The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Question regarding Mirage III
Aussiegunneragain    6/20/2009 12:14:30 AM
I was wondering whether anybody could clear something up that has been bothering me for a while. There are various sites on the internet that states that the Mirage III had an initial rate of climb of about 16000 feet per second. Considering that types with similar TWR's, speed etc like the Mig 21 and F-104 had initial ROC's of between 30,000 and 50,000 feet per second this seems very low, especially given the Mirage's big wing and consequent low wing loading. Can anybody confirm for me whether the internet sites are correct and if so, explain how the Mirage had such a poor climbing performance?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Hamilcar       10/19/2009 7:21:33 PM




Hamilcar :





""The Snecma engine in the Mirage was a disgrace.""



 



Huh ??? The Snecma Atar 09C was a rather good engine . Why do you say that ?



 



Bear , maybe just maybe your people were not good enough ... The Oz Mirage III0 was made in assembly lines in Australia , the Snecma engine too and the maintenance was obviously done by Autralians . In fact , your probabmy fuc*ed it up in some way ...






The AdA had few problems too but nothing to be compare with Australia .



 



Cheers .












I'm not sure you'd class the SNEMCA as that good an engine, the Israelis had a fair few problems with it too, but I don't think it was as terrible by the standards of the day as others here are making out.


However, you may have a point about the Australian assembly side of things. Australians were a delusional from the 1940's till the 1980's about the capacity of our small, remote economy to run a comprehensive manufacturing sector, when in fact we should have been concentrating on things we were good at such as mining, agriculture, tourism and some niche manufacturing. Consequently the manufacturing industry was protected, dominated by government owned corporations (like the Government Aircraft Factory that assembled the Mirages) and highly unionised.  I certainly saw shoddy workmanship come out of government owned arms factories in the early 90's with the Steyr so its entirely possible that GAF did a shoddy job with the Mirage.

 

I doubt that it was a maintenance issue though as I've never heard of the RAAF being anything but very professional with maintaining its kit.

 

The History of the Shahak in the IAF:

MirageIII of the BAT squadron The Mirage is undoubtedly the most famous and legendary aircraft to serve with the IAF. By the time the Mirage was in design, Israeli French relations were at a stage were Israeli pilots and engineers were taking part in it's development. The Mirage was planned as a Cold War Interceptor. The Cold War called for an interceptor that could take off like a rocket, reach the strategic nuclear bomber's altitude as soon as possible and bring it down before it could drop it's bombs. The new weapon of the 60's was the air to air guided missile, and missiles-only interceptors were the word of the day. The French Mirage took the take off like a rocket thing a little too seriously, and was fitted with a rocket pack that was fired after takeoff, as the plane razed it's nose up, and propelled the Mirage to an amazing 75,000ft in the nick of time.
But what Israel needed was an air superiority fighter, a fighter that will combat other fighters, not large unmaneuverable strategic bomber. So Ezer Weizman, (commander of the IAF 1958-66), demanded the rocket pack replaced with cannons, and the option to replace the rocket pod with a pair of 30mm cannons was added to the export versions of the Mirage. The decision to add that guns proved very right when the missiles of that generation turned out to be ineffective against highly maneuverable fighters. Only when more advanced missiles were fitted to the Mirage later on in it's service, did the number of air victories attributed to missiles supercede those attributed to guns.

70 Mirage IIICJs, 2 Mirage IIICRJ and 4 Mirage IIIBJ (combat capable two seat conversion trainers) were purchased form France, and began arriving to Israel on the 7th of April 1962. They came as a counter to the Soviet MIG-21, that entered service with Arab air forces at the time, and was also a Mach 2 capable, missile armed, radar equipped fighter interceptor. In it's early years, the Mirage suffered from problems with it's engine, guns and radar, some of which were never solved. In it's first years of service 6 Mirages crashed, after their engine failed. Only when the pilot of the 6th Mirage to lose it's engine in midair saw, that if he ejected, his plane would crash into a populated area did the mystery of the failing engine get solved. The pilot stayed in his plane for as long as he could, guiding it beyond the populated area, and placing it in a landing pattern before ejecting. The Mirage kept going without it's pilot, and landed on it's (now empty) external fuel tanks, in a field, just beyond the houses. This miraculous event of a plane landing without it's pilot, gave the IAF's technicians a chance to find out what went wrong with the engine. At high altitude a part of the fuel pump reached extreme temperatures, it melted, and jammed the fuel pump, shutting down the engine. Now that this problem was solved the Mirages at least stopped falling out of the sky for no reason, but another problem was discovered with the engine. As it turned out, when the guns were fired the gasses produced got mixed with the air entering the engines and caused the engine to stall (shut down), not very funny in a single engine fighter, even less funny in battle (were you usually fire the guns). Changes were made, to divert the gasses away from the intakes, and the engine stopped stalling (but still tended to stall when long bursts were fired). But the problems with the retrofitted guns (the plane was not planned with), were not over yet. In it's first 4 years of service the Mirage seemed incapable of hitting a thing. In a number of air battles, Mirages fired accurate shots at MIGs but failed to down any of them. a pair of Mirage pilots decided to take action, and had the guns taken out of one of the Mirages and placed at a gun range. What they discovered were two major problems, the lines of fire of the two guns were too far apart, and simply passed the small MIGs from both sides, and when the shells did hit, they had a delayed charge, that caused them to explode after they passed through the MIG, instead of in it. Once the lines of fire were corrected and new ammo with almost instantaneous charges was ordered, MIGs began dropping out of the sky like flies. The Mirages Radar was so unreliable, that in the next version of the Mirage, ordered by Israel, the radar was simply left out. The final Atar 9B engine problems were solved when in 1971 they were simply replaced with the next generation Atar 9C. These problems with the Mirage did not stop it from gaining more air victories than any other IAF plane. Achieving a total of 282.5 kills, (half a kill is shared with a F-4E), in the course of 3 wars and numerous border skirmishes.

First Kill for the Mirage a Syrian MIG-21 14-7-1966 It achieved its first air victory battles that followed Israeli attempts to farm the demilitarized zone on the Israeli side of the border with Syria, a total of 6 MIGs were shot down that day. In the Six-Day war, the shortage in planes forced the IAF to give up on fighter escort for it's bombers during the raids against the Arab air bases, in the first part of the war. Except for 12 Mirages (4 in the air and 8 on the ground), left behind to guard Israel's sky from Arab bombers, all the Mirages were fitted with bombs, and sent to attack the basses containing advanced Fighters, such as the MIG-21. However the Mirage's performance as a bomber was limited, it suffered from low range, and although it had a potential 4 tons of ordinance, only 1 ton of bombs could be fitted on it's wing pillions, and when fitted did not permit for missiles to be carried. But not all of the Arab air craft were destroyed on the ground, and out of a total of 58 Arab planes shot down in air combat during the war, 48 were accounted for by Mirages.

After the war, as France placed an arms embargo on Israel, the Mirages were put into an intense maintenance program, aimed at bringing them back to a maintenance level equivalent to that of a brand new plane. As newer air craft entered service with the IAF, (A-4H 1968 3 tons bombs, F-4E 1969 7 tons), the Mirages returned to their original air superiority and Intercept missions. The war of attrition with Egypt was a limited war, and attack on air bases was not an option. So air superiority was achieved in air combat alone. This resulted in over 100 air victories during the long conflict, shared with the F-4E that joined in air to air operations late in the war during 1969. In the 1973 (Yom Kipur war) the Mirage performed in air to air operations only. In the first hours of the war, Mirages and F-4Es stopped a massive attack by Arab jets, bringing down more than 70 of them, during the war Mirages engaged Syrian and Iraqi jets over the missile defended Golan Heights, areas avoided by Israeli bombers because of the extreme SAM threat, (Surface to Air Missile). In the southern front, as the SAM umbrella was pealed off, and the IDF crossed the Suez and advanced into Egypt, the Egyptian air force made a desperate attempt to halt the IDF's advance. The Mirages and F-4Es had a ball, shooting down scores of MIGs. Two Mirages gained a total of 13 kills, and hold the IAF's record for number of kills for a single air craft (one of them in the photo). Another record held by the Mirage is that for longest dogfight, 8.5 minutes, (chasing a Jordanian Hocker Hunter in a desert canyon, 1966).

