RAN Dreamland Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In 1970? we were taken on a tour of Fisherman's Bend and I am almost certain that we were shown a Mirage engine being made. They were so proud because all the machining was computer controlled.
Hope someone has a more substantive recall:confused:
GAF/CAC built the snecma engines from kits as well as locally manuf parts
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I could ask my dear old dad, he was a manager at a place that made bits and bobs for ADF aircraft, including the ole Miracle. Don't know if they did engine components but I do remember seeing a CNC mill for the first time in my life in 80 or 81 there.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
From some Israel pilot's biography and books from Osprey, IAF didn't prefer French jet. In fact, they considered French military technology as "2nd tier" when compare with those from US (and UK). If they have a choice, they would rather fighting the Arab AFs on a Saber, centuries series/Hawker Hunter or a Phantom. For the Mirage III as an example, the avionics and Atar engines were nowhere as good as the US products ( such as the F15 radar and J-79 on F-104G). If the Hugues Aim-4 Falcon was a piece of joke, the Matra R530 was even more pathetic. In short,the success of Mirage III in IAF was mostly contributed by the pilots from both side, not the Mirage jet.
Well of course packages including Mirages should have had some kind of EW/Jamming/Wild Weasel provided the enemy's anti-air capabilities were deemed potent enough. Warplane packages aren't simply a large number of a singular type but a multi-faceted construct allowing various elements of that construct to work at their optimal roles. And as much as the IAF initially held up their nose at the Mirage III, look at their combat history - they did extremely well with the platform, coupled with early, almost primitive but definitely effective EW systems and significant use of drone decoys to open up missile locations for destruction or avoidance.

I don't think comparing the Mirage III's systems to that of the F-15 is very helpful. Those planes are separated by cost, modernity, requirements, along other things. The Eagle is probably my favourite of all the teen-series but it was absolutely not on the table at the time Mirages were being purchased. Although you might be interested to know that the Kfir local Israeli Mirage variant makes use of the same J79 engine you mentioned. But that was a number of years afterwards.

To stay on the aircraft theme, Israel did indeed procure a number of F-4E Phantoms (along with the recon variant if my memory is correct). A truly beautiful aircraft and probably one of the first true multi-role jets (drops LGBs on target, kills a hostile on egress with a Sidewinder or Sparrow, and in the E variant discussed, retention of an internal gun for more accurate ground support and another tool in the box for air-to-air, especially considering the state of missiles around Vietnam. Podded guns were of course available for earlier designs but they suffered significant accuracy problems if they weren't boresighted properly.

I agree with you on the R-530, that's why I consider 2-3 drop tanks (not sure if the centreline hardpoint was plumbed but seems logical that it would be), a pair of Sidewinders, and a pair of 30mm cannon to be the logical loadout. You might just be able to squeeze 4 Sidewinders depending on the weight capacity of the wing hardpoints. I wouldn't even bother with semi-active missiles of this period besides the occasional Sparrow success story. I think a small, fast jet with rear aspect seeking missiles and guns to back it up could have changed the picture of how dogfighting was done (though obviously the Phantom became the most important platform in terms of air warfare thinking and development).

Anyway, back to the Navy, I'm just a sucker for historical combat aircraft of any era.
 

rockitten

Member
Well of course packages including Mirages should have had some kind of EW/Jamming/Wild Weasel provided the enemy's anti-air capabilities were deemed potent enough. Warplane packages aren't simply a large number of a singular type but a multi-faceted construct allowing various elements of that construct to work at their optimal roles. And as much as the IAF initially held up their nose at the Mirage III, look at their combat history - they did extremely well with the platform, coupled with early, almost primitive but definitely effective EW systems and significant use of drone decoys to open up missile locations for destruction or avoidance.

I don't think comparing the Mirage III's systems to that of the F-15 is very helpful. Those planes are separated by cost, modernity, requirements, along other things. The Eagle is probably my favourite of all the teen-series but it was absolutely not on the table at the time Mirages were being purchased. Although you might be interested to know that the Kfir local Israeli Mirage variant makes use of the same J79 engine you mentioned. But that was a number of years afterwards.

To stay on the aircraft theme, Israel did indeed procure a number of F-4E Phantoms (along with the recon variant if my memory is correct). A truly beautiful aircraft and probably one of the first true multi-role jets (drops LGBs on target, kills a hostile on egress with a Sidewinder or Sparrow, and in the E variant discussed, retention of an internal gun for more accurate ground support and another tool in the box for air-to-air, especially considering the state of missiles around Vietnam. Podded guns were of course available for earlier designs but they suffered significant accuracy problems if they weren't boresighted properly.

I agree with you on the R-530, that's why I consider 2-3 drop tanks (not sure if the centreline hardpoint was plumbed but seems logical that it would be), a pair of Sidewinders, and a pair of 30mm cannon to be the logical loadout. You might just be able to squeeze 4 Sidewinders depending on the weight capacity of the wing hardpoints. I wouldn't even bother with semi-active missiles of this period besides the occasional Sparrow success story. I think a small, fast jet with rear aspect seeking missiles and guns to back it up could have changed the picture of how dogfighting was done (though obviously the Phantom became the most important platform in terms of air warfare thinking and development).

Anyway, back to the Navy, I'm just a sucker for historical combat aircraft of any era.
You get it wrong mate:

1.I am not comparing the mirage iii with F-15, the "F15" is the radar on board the F-104G. The radar on board mirage iii is very immature, unreliable and primitative. So much so the IAF usually grounded the radar to save weight.

