Author Topic: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please  (Read 1854 times)

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 #15 on: January 06, 2018, 03:55:38 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

Errr...that's what I suggested.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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 #16 on: January 06, 2018, 04:03:25 AM »
Another option might be to follow the mention in "The RAAF Mirage Story" by WGCDR Susans.  This stated that the Swiss were well advanced in studying/developing a TARAN-18 and [AIM-7] Sparrow combination for the Mirage III.  This may be a typo with AIM-7 meant to be AIM-4 Falcon though. 
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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 #17 on: January 06, 2018, 06:19:01 AM »
Another option might be to follow the mention in "The RAAF Mirage Story" by WGCDR Susans.  This stated that the Swiss were well advanced in studying/developing a TARAN-18 and [AIM-7] Sparrow combination for the Mirage III.  This may be a typo with AIM-7 meant to be AIM-4 Falcon though.

You know Greg,  I think I've read something similar, which in fact may have been what gave me the impitous to think of the Mirage III /Aim-7 combination, on the grounds that much of the cost of R&D had already been done - or at least milled over!  But now that you've mentioned typo.....  :-\

M.A.D

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 #18 on: January 06, 2018, 07:06:51 AM »
Some more info on the Matra R.530:

Max nominal range was 18km (probably considerably less in a frontal aspect due to both launcher and target closing rapidly).  I have also read that it was often less than this and also suffered problems in conjunction with the Mirage III's Cyrano radar with loss of lock often occurring.  The SARH version entered service in 1962/63 whilst the IR version was in the early 1970's.

Unless one was going for the Soviet style ripple fire of a IR and SARH version, I doubt there would be much benefit in carrying more than 1 missile.  Given the range and engagement parameters mentioned earlier, I think the chance of a second shot would be negligible.  In fact, it would probably degrade one's overall capability since space/weight dedicated to the R.530 could be better utilised by smaller WVR missiles useful following the merge - i.e. the R.530 weighed close to 200kg whereas smaller WVR missiles such as the R.550 Magic or AIM-9 are around 90kg.  Therefore one could generally put two WVR missiles instead of the one R.530.  Much more useful.

The only advantage really of the R.530 (and why one was carried) beyond a pure bomber intercept role, would be to get in the first shot in an engagement and make the other bugger go onto the defensive.  You might not really expect a kill from it but if you make the other guy get distracted, it gives you a good chance of getting him with your second shot whilst also providing a reason for him not to shoot at you.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 07:10:07 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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 #19 on: January 07, 2018, 05:12:28 AM »
why the duplicate post?

Dam good question Greg!  :-\
Didn't realise I had done it in all honesty  :-[

I'll test and adjust  ;)

P.S. as for your latest reply, very interesting, and relevant.
In fact, I might incorporate a similar finding by the RAAF in my backstory and/or this finding might give impetus for the RAAF pushing for the fitting of Aim-7 Sparrow's to it's Mirage III fleet......now what's the name/designation of the of that bloody illuminator needed in conjunction with Sparrow, and how will I incorporate it into the tiny Mirage III airframe?  :P

Thank's Greg

M.A.D

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 #20 on: January 07, 2018, 06:44:29 AM »
now what's the name/designation of the of that bloody illuminator needed in conjunction with Sparrow, and how will I incorporate it into the tiny Mirage III airframe? 

The AN/APA-128 or AN/APA-157 or similar?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 06:57:49 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2018, 08:34:06 AM »
Just a thought, but how about incorporating the AIM-9C seeker (or improved versions thereof) onto later model Sidewinder airframes (or R550 airframes)?  It was a SARH version of the Sidewinder designed specifically to add capability to the F-8.

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 #22 on: January 08, 2018, 02:03:35 AM »
Just a thought, but how about incorporating the AIM-9C seeker (or improved versions thereof) onto later model Sidewinder airframes (or R550 airframes)?  It was a SARH version of the Sidewinder designed specifically to add capability to the F-8.


Or maybe merge the AIM-9C with later AIM-9 HAP:




That said, I suspect the similar engagement parameters would still come into play.

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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 #23 on: January 09, 2018, 07:17:40 PM »
Just a thought, but how about incorporating the AIM-9C seeker (or improved versions thereof) onto later model Sidewinder airframes (or R550 airframes)?  It was a SARH version of the Sidewinder designed specifically to add capability to the F-8.

