Mirage III - why only one R530 on the centerline ?

[GTX]

I think the combination of pylon space and physical size of the various SARH BVR missiles might play a large part here. If you consider the Mirage III pretty much always needed its wing pylon fuel tank to provide an acceptable operational range this pretty much reduces you to using the centreline unless one does go the Swiss option of using something such as the HM-55/AIM-26B or even AIM-4E/F.

Assuming this, it might also be interesting to do a comparison between the various realistic options at the time the Mirage III was in main operational service (I'm talking about the mid '60s - mid '70s (note that I have only looked at SARH options:

	R.530​	AIM-7E​	AIM-4E​	AIM-4F​	HM-55/AIM-26B​	AIM-9C
Length:	3.28 m	3.66 m	2.18 m	2.19 m	2.16 m	2.87 m
Wingspan:	1.1 m	1.02 m	0.61 m	0.61 m	0.62 m	0.63 m
Diameter:	0.263 m	0.203 m	0.16 m	0.17 m	0.29 m	0.13 m
Weight:	192 kg	197 kg	63.5 kg	68.9 kg	117.3 kg	88 kg
Speed:	Mach 2.7	Mach 4	Mach 3	Mach 3	Mach 2	Mach 2.5+
Max Range:	20 km	30 km	13.8 km	13.8 km	19 km	18 km
Warhead:	27 kg	30 kg	4.67 kg	3.9 kg	22 kg	11 kg
Comment:		Realistically, would be limited to single copy on centreline	Potentially 2 carried	Potentially 2 carried	2 carried as per Mirage IIIS	Potential for 2 x SARH + 2 x IR?

Looking at this, one will see that whilst the AIM-7 might provide a better option, the Mirage III would probably still be limited to a single copy on the centreline. Likewise, the Swiss choice of the twin HM-55 probably does provide a good alternate option - I'm surprised more didn't consider the option - Sean can probably explain why (missile performance perhaps?).

EDIT: The only other option might be the AIM-9C SARH version. Perhaps a 'Soviet style' load out of 2 x IR AIM-9s and 2 x SARH AIM-9s could have been considered though using the below image of the Kfir as a guide, one would probably still be looking at giving up the external fuel tanks:

 

[H_K]

The standard Mirage III wing tanks in the interceptor role were only 500L. The centerline was tank was 1,300L; it was draggier than a pair of wing tanks but should allow for 2 Aim-7s under the wing.

Pic of the tanks below:

 

[Pioneer]

I think the combination of pylon space and physical size of the various SARH BVR missiles might play a large part here. If you consider the Mirage III pretty much always needed its wing pylon fuel tank to provide an acceptable operational range this pretty much reduces you to using the centreline unless one does go the Swiss option of using something such as the HM-55/AIM-26B or even AIM-4E/F.

Assuming this, it might also be interesting to do a comparison between the various realistic options at the time the Mirage III was in main operational service (I'm talking about the mid '60s - mid '70s (note that I have only looked at SARH options:

	R.530​	AIM-7E​	AIM-4E​	AIM-4F​	HM-55/AIM-26B​	AIM-9C
Length:	3.28 m	3.66 m	2.18 m	2.19 m	2.16 m	2.87 m
Wingspan:	1.1 m	1.02 m	0.61 m	0.61 m	0.62 m	0.63 m
Diameter:	0.263 m	0.203 m	0.16 m	0.17 m	0.29 m	0.13 m
Weight:	192 kg	197 kg	63.5 kg	68.9 kg	117.3 kg	88 kg
Speed:	Mach 2.7	Mach 4	Mach 3	Mach 3	Mach 2	Mach 2.5+
Max Range:	20 km	30 km	13.8 km	13.8 km	19 km	18 km
Warhead:	27 kg	30 kg	4.67 kg	3.9 kg	22 kg	11 kg
Comment:		Realistically, would be limited to single copy on centreline	Potentially 2 carried	Potentially 2 carried	2 carried as per Mirage IIIS	Potential for 2 x SARH + 2 x IR?

Looking at this, one will see that whilst the AIM-7 might provide a better option, the Mirage III would probably still be limited to a single copy on the centreline. Likewise, the Swiss choice of the twin HM-55 probably does provide a good alternate option - I'm surprised more didn't consider the option - Sean can probably explain why (missile performance perhaps?).

EDIT: The only other option might be the AIM-9C SARH version. Perhaps a 'Soviet style' load out of 2 x IR AIM-9s and 2 x SARH AIM-9s could have been considered though using the below image of the Kfir as a guide, one would probably still be looking at giving up the external fuel tanks:

Nice work GTX...now this has me thinking in regards to the HM-55 / Aim-26B Falcon... although it's reputation wasn't too 'Jack flash', or am I thinking in terms as a dogfight missile....?