2. Israel bought so much stuff from French simply because at that time, there was an export ban from UK and U.S. (The Arabs were their preferred customers). Not because French stuff was good.

3.Mirage III on the 1960s didn't have those ECM suites. Even the USAF/USN developed those stuff from their bloody experiences. So those ECM gears didn't introduced to other NATO countries until the 70s and Mirage IIIO in Vietnam simply won't happen.

4. Mirage is not a great dog fighter. In terms of energy maneuver theory, like most dassult delta winged jets, they have a huge drag during turns. Unfortunately, french made crap jet engines, so the recovery rate of air speed is poor. So from Mirage III to Rafale, if they can't kill the bandit in the first 3 manuver, they are sitting ducks. To make matters worse, NVAF had excellent dog fighters such as Mig-17 or Mig-19, and in the field of hit and run tactics, the defending Mig-21 had an upper hand. Therefore, I really wonder if mirage iii could fair any better than the F-104 in Vietnam.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
You get it wrong mate:

1.I am not comparing the mirage iii with F-15, the "F15" is the radar on board the F-104G. The radar on board mirage iii is very immature, unreliable and primitative. So much so the IAF usually grounded the radar to save weight.

2. Israel bought so much stuff from French simply because at that time, there was an export ban from UK and U.S. (The Arabs were their preferred customers). Not because French stuff was good.

3.Mirage III on the 1960s didn't have those ECM suites. Even the USAF/USN developed those stuff from their bloody experiences. So those ECM gears didn't introduced to other NATO countries until the 70s and Mirage IIIO in Vietnam simply won't happen.

4. Mirage is not a great dog fighter. In terms of energy maneuver theory, like most dassult delta winged jets, they have a huge drag during turns. Unfortunately, french made crap jet engines, so the recovery rate of air speed is poor. So from Mirage III to Rafale, if they can't kill the bandit in the first 3 manuver, they are sitting ducks. To make matters worse, NVAF had excellent dog fighters such as Mig-17 or Mig-19, and in the field of hit and run tactics, the defending Mig-21 had an upper hand. Therefore, I really wonder if mirage iii could fair any better than the F-104 in Vietnam.
We're way off-topic, if you wish to continue the discussion perhaps we should take it to PM?
 

rockitten

Member
We're way off-topic, if you wish to continue the discussion perhaps we should take it to PM?
Sure. Instead of Mirage III, I always wonder what sort of contribution could HMAS Melbourne offer in Vietnam. Yes, it escorted the Sydney, but it never participate any combat at all.

And it sunk a yanks DE, gave the ship nothing but a bad name.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sure. Instead of Mirage III, I always wonder what sort of contribution could HMAS Melbourne offer in Vietnam. Yes, it escorted the Sydney, but it never participate any combat at all.

And it sunk a yanks DE.:drunk
Your last comment was inappropriate, alcohol played no part in the collision between HMAS Melbourne and USS Frank E Evans which was a FRAM III Destroyer (DD), not a Destroyer Escort.
To jog your memory, 74 USN sailors lost their lives that night please show some decorum.

Melbourne could have played a Close Air Support role during the VN conflict if that's what the government of the day wanted. She was able to support up to 22 x A4's in a CAS role, a role that other light carriers played with distinction in Korea.
 
Three quarters of the posts on here aren't even remotely close to the original premise of the thread whether that premise was a good idea or not.

My opinion of it is quite clear.

Do what needs to be done Mod team!
 

rockitten

Member
Your last comment was inappropriate, alcohol played no part in the collision between HMAS Melbourne and USS Frank E Evans which was a FRAM III Destroyer (DD), not a Destroyer Escort.
To jog your memory, 74 USN sailors lost their lives that night please show some decorum.

Melbourne could have played a Close Air Support role during the VN conflict if that's what the government of the day wanted. She was able to support up to 22 x A4's in a CAS role, a role that other light carriers played with distinction in Korea.
That's the fault of iphone touch screen. My initial comment was suppose to be "And it sunk a yanks DE, gave the ship nothing but a bad name." I touched the "submit button" by mistake but cannot change it because the "edit" icon was gone.

The Melbourne can hold 22 A-4? That's new to me. Last time I have a chat with some ex sailors and they claim Melbourne never held more than 10 skyhawks. Still, why the Melbourne was deployed to Vietnam so many times but never took any actions? A dedicated CAS for the RAR should be useful.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Three quarters of the posts on here aren't even remotely close to the original premise of the thread whether that premise was a good idea or not.

My opinion of it is quite clear.

Do what needs to be done Mod team!
Agreed, They even still kept it off topic right after gf0012-aust warned them.. Just shut it down..
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That's the fault of iphone touch screen. My initial comment was suppose to be "And it sunk a yanks DE, gave the ship nothing but a bad name." I touched the "submit button" by mistake but cannot change it because the "edit" icon was gone.

The Melbourne can hold 22 A-4? That's new to me. Last time I have a chat with some ex sailors and they claim Melbourne never held more than 10 skyhawks. Still, why the Melbourne was deployed to Vietnam so many times but never took any actions? A dedicated CAS for the RAR should be useful.
Rockitten, Assail is ex RAN and more specifically an ex executive branch officer and ASW specialist who served on Melbourne, I rate his experiences and opinions very highly on RAN and FAA matters. Be very careful who you tell how to suck eggs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top