dry" as the ATAR does on full reheat.
If the German government had been willing to accept a small max speed decrease, they probably could have gotten a supercruising Mirage IV with far greater range if they used J-79s but completely deleted the afterburner cans and either cut the fuselage shorter to reduce form drag and/or increased tankgage and moved the engines back and shortened the inlet ducts to suit.
Imagine a Mirage IV with a, say, Mach 1.9 sustained speed (instead of 2.2) cruising at that speed for the entire range of 1000 miles (instead of 775 mi for the regular Mirage IV). Much more effective and harder to intercept in the mid 60s to 80s period than a subsonic cruise plus 5 minutes at M2.2 in and out of the target.
Using a dry thrust Spey would have been even better for range, but would have needed deeper fuselage for the larger engines and larger inlets, possibly costing a bit more speed at the top end, but likely permitting that speed to be maintained for even longer given the much greater economy of a turbofan.
Smells like very WHIFable concepts...
-
I believe a reheated ATAR 9K-10 is not that far off a reheated J79, 15,800 lbf as opposed to 15,600 - 17,900 lbf depending on J79 version.
-
Is there anything on the significantly larger Mirage IVB design, powered by two SNECMA license-built Pratt & Whitney J75 engines and having a wing area of 120 m² (1,290 sq ft) compared to 70 m² (750 sq ft) of the prototype IV, as well as a speed of Mach 2.4 and a gross weight of 64,000 kilograms (140,000 lb)?
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XWS3tKizGY4/T6fcZbxhVcI/AAAAAAAABQw/xtLEEHze-Kc/s640/ensemble1b.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-MXMoTjo0PpY/T6fcZRFE8zI/AAAAAAAABQ0/0fqvkNIiD-g/s640/ensemble2b.jpg)
Or the Mirage IV-106 variant with 2 SNECMA TF106 (license-built Pratt and Whitney) engines, an enlarged 105,000 gross-weight fuselage, terrain-avoidance radar, and armed with a proposed French version of the American Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile?
-
BTW, the Mirage IVB has been modelled:
(http://maquette72.free.fr/amis/JCHoug/2014_20_mirage4b/photos_jch_mirage4b/000_mirage4b.jpg)
See here (http://maquette72.free.fr/amis/JCHoug/2014_20_mirage4b/index_ajch20.php) for more details.
-
Is there anything on the significantly larger Mirage IVB design, powered by two SNECMA license-built Pratt & Whitney J75 engines and having a wing area of 120 m² (1,290 sq ft) compared to 70 m² (750 sq ft) of the prototype IV, as well as a speed of Mach 2.4 and a gross weight of 64,000 kilograms (140,000 lb)?
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XWS3tKizGY4/T6fcZbxhVcI/AAAAAAAABQw/xtLEEHze-Kc/s640/ensemble1b.jpg)
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-MXMoTjo0PpY/T6fcZRFE8zI/AAAAAAAABQ0/0fqvkNIiD-g/s640/ensemble2b.jpg)
Or the Mirage IV-106 variant with 2 SNECMA TF106 (license-built Pratt and Whitney) engines, an enlarged 105,000 gross-weight fuselage, terrain-avoidance radar, and armed with a proposed French version of the American Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile?
The Dassault 50th Anniversary book has three-views of the Mirage IV 01, the Mirage IVA, the Mirage IVB, and the Minerve IV with Gamma II missile.
-
Which book is that?
-
Which book is that?
It's a two-volume boxed set, 1945-1995, 50 Years of Aeronautical Adventure and is a 50th anniversary history of Dassault. Book 1 covers "The Corporation" and Book 2 covers "The Programs". It's published by Editiones Du Chene and is quite the massive boxed set.
I purchase mine through Amazon (only place I've seen it).
-
One from Secret Projects that deserved to be posted here:
It all started with this quote by Paul:
"Dassault and British Aircraft Corp. have made a presentation of the Mirage 4 powered with Rolls-Royce Tyne engines" Aviation Week, 26 July 1965.
To which Chris Gibson has responded to with this (amongst other iterations):
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner117/Dassault_Mirage_IV_Connerie_4_engines_A4_zpsdwf5k0kj.png)
Original thread (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mirage-iv-with-tyne-engines.33510/#post-387477)
-
OH GOSH ! Is Mirage IV in stash.
-
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_02_2015/post-841-0-16419400-1422910049.jpg)
-
Random idea - Mirage IV anti shipping version carrying two Exocets
-
Just a photo:
(https://combatace.com/uploads/post-25040-1239390883.jpg)
CFBV
-
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2021_10/img00002.thumb.JPG.90e202bcdddb5808c3259ae47269bb0a.JPG)
(https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_2021_10/img00001.thumb.JPG.f4df3bdfc336e767969488bc9c814706.JPG)
-
There is a great video on YouTube of a Mirage IV taking off in a scramble firing six JATO units off in sequence. I could use a couple of those for a project I would llike to do with a Mirage G8.
-
There is a great video on YouTube of a Mirage IV taking off in a scramble firing six JATO units off in sequence. I could use a couple of those for a project I would llike to do with a Mirage G8.
This one: https://youtu.be/Glca7Rgi5cQ (https://youtu.be/Glca7Rgi5cQ) ?
Skyraider Model Design did do some in 1/48 but I think they're hard, if not impossible, to find:
(https://www.aviationmegastore.com/img/skyraider-model-design-smds48028-jato-rocket-pack-for-mirage-iv-faf-81471_0.jpg)
https://www.aviationmegastore.com/modelling/jato-rocket-pack-for-mirage-iv-skyraider-model-design-smds48028-81471.html (https://www.aviationmegastore.com/modelling/jato-rocket-pack-for-mirage-iv-skyraider-model-design-smds48028-81471.html)
-
Exactly. Now I got an idea of their shape, it looks like something I could scratch together. ANyway, all I need are two for my project.
-
These images might also assist:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/IMG_0057_copy_1_.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/IMG_0060_copy_1_.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/IMG_0059_1_copy_1_.jpg)
-
thank you so much for those underwing shots. I'll be able to fit one under the fixed part of each G8 wing. I have the G8, the bljurred runway to download, and now I got to get off my lazy butt and do it. Now to dig up some Super Etendard or Crusader markings.
-
Mirage IV NG
You may think that canopy is not in scale..., but it is in scale!
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/MirageIV-NG.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/MirageIV-NG.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds"")
-
I like. :smiley:
-
Random Idea: Mirage IV Interceptor with air launched Sea Dart derivative missiles