MirageIII with 13 kill marks - Shahak 59.

Squadrons:

  1. The "First Fighter" squadron - 1962-1975
  2. The "First Jet" squadron - 1962-1979
  3. The "Bat" squadron - 1964-1970
  4. The "Negev" squadron - 1979-1981
  5. The "Mid-Land" squadron - 1981-1982

Mirages from the three original squadrons were concentrated in the forth and later the fifth Squadrons, and in 1982/3 the MirageIII ended it's service with the IAF, the last 22 (19-CJ, 3-BJ) active ones were sold to Argentina.

The Mirage was nicknamed "SHAHAK" in the israeli air force, meaning "Heavens". The serial number of each Mirage was a two digit number but for each task, periode or squadron a third digit was added before the two.

 ============================
 
It was a piece of JUNK, that Israel spent a lot of time fixing, and when they finally fixed it, they unloaded it as fast as they could for good aircraft they either designed themselves (Neshir and Kfir), or replaced with better foreign aircraft they bought. Even the Atlas (Denel) Chetah had to be redesigned from the wheels up to work right.  
 
 
 Its no wonder it failed  the RAAF.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/19/2009 7:35:33 PM
This sentence is telling in that article (thanks for posting it, BTW):
 
These problems with the Mirage did not stop it from gaining more air victories than any other IAF plane.
 
Every aircraft has problems, and one might notice that upgraded Mirage IIIs remain in service while most of its contemporaries are gone.  The early Atars did have a problem with despooling (which I would think also was partly due to the wings blanking out the tail at high AoA), but this was fixed in the later Atar types used on the Mirage 5 and F.1.  The radar was probably garbage, but that was a problem not limited to only the Mirage III; many late 1950s-era aircraft suffered from crappy radars.  The fact remains that the Mirage has an enviable combat record in Israeli and Pakistani service, and if it did poorly for Argentina, that was the fault of its user--fighting at extreme range with poorly-maintained aircraft and rear-aspect only missiles, with Sea Harriers armed with AIM-9Ls operating from basically home waters. 
 
As far as loss rates, I would be interested to know how much of that was due to aircraft problems or how much was due to pilot error or misuse.  I do not agree that Australian pilots suck, which is what BW is implying, but such losses are inevitable, especially in making a jump to a new aircraft--I may be wrong, but wasn't the RAAF transitioning from the F-86 into the Mirage?  The Germans had similiar problems making the leap from the F-86 and F-84 to the F-104.  The Danes had absolutely ludicrous loss rates with their F-100s.  Again, not necessarily the fault of the aircraft, since the F-104 turned out to be a good aircraft, and the Hun was pretty decent too. 
 
The MiG-21 was deadly in the hands of a good pilot, and if it was used correctly--as a point-defense interceptor.  Nguyen Van Coc did pretty well with it, but he also made sure that he had all the cards before making his attacks.  To my knowledge, he was never drawn into a fight with F-105s or F-4s, but made hit-and-run attacks.  Of course, getting shot down your first time out by Olds' Wolfpack probably engendered a healthy respect for American fighter pilots...
 
Quote    Reply

south2       10/20/2009 4:37:38 AM
one of the problems with the Mirage, associated with the propensity of the engine to fail was the PFL. 
 
I think it was something like glide @ 280kts, raise the nose to slow down @ 240kts (gear extension limiting speed), and then glide.  Something like 15000ft overhead the runway and  8-10000ft at Low key.   Begin the 2 stage flare at ~1000ft to arrest an astronomical rate of descent.
 