As you'd most probably already appreciate GTX, interesting from an RAAF perspective, 'a RAAF delegation travelled to the Swiss Air Force Headquarters in Berne for discussions on possible Mirage developments, particularly in the Hughes TARAN radar/missile field. Approval was sought and obtained for the visit and a team of four flew to Switzerland. The Swiss were also very interested in a Rolls Royce [Avon] engine fit and indicated that they would be glad to go along with such a development if Australia did likewise.'
(source: M. R. Susans, 1990. The RAAF Mirage Story).

I'm under the impression that the Australian government/RAAF selection of the Mirage IIIO(F) was intended to intercept and shoot down Indonesian, and to a lesser extent Soviet and PRC bomber's, as opposed to fighters. Hence two HM-55 / Aim-26B Falcon might have suited this role better, especially when compared to one R530 missile.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

The standard Mirage III wing tanks in the interceptor role were only 500L. The centerline was tank was 1,300L; it was draggier than a pair of wing tanks but should allow for 2 Aim-7s under the wing.

Pic of the tanks below:

Thanks again H_K for your input.
In the RAAF's perspective, and that's what I'm personally thinking, I'd think the need of all three droptanks would be paramount, in terms of operational range requirement.
Saying that, I like your analogy to gain Aim-7 capability!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

So I'm still searching this Mirage III issue of beyond visual range armament.. As the Swiss were inclined to use a two x four rocket cluster of RATO boosters for quick take off's, I'm wondering, going by the attached pictures, these RATO packs do appearthey utilise the same hardpoints as used for the two HM-55 / Aim-26B Falcon or are they attached elsewhere?

Another couple of question if I may -
Was this RATO booster arrangement unique to Swiss requirements and modification, or was it an option for all potential customers purchasing the Mirage III/5?

I assume these RATO packs get jettersoned after take off?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

Well the Mirage III had rockets, but not RATO and not like this. The SEPR-841 / 844 was a big pack going on the centerline and used to fly above 60 000 ft.

The Swiss RATO packs looks more like the Mirage IV own RATO pack.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes, thank you for your reply Archibald, I should have written 'besides the removable SEPR-841/844 pack'.
I think you're right in regards to the seemingly similar Mirage IV RATO packs!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[dan_inbox]

Well the Mirage III had rockets, but not RATO and not like this. The SEPR-841 / 844 was a big pack going on the centerline and used to fly above 60 000 ft.

The Swiss RATO packs looks more like the Mirage IV own RATO pack.

The Swiss Mirage III rockets were for shorter-steeper take-offs (bases at bottom of Alpine valleys with high summits ~all around) and would have been long jettisonned at the time of intercept, whereas the French SEPR was for for use precisely during the intercept final phase.

See the background surroundings of Sion air force base, in the Rhône valley. Gotta clear those...

 

[galgot]

Indeed strange to have these jettionnable RATO rockets for fast and steeper takeoff , say for an interception mission, if it occupies the point to be use for the Falcons for that interception...
So it would be, interception from deep down the valley, RATOs, guns and Sidewinders only ?

 

[dan_inbox]

Note that my photo shows a III RS, recce, so not meant for interception anyway.

My understanding is that at the time of the canards upgrade, in case of war the plan was more for the ground-based air defenses to do the A-A intercept, while the Mirage IIIS would do the A-G punishing.

 

[galgot]

A bit OT, the pict is too nice not to post.
From here :

Mirage-Luft an der Generalversammlung | SAJ - Schweizer Aviatik Journalisten

www.aviatikjournalisten.ch

 

[isayyo2]

And for those interested in a video of it...
Note that they don't punch off the RATO bottles

 

[Archibald]

And for those interested in a video of it...
Note that they don't punch off the RATO bottles

One thing is sure: any COVID virus hanging on that runway's tarmac has been properly incinerated...

 

[dan_inbox]

A bit OT, the pict is too nice not to post.

Indeed beautiful photo. In the original shape, before the 1988 canards. And with the SEPR optional pack fitted.

AFAIK J-2314 has been sold to a restaurant (Runway 34), de-canarded and put on display there.

Note that they don't punch off the RATO bottles

That video was shot at a display, Air97 in Sion. It'd be poor publicity to drop hot bottles on the spectators... (besides expensive)

 

[galgot]

Dunno if this fits here, but anyway...
Nice vid of Oztralian MIIIO testing a target system :

View: https://youtu.be/-13wqTGuYZw

 

[GTX]

The High Performance Aerial Target System (HIPATS) - the banner was supposed to be deployed from the pod in flight then towed back to base and dropped.
The system was developed in Australia but never went into use.

 

[galgot]

Thks. Nice part when the chase two seater makes a barrel roll and the back seater says "whooohoo"

Btw, interesting that these external tanks with the three fins are the supersonic droppable ones made in Israel. Had a discussion with someone else about that...
The French supersonic external tanks are not droppable and have no fins, they sit further in front on their pylons too. Like on the MIIIS in the photo upper on this page.