Thanks elmayerle, your suggestion of the Aim-9C, along with GTX's analysis of weight, drag and unreliability of the R.530 probably makes a lot of sense; although I still envisage the ADF probably wanting the interception of any cruise missile carry Badger to be intercepted at the longest possible stand-off range......But you have me thinking ...... :P
Thank's heaps for your input ;)

M.A.D

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 #24 on: January 09, 2018, 07:25:59 PM »
Just a thought, but how about incorporating the AIM-9C seeker (or improved versions thereof) onto later model Sidewinder airframes (or R550 airframes)?  It was a SARH version of the Sidewinder designed specifically to add capability to the F-8.


Or maybe merge the AIM-9C with later AIM-9 HAP:




That said, I suspect the similar engagement parameters would still come into play.


Wow, never heard of this hybrid Aim-9 HAP before Greg  :P I like the concept, but could you give me a better insight into it's timeframe of R&D please?
I can't seem to find much on the program  :-\ Was it a seriously considered weapons program and for which service - USAF or USN? Or was it simply an R&D thing?

Thanks for your input mate!

M.A.D

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 #25 on: January 16, 2018, 08:33:54 AM »
OK, after receiving your enlightening feed back, I've done a little further research re the notion of a 'mixed' IR and radar (Aim-9C) guided Sidewinder AAM armament for my Alternative ADF ORBAT Mirage III's, as possibly the lightest, simplist and most cost effective armament arrangement for killing bombers.
During this research into the Aim-9C, I found this:

Quote
'Because the Aim-9C relied on signals transmitted by the launch aircraft, and reelected by the target aircraft, the lack of Doppler processing made the Aim-9C's performance poor at low altitude or in a lookdown situation where the Aim-9C would confuse ground clutter for the legitimate signal.'

(Source: Elizabeth Babcock, 2008. Magnificent mavericks : transition of the Naval Ordnance Test Station from rocket station to research, development, test, and evaluation center, 1948-58)

Now this is interesting, because I was strongly favouring the idea/notion of equipping my RAN carrier's with a similar mixed IR and radar-guided Sidewinder AAM armed Vought-Chance V-384! But neither the V-383 (F8U Crusader) not the V-384 had a Doppler radar fitted.
So as much as its obvious that Mirage IIIO(A) had a Doppler fitted, which I hope elevates the issue and effectiveness of the Aim-9C/Mirage IIIO combination for the RAAF; does the forum think the V-384 (or for that matter, it's larger brethren, the F8U Crusader) could accommodate a Doppler radar to fix the Aim-9C/V-384 short coming issue?

I fully appreciate that the V-383 and even more so the smaller V-384 limited space for such a request.

M.A.D

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Technical Questions in relation to my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' please
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2018, 08:58:14 AM »
I suspect the biggest concern is the difference in the size of the electronics boxes required and the necessary cabling connecting them (this being well before MIL-STD-1553 databuses).  I don't see any real restriction, though you may need to change out the radar to something suitable.

I can't help but wonder if the need for Doppler processing is on the missile side rather than the aircraft side?  In that case, you might need a longer missile body to fit the added processing capability.

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 #27 on: January 16, 2018, 09:20:35 AM »
I suspect the biggest concern is the difference in the size of the electronics boxes required and the necessary cabling connecting them (this being well before MIL-STD-1553 databuses).  I don't see any real restriction, though you may need to change out the radar to something suitable.

I can't help but wonder if the need for Doppler processing is on the missile side rather than the aircraft side?  In that case, you might need a longer missile body to fit the added processing capability.

Thank you elmayerle, what you point out sounds valid!

M.A.D

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 #28 on: January 16, 2018, 11:46:35 AM »
'....the V-383 & V-384 were designed with with a retractable rocket pack in the belly that stored thirty-two 70 millimeter (2.75 inch) "Mighty Mouse" unguided folding-fin rockets. In production aircraft, this rocket pack would rarely if ever be used and was often sealed shut.'

(Source: http://www.crusader.gaetanmarie.com/articles/goebel/part1.htm)

So does anyone know what, if anything this space assigned to the 'rarely if ever used rocket pack' used for? 
Was this empty rocket pack space utilised for additional fuel or avionics/electronics in later variants of the Crusader?
If not, I'm wondering if a Doppler radar and it's associated avionics could utilise this space? Do you reckon this might work?
Or going to this degree of effort and cost, I'm wonder if it would just be as simple as introducing the Aim-7 Sparrow and it's associated avionics/systems into the V-384 during production?  :-\

M.A.D

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 #29 on: January 17, 2018, 02:52:34 AM »

Wow, never heard of this hybrid Aim-9 HAP before Greg  :P I like the concept, but could you give me a better insight into it's timeframe of R&D please?


This was from 1970 and comprised a Sidewinder with a Sparrow rocket motor.  HAP stands for High Altitude Project and it was supposedly created as a response to the use of high-altitude scouts MiG-25 over Israel.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!