Something told to bograts at 2OCU.  "dont be overhead the base at 15000ft otherwise you'll have to attempt a PFL" or alternatively "there is no problem getting trimmed in a glide in the mirage.  Throw out a housebrick and follow it down."
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/20/2009 4:49:18 AM
Top of the Class - F-4
 
Agree 100%

Pretty damn good - Mirage III, F-8, F-106, Draken, F-5, Mig-21
 
The Draken never proved itself in combat, and the Mig 21 was better than ok.
 
Ok - Lightning, Mig-19, Mig-21, F-101, Su-9/11, Super Mystere, Draken


Borderline crap - F-100, F-104

Crap - F-102
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/20/2009 2:29:23 PM
The F-106 never proved itself in combat either.  Let's be fair here.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       10/20/2009 10:20:09 PM
The F-106 never proved itself in combat either.  Let's be fair here.
 
But what an absolutely fantastic plane.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/20/2009 11:35:46 PM
The F-106 never proved itself in combat either.  Let's be fair here.  
 
 
Yes, but most people would agree that the plane was the best pure interceptor of its time. The Draken was an ok fighter that had some good capabilities but there was nothing which it exelled in.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    USA Joe   10/21/2009 2:45:45 AM
While the Draken and the F-106 never saw combat I think that based on their observed capabilities they could both be considered pretty damn good.
The Draken had an excellent speed and climb performance, was manouverable, capable of short field ops, as well armed as any of the aircraft of the day, had an advance collision course intercept system that was automated to take navigation information from the Sweedish ground radar network from the B onwards, was viceless once some intial problems with pitch control were sorted out in the A, and was versitile enough to make a good attack and recon type. It was short ranged but that is all that the Swedes needed given their battlespace. It was as good as any in the "pretty damn good catatory".
 
The F-106 was long-ranged, had a high transit speed helped by an internal weapons bay and had an advanced avionics system that tied in with SAGE (the radar was initially buggy but was sorted out). This made it an ideal platform for hitting bombers attacking the US before they could launch stand-off weapons. The only thing I didn't like about it was its armament. The effectiveness of the Genie could be redued by splitting up packages of bombers into smaller groups and the Falcon wasn't a very good missile. It was also limited to firing two Falcon's at a time, reducing the potential number of kills on each mission. The only reason that I didn't bump it a catagory as a consequence of this is because between the 5 weapons you could expect that it would achieve a couple of kills on each mission, but I think it would have been much better if it had been fitted with a gun well before 1970 and "Project Six-Shooter".
 
As for the Mig-21, we'll have to agree to disagree on that for the reasons I have already stated. I actually think the Mig-19 was a more useful type given its better manouverability and rate of climb combined with an adequate supersonic performance.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Aussiegunneragain   10/21/2009 3:11:25 AM
I think both the F-106 and Draken were successful designs but the difference is the F-106 during its time was the best in the business in its role as a pure interceptor. The Draken was perfect for Sweden, for obvious reasons but I don't think you can put it in the top of the class.
 
One more thing. why do think the most successful Russian fighter of all time (in terms of combat, production, and service length) was not that good?
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       10/21/2009 6:59:30 AM
The Lighting never proved itself in combat either - only Frightening kill against a non drone target was a Harrier, shot down when heading, unpiloted for the East German border.


Ian


 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/21/2009 6:59:49 AM
I think both the F-106 and Draken were successful designs but the difference is the F-106 during its time was the best in the business in its role as a pure interceptor. The Draken was perfect for Sweden, for obvious reasons but I don't think you can put it in the top of the class.
 
One more thing. why do think the most successful Russian fighter of all time (in terms of combat, production, and service length) was not that good?
 
There is obviously a degree of subjectivity in the way I rated them ... somebody else may do it differently. My judgement was if a bleeding edge (for the time) design could do the job it was designed to do well, without any major design impediments to its ability to wartime operations, then it came into the pretty damn good catagory. Both the F-106 and the Draken came into that catagory To get into the top catagory it had to substanitally exceed expectations without any offsetting problems in the way that IMHO only the F-4 did.
 
To be frank apart from the F-106's range, which Sweden didn't need, from the B model Draken I don't see that the
 F-106 was that much better in the interception role. Both could get to the enemy fast under semi-automatic guidance from the ground and do a head on attack, so why is the F-106 that much better?
 