 

[kaiserbill]

Belatedly, I found the image of the Cheetah with 4 R-Darters on the wing pylons as mentioned earlier on in the thread. There appears to be an external fuel tank on the centreline.
So, just like the pic of the Cheetahs flying around I posted earlier, but with 4 instead of 2 R-Darters.

This was not an operational load to my knowledge, and might have been the armourers just showing stuff. I might be wrong.
I see no technical reason why it couldn't be flown, especially when you see Galgots post no.30 on the first page. It might or might not have been draggy, or it might simply be that operationally, the SAAF wanted 2x R Darters and 2x IR Darters with external fuel tanks.
I also do not know if the wiring on the Cheetah wing was still the same as the Mirage III.
I'm simply including it as I mentioned it earlier.

 

[Pioneer]

Btw Mirage IIIS carried two AIM-26s under the fuselage (but not on the centreline) plus two Sidewinders on outboard wing pylons.

I wouldn't be surprised that the French operated their IIICs in pairs, one with IR and the other with SARH heads.

We (Polish) used MiG-21PFs always in pairs: one with two IR missiles, the other with two beam-riders (not mixing missiles on one aircraft). Both were to attack one target simultaneously.

As demonstrated by this model of Mirage IIIS

 

[Pioneer]

Just stumbled across this interesting video of Swiss Air Force Mirage IIIS, emphasising the loading and carriage of Falcon AAM's

Regards
Pioneer

View: https://youtu.be/RMsDfCngnVI

 

[TomcatViP]

Swiss selected initially the Mirage IIIC with IR guided Falcon missiles (later the IIIS replaced the initial order - the IIIS is based on the slightly longer IIIE that is fitted with a larger nose for a more powerful radar).
The Sidewinder was then introduced.

The switch to the larger IIIS was not trivial and involved a lot of specific modifications that led to an increase in cost of more than 50%*

Dassault Mirage III S

Version suisse du Mirage IIIE. 36 exemplaires.

aviationsmilitaires.net

*no ambassador was recalled, but a general was fired!

 

[H_K]

The switch to the larger IIIS was not trivial and involved a lot of specific modifications that led to an increase in cost of more than 50%

And ironically the Swiss pilots later discovered during exchanges with French squadrons that Hughes’ TARAN system was inferior/less reliable to Cyrano II… they could have saved themselves a lot of pain and money by buying the Mirage IIIE.

(Likewise the R530 was a better missile than the Falcon, which had even less reliable vacuum tube electronics and was completely ineffective due to the lack of a proximity fuse…)

Correction: Apparently some Falcon variants DID have proximity fuses, including the GAR-11B SARH missile exported to Switzerland and Sweden. The IR-guided AIM-4D used in Vietnam didn’t however (and was pretty terrible).

 

[Archibald]

I didn't knew that.
There were bad vibes about bribery in the Dassault - Switzerland deal. Not as bad as with Belgium Mirage V later on - but pretty bad nonetheless.

(Likewise the R530 was a better missile than the Falcon, which had even less reliable vacuum tube electronics and was completely ineffective due to the lack of a proximity fuse…)

Yep. The R-530 was a product of its times - no better or no worse than, say, an early AIM-7 B-C-E from the Vietnam era.

I once red in Air Fan magazine that R-530s aged pretty badly; one of them turned a barrel roll around the Mirage F-1 that had just fired it... probably to the pilot great fear and dismay...

 

[kaiserbill]

Just a follow up on my post no.58 above, from mid 2021, which showed 4 radar guided V4 R-Darter BVRAAM under the wings of the Cheetah C.

This from the SAAF forum by a guy who worked on the Cheetah C:

"From memory, V3S IR missiles could only be carried on outboard wing stations (1 & 7). EM missiles (V4) could be carried on 1, 2, 6, and 7, but in practice (probably because V4 was a lot more expensive than V3S) the Air Combat load was V3S on 1 & 7, V4 on 2 & 6.

The armament system and aircraft wiring also supported V4 on the fuselage centerline station (4) but this was never cleared for flight, probably because of the risk of the engine ingesting missile rocket motor exhaust gas at launch.

Fuel tanks would depend on mission - none or fuselage centerline (station 4) or wing inboard stations (3 and 5) or stations 3, 4, 5."

The SAAF Forum • View topic - Cheetah C air to air load

So the Cheetah C was wired and cleared for R-Darter radar guided missiles under all 4 wing pylons.
It was also built and wired for carriage under the main fuselage pylon, but was never flight cleared for it there, probably due to expense of clearing it.
I doubt it had to do with gas ingestion, seeing as the Mirage III carried the R530 there, but I speak under correction.

This is just a follow up due to the uncertainty surrounding it.
I think at this stage the Cheetah C was no longer a vanilla Mirage III type, and probably diverged quite a bit in this regard from the original Mirage regarding weapons options and architecture.