Author Topic: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please  (Read 2132 times)

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
G'day gents

Once again needing to pick the brain's of forum members for my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT'
If the Administrator(s) don't mind, could I use this space to address my on going questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT', instead of generating a new topic each time?

As I'm desperately attempting to make my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' as real/workable as possible, I have the following questions to the forum:

1/ I've just finished reading that Ed Heinemann wanted to use the Rolls Royce Avon turbojet instead of the Wright J65 turbojet (itself a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet). So I'm hoping to get feedback as to how difficult it might have been to incorporate the Rolls Royce Avon into the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk for use by the RAAF and RAN?

2/ I believe that when the Canada looked at the CA-4F Skyhawk proposal, as a replacement for it's McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee aboard its carrier HMCS Bonaventure (http://a4skyhawk.info/article-unit/proposal-canada), it was stated the HMCS
Quote
Bonaventure could have carried and operated 25 of these aircraft

So my question is this, if I was to use the Majestic class carrier (HMAS Melbourne) in a 'swing role' - lets say in an offensive strike mission, what does the forum think would be the minimum ASW assets - Gannet/Wessex or Tracker/Sea King I would need aboard to facilitate a self-protection ASW capability aboard to protect the carrier?

3/ As much as I believe the Grumman S2F Tracker was a quantum leap in terms of capability when it replaced the Gannet aboard HMAS Melbourne, the fact is they were a big space consumer on and below deck, to say nothing of more difficult to launch and recover.....
Does the forum think that the Gannet could have realistically been upgraded to remain operationally effective in the ASW/ASV role?
Failing this, what is the forum's notion of the French Breguet Br.1050 Alizé as a Gannet replacement (It's size being smaller than the S2F Tracker, but its sensor and weapons capacity being somewhat less capable)
(Please note, keeping in mind that what ever design (Gannet/Tracker/Alize), its paramount that a AEW variant has to come of it!

Looking forward to your views and feedback!

M.A.D

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Very interesting attachment, particularly the line that the A-7 was believed, with minor modifications, to be able to operate from a modernised majestic.

I recall reading somewhere that the RN did a study comparing a Skyhawk Group to a Phantom / Buccaneer Group on Hermes with the Skyhawk delivering more capability and lower cost through 30-35 airframes verses a total of about (I believe fewer) 20 Phantoms and Buccs.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Yes, that is interesting Volkodav
The fact that the seeming perpetual want and need of larger, heavier, costlier options (trends) negated the likes of the Scooter is sad! It's not hard to imagine Hermes soldiering on longer with a complement of Skyhawk's as its principle aircraft.

M.A.D
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 07:52:04 PM by M.A.D »

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Especially if you look at the NZ, Singaporean and Israeli upgrades to the type.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Especially if you look at the NZ, Singaporean and Israeli upgrades to the type.
True!

M.A.D

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
The RAAF didn't opt for an Avon powered Mirage III (despite the fact that Dassault would have borne most of the costs for the modifications) because the costs were too prohibitive - one was built.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series3/A3.htm

The same would probably apply to the Sh!tduck Scooter.

The Tracker was too much of an advance - it had MAD technology (the boom), a much better radar, more sono-buoy capacity,  over double the combat load & almost twice the loiter time - & was not that much bigger than either the Gannet or the Alizé (especially length-wise) when folded up. Their biggest difference was height but they still fit in Melbourne's hangar.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2018, 09:40:54 AM »
G'day gents, and a Happy New Year to you and your families!!

I have a couple more technical questions pertaining to my Alternative ADF ORBAT of the forum members, if I may please:

1/ I have only ever seen, and am made to believe that the Dassault Mirage III was only equipped to carry and launch a single Matra R.530 (semi active radar homing variant) AAM on its fuselage centreline hardpoint.
So is there any 'physical' reason why the Mirage III couldn't be configured during manufacturing (or retrofitted/updated regards to wiring) a R.530 AAM under each main wing hardpoint (in place of wing-mounted drop tank)?
Being mounted on the 'main-wing hardpoint (which a capacity within the scope of the R.530's 143 kg (315 lb) weight), with pylon, does the Mirage III have the ground clearance to carry the R.530 in this manner?