As for the Mig-21, the fact that it was the most successful Russian fighter of all times on those accounts simply shows us that Russian fighter design has been pretty mediocre over the years. It was nearly always on the end of negative kill ratios against types in its generation, had a lousy view out of the cockpit, far too short a range including a design flaw so that it couldn't use the last 1/5 of its fuel tanks without crashing, a poor turning circle at low level and poor manouverability at low level. Its speed, manouverability at higher altitude and price offset this enough to make it useful but nobody can say that it wasn't good.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Freudian Slip ...    10/21/2009 7:03:47 AM

I think both the F-106 and Draken were successful designs but the difference is the F-106 during its time was the best in the business in its role as a pure interceptor. The Draken was perfect for Sweden, for obvious reasons but I don't think you can put it in the top of the class.

 

One more thing. why do think the most successful Russian fighter of all time (in terms of combat, production, and service length) was not that good?
 

There is obviously a degree of subjectivity in the way I rated them ... somebody else may do it differently. My judgement was if a bleeding edge (for the time) design could do the job it was designed to do well, without any major design impediments to its ability to wartime operations, then it came into the pretty damn good catagory. Both the F-106 and the Draken came into that catagory To get into the top catagory it had to substanitally exceed expectations without any offsetting problems in the way that IMHO only the F-4 did.

 

To be frank apart from the F-106's range, which Sweden didn't need, from the B model Draken I don't see that the

 F-106 was that much better in the interception role. Both could get to the enemy fast under semi-automatic guidance from the ground and do a head on attack, so why is the F-106 that much better?

 

As for the Mig-21, the fact that it was the most successful Russian fighter of all times on those accounts simply shows us that Russian fighter design has been pretty mediocre over the years. It was nearly always on the end of negative kill ratios against types in its generation, had a lousy view out of the cockpit, far too short a range including a design flaw so that it couldn't use the last 1/5 of its fuel tanks without crashing, a poor turning circle at low level and poor manouverability at low level. Its speed, manouverability at higher altitude and price offset this enough to make it useful but nobody can say that it wasn't good.

 

 



... .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       10/21/2009 5:46:12 PM
sentinel :
""I do not agree that Australian pilots suck, which is what BW is implying""
 
Huh ??? I have never said or implied such thing ! At the contrary  , I rate the OZ pilots very highly , amongst the best I must add .
I was talking about the Australian assembly lines , people running them , logistics and maintenance .
Not about the pilots !
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       10/21/2009 6:12:19 PM
Herald : (Ooops sorry) Hamilcar :
 
""It was a piece of JUNK, that Israel spent a lot of time fixing, and when they finally fixed it, they unloaded it as fast as they could for good aircraft""
 
282 kills is rather good for a "piece of junk" , Don 't you think ? I guess not . It is a strange thing to say for a fighter who (when fixed) smashed everything it did encounter .
Nevertheless , I thank you for providing such an interesting read .
 
""The French Mirage took the take off like a rocket thing a little too seriously, and was fitted with a rocket pack that was fired after takeoff, as the plane razed it's nose up, and propelled the Mirage to an amazing 75,000ft in the nick of time.""
 
 

Rafale operational ceiling is 55,000ft+ , not 75,000 (!) . The Mirage III was not only a very high altitude interceptor but a deadly dogfighter and that in itself shows that the Snecma Atar 9C (the one I was talking about) had a lot to do with it .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Hamilcar's reply.   10/21/2009 6:32:36 PM
The Falcon was a horrible missile that needed a lot of work before it performed halfway decently.

That Draken was definitely better that the F-106. Better radar intercept setup, plus it used Sidewinder/Improved Falcon clones. it also used the ADEN cannon whicj was a lot less troublesome than the DEFA cannon.
 
The Mig 21 scored a  coupler of hundred kills and was a piece of flying JUNK as was and is the Mirage.
 
Junk is JUNK. Excellent pilots gave those design and build horrors a reputation they didn't deserve.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy