The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 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
Aussiegunneragain       10/24/2009 8:21:42 PM

1. Sidewinder and Sparrow were used against fighters, so 16% and 8% were respectable.(the ACTUAL numbers)
 
No, the actual kill ratios against fighters in Vietnam were 24.45% and 9.15% respectively, close to my approximations. See link (page 58). The R-530 was analogous to the Sparrow and managed to get several kills in Israeli and Pakistani service (a Mig-19, Hunters, Canberra's, SU-7's). I don't have access to the exact success ratio but the point is that those are kills that may not have happenned had it not been fitted. Its hard to get much worse a score than 9.15% in any case.
 
 

2. Matra R-530 you proclaimed a BVR missile. No such thing truly existed until the AMRAAM program. Even that missile has most of its kills within 30 n. miles or less of the launch aircraft. Matra R-530 at 20 kilometers or a  total flyout at 12 miles is a beyond visual range missile? No.
 
You can quibble on the definition of BVR if you like but it really isn't that relevant. The point is that whether you call it BVR or Medium Range or whatever, it is a capability that the Mirage III had that the Lightning didn't and one that it should have had as an interceptor.
 

3.I didn't confuse the Kurnass with the Mirage. I plainly said they were F-4s that came to the rescue of the Mitages as sited  on the Israeli Phantom aces book. Reread oif you missed that part.

You said: 

"Let's see how the Mirage III did when furballed with Mig 21s when the Mig 21s were IN FORCE and Nashers (Israeli F-4s)  arrived to rescue them?"
 
End of story.

As to overall accuracy. I call it a draw, based on 1, 2, and 3.

The rest of my opinions are based on my presentation of known facts-including the testimony of actual users and  maintainers that you sneered at on the Key Publishing Forum I cited. You will fond tidbits in those conversations that you will not find in official histories or in the Dassault propaganda broadsides. 

I could register on the Key Publishing Forum an claim to be an ex fighter pilot. It is no more valid a source than this site or Wikipedia is.

 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Privateer    10/24/2009 9:53:02 PM
It is a fighter en par with the Viper, with both aircraft having their individual advantages and disadvantages.
 
The reason I put the Viper a step above of the Mirage 2000, is because of its dominate combat and export record. The Mirage is a good aircraft but its no where as successful as the Viper in those two very important areas. When one looks back at all the 4th gen. fighters from the 70's to 2000's, only two birds are going to stand out from the rest, and they are the Viper and the Eagle. No other birds of that era have been more successful in combat, and export sales.
 
The F-16 is a legend like the P-51, F-4, and F-15.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       10/24/2009 10:08:26 PM
However, we have to remember that the Phantom was being used by the Americans not only as fighter but also as a bomb laden strike aircraft, making many vulnerable to attack by the Migs which were only used as a fighter. With this in mind the Migs should have achieved a significantly positive kill ratio in WVR combat, especially given the ideal circumstances under which they operated. 
 
I never said that the Mig-21 was as good as the Phantom, but it was not an average fighter like most people think it was. The Phantom was in a class by itself but no one can say that with well trained pilots, and being used the way it was suppose to be used, the Mig was not a good bird. The Mig-21 has outlived most of the fighters that came after it, and has done better than the Mig-23/29, in export market, combat and service length. It is the most successful Russian built bird in terms of the four big categories I mentioned earlier, and by Russia being the number two fighter producing nation in the past 50+ years, it says allot.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/24/2009 11:06:16 PM

However, we have to remember that the Phantom was being used by the Americans not only as fighter but also as a bomb laden strike aircraft, making many vulnerable to attack by the Migs which were only used as a fighter. With this in mind the Migs should have achieved a significantly positive kill ratio in WVR combat, especially given the ideal circumstances under which they operated. 

 

I never said that the Mig-21 was as good as the Phantom, but it was not an average fighter like most people think it was. The Phantom was in a class by itself but no one can say that with well trained pilots, and being used the way it was suppose to be used, the Mig was not a good bird. The Mig-21 has outlived most of the fighters that came after it, and has done better than the Mig-23/29, in export market, combat and service length. It is the most successful Russian built bird in terms of the four big categories I mentioned earlier, and by Russia being the number two fighter producing nation in the past 50+ years, it says allot.