Also, so as to compensate for the loss of the two wing-mounted drop tanks to facilitating of the two R.530's, did Dassault offer a larger capacity centreline drop tank for the Mirage III series in the 1960's? Ive read somewhere that that Mirage IIIE could carry a 1300 L drop tank (with 1038kg of fuel for 199 nm of range), a 1700 L drop tank (with 1358 kg of fuel for 260 nm of range), but this information is from one of my hard drives, without a reference, as to where I obtained these figures, just as I'm not sure if the these 1300 L and or 1700 L drop tank are in relation to the centreline hardpoint? :icon_crap:

2/ Does anyone have any knowledge of the ground clearance of the Saab A32 Lansen from ground to wing pylons? As to, the ground clearance of the Mirage IIIE from ground to wing pylons, as well as centreline hardpoint, as Im trying to ascertain as to whether it is permissible to fit the Swedish RB-04 air-to-ground missiles under/on the centreline hardpoint of the two-seat Mirage IIID? Also, saying this, does anyone have any suggestions as to how I might be able to allow the same Mirage IIID to carry and operate PS-431/A radar, which the Saab A32 Lansen uses in coordination with the RB-04 missile?
Do you think that the PS-431/A radar could be mounted in an under fuselage radome like the Saab A32 Lansen, or I was thinking of perhaps a modified bulbous nosed-type drop tank arrangement, something like the long-range drop tanks used by the Mirage 2000N, so as to house the radar?

Your suggestions and feedback would be greatly appreciated!


Thanks in advance!


M.A.D 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 06:31:45 PM by M.A.D »

Offline ScranJ51

  • Fast Jet, Fast Prop, Fast Racing Cars - thats me!!
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2018, 06:24:30 AM »
According to the RAAF Mirage Flight Manual (page 1-26), the largest tank that could be carried on the centre-line was the 286 Gal (1300L) tank - the 374 Gal (BIG Jugs - 1700L) were only for the wing points.  These tanks are all jettisonable.


The IIID could only carry a 242 Gal tank on the centre-line - because of clearance with the forward landing gear.

As to your question about ground clearance of a R530 on the wing points - looking at a couple of photos I have added here - on A3-58 the lower fins on the  R530 centre-line fit come down to about the axle

58 by David Freeman,

and on A3-55 with 286's fitted - the tanks come down to about the axle also

55 (2) by David Freeman, on Flickr

 - so I don't see why R530's would have ground clearance issues with your proposal.




Scran
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 12:42:47 PM by ScranJ51 »
Fast Jet, Fast Prop, Fast Racing Cars - thats me!!

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2018, 02:44:13 PM »
Thank you kindly ScranJ51, your assistance is both appreciative and encouraging!

So my heavier single-seat, Mirage IIIO(F) equipped with two wing-mounted R530's, two wing-mounted Aim-9B's and a centreline-mounted 1,300 lL (286 Gal) drop tank sounds a little more plausible  :P

I'm also happy to see those two 1,700 L (374 Gal) drop tank on an RAAF Mirage III, thanks mate!

You wouldn't know the diameter of those 1,700 L (374 Gal) would you?

M.A.D

Offline ScranJ51

  • Fast Jet, Fast Prop, Fast Racing Cars - thats me!!
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2018, 03:18:47 PM »
Just confirming - the picture of A3-55 the aircraft is carrying 286 Gal/1300L tanks - NOT Big Jugs.

I think in my 16 years or so associated with Mirages I saw 374 Gal tanks maybe 4 times.

No pics I can find, and no idea as to diameter etc.

The Flight Manual is very informative about Big Jugs - they are only for ferry reasons and there are major limitations placed on the aircraft when carrying them - including speed, aileron input rate/rate of roll, C of G issues etc.

Basically - I doubt if there is any practical application available to you unless in ferry configuration.

And yes - I think your configuration - AIM-9s outboard, R-530 on the wings and a 286 Gal on the centre-line is feasible.


Pleasure

Dave
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 03:22:07 PM by ScranJ51 »
Fast Jet, Fast Prop, Fast Racing Cars - thats me!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2018, 03:06:34 AM »
I wonder if the limitation to one R.530 was more about operational restrictions than purely weight/space.  Specifically, was the SARH guidance combined with missile range, aircraft speed and Thomson-CSF Cyrano II radar capability effectively limiting the use to one SARH missile shot per engagement?  The aircraft would presumably be coming in a max speed, have a missile capable of up to 20km range (at best), a radar at best giving 50km range but only able to guide a single missile.  By the time the first missile finished its engagement the aircraft would probably have been too close for another shot and would have to go to WVR weapons (IR short range missiles and guns).

The only other option I can see for more than 1 R.530 would be if the IR version was used (and I don't believe the RAAF had those) was used though I understand it was very much a rear aspect (i.e. tail chaser) missile.  In such a situation one might expect a Mirage III to carry one of each type and use them a bit like the Soviets used their missiles on interceptors.  Overall though I think it would be a retrograde step given the performance of the R.530.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2018, 03:43:51 AM »
That would make sense to me, Greg. I've read opinions from the French, Israeli, Spanish, and Argentinian pilots that all felt that the best place for an R.530 was on the ground in the box that it was shipped in.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2018, 04:01:44 AM »
Why limit the weapon to the SARH version when there was an IRH version also available?  At least then with both versions strapped on you have the initial shot using the SARH R.530 and follow up shot with the IRH R.530. 

Wikipedia R.530 AAM
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2018, 05:12:49 AM »
Theoretically, I know of no reason you couldn't modify a Mirage III to carry an R.530 on each pylon if you were so inclined, and having one SARH and one IRH might be a pretty good solution to some problems.

Practically, however, the missile was terrible in all its forms. Despite having over a thousand exported to the various Mirage III and Mirage F1 users over about 20 years, I know of only 3-4 confirmed kills with the missile. And, unlike something like the Firestreak or Red Top, it wasn't due to lack of opportunity. The Mirage III and F1 users saw plenty of combat from the 1960s to the 1990s. Its just that the operators opted not to use the darn thing. You were better flying with nothing on the pylon at all than bringing it along. As far as air-to-air goes, all accounts I've read seem to point to guns and either Sidewinders or Magics being the way to go.

I don't want to be too hard on the R.530, though. Up until the 70s, the Sidewinder was one of the few AAMs worth its weight. Designers largely recognized this. Most early AAMs were designed against the bomber threat, which really never materialized, thankfully. As long as your target was something like a Tu-16, M-4, or Tu-95, then you were probably fine. If it was smaller or nimbler, then forget it. Heck, one of the few R.530 kills was against a Canberra, which was much more the intended recipient.

In this scenario, they'd probably work against Indonesian Tu-16s, but that's about it.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2018, 09:21:07 AM »
Thank you gents,  your feedback and knowledge is most helpful!

I had a combination radar and IR seeker R530''s in mind - aka Soviet style, although I was under the impression the IR variant came years later  :-\

The notion of Red Top / Firestreak crossed my, but I thought the incorporation to the RAAF's Mirage III would probably go against the real-world notion of cost effectiveness I'm envisaging in my Alternative ADF ORBAT scenario...... Although saying this,  I was seriously contemplating a Aim-7 Sparrow / Mirage IIIO integration  :P

Quote
In this scenario, they'd probably work against Indonesian Tu-16s, but that's about it.

Logan my friend,  you are right on the money,  as far as my scenario goes - Indonesian Tu-16's and latter Tu-22 Blinder's as a response to Australia's more proactive stance against open Indonesian aggression!

So, anyone got any thoughts on my Mirage IIIOD and the housing of PS-431/A radar?
I'm wondering if the modified drop tank isn't practical / workable, if the idea of a bulbous redone reminiscent of the Royal Navy McDonnell F-4M / RAF McDonnell F-4K might be permeable on the Mirage IIID, to contain the PS-431/A radar dish (if only I could find the diameter of the  PS-431/A :-\ )
(Note: I'm compound to use two-seat Mirage IIID, as it would allow for a navigator/Weapons Officer)

M.A.D
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 01:46:39 PM by M.A.D »