Export sales alone aren't a very good measure of an aircraft's quality. The Mig-21 did well in the export market because it was cheap and more importantly because it was the only Mach 2 fighter that Soviet client states were allowed to have in the 1960's. In had a monopoly on a huge part of the world fighter market. 
Its service length had more to do with the economic conditions in many of the communist, ex-communist and third world states that operate it. They couldn't (and still can't in some cases) afford anything better so they kept running it, but when has been used against later generation aircraft like in the Bekea Valley, GW1 and the Balkens it proved useless. The fact that it had a better combat record than the Mig-23 and Mig-29 say more about the increasing lead that Western equipped airforces had achieved in airpower by the time those types came into service in numbers (particularily the Mig-29, the Mig-23 did ok in the ME until the Bekea) than anything else.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    Aussiegunneragain    10/24/2009 11:14:51 PM
I want to know what MRF of the 60's, outside of the F-4, and Mirage III was better than the Mig-21 at doing what is was designed to do, and why?
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       10/25/2009 1:12:09 PM



1. Sidewinder and Sparrow were used against fighters, so 16% and 8% were respectable.(the ACTUAL numbers)
 
No, the actual kill ratios against fighters in Vietnam were 24.45% and 9.15% respectively, close to my approximations. See link (page 58). The R-530 was analogous to the Sparrow and managed to get several kills in Israeli and Pakistani service (a Mig-19, Hunters, Canberra's, SU-7's). I don't have access to the exact success ratio but the point is that those are kills that may not have happened had it not been fitted. Its hard to get much worse a score than 9.15% in any case.

That is not what this says:
 
Source 1.   Sidewinder.
 
or this:
 
Source 2.  Sparrow
 
 Those are Vietnam War figures the Americans published, which are considered accurate.
 

2. Matra R-530 you proclaimed a BVR missile. No such thing truly existed until the AMRAAM program. Even that missile has most of its kills within 30 n. miles or less of the launch aircraft. Matra R-530 at 20 kilometers or a  total flyout at 12 miles is a beyond visual range missile? No.
 
You can quibble on the definition of BVR if you like but it really isn't that relevant. The point is that whether you call it BVR or Medium Range or whatever, it is a capability that the Mirage III had that the Lightning didn't and one that it should have had as an interceptor.

Sparrow was much better than the Matra, and you will see that its average effective range was 3 miles.

Source 2.  Sparrow

3.I didn't confuse the Kurnass with the Mirage. I plainly said they were F-4s that came to the rescue of the Mirages as sited  on the Israeli Phantom aces book. Reread oif you missed that part.

You said:
"Let's see how the Mirage III did when furballed with Mig 21s when the Mig 21s were IN FORCE and Nashers (Israeli F-4s)  arrived to rescue them?"
 
End of story.

No its not obviously, since this is what you did not say.  

That was a name error. The (Israeli F-4) was the correct part of the statement as seen and read in the actual citation. Nitpick much? I try not to but if that is the limit of the discussion then so be it., I make memory mistakes on aircraft names . You make technological ones in assessing aircaft.

As to overall accuracy. I call it a draw, based on 1, 2, and 3.

The rest of my opinions are based on my presentation of known facts-including the testimony of actual users and  maintainers that you sneered at on the Key Publishing Forum I cited. You will find tidbits in those conversations that you will not find in official histories or in the Dassault propaganda broadsides. 

I could register on the Key Publishing Forum an claim to be an ex fighter pilot. It is no more valid a source than this site or Wikipedia is.

Not several different people from different parts of the world all generally agreeing to the same essential poinrs, maintenance defects flight defects and embedded peculiar facts, easily checked. 
 


I will have more later, but the essential points are these; the Dassault plane was not what it was claimed to be. When used against good Soviet equipment and good pilots, it failed.
 
Example:
 

"Notes:

In 1967 the Israelis captured the Egyptian airfields at Bir-Gifgafa and el-Arish and found a total of 238 R-3S missiles (other sources state that "only" between 38 and 80 were captured). Lacking a better weapon at the time (the Shafrir Mk.1 missile proved a failure in operations, while Matra R.530 was never functioning to full satisfaction and useless in dogfight) the Israelis eventually mounted R-3S' on a number of their Mirage IIICJs and used them as a stop-gap measure until the first AIM-9Ds and Shafrir Mk.2s were available."
 
That was a Russian reverse engineered version of SIDEWINDER missile, it was not a bad IR missile.

The Israelis splashed about 85 Egyptian Mig 21s during that period.
8 were recorded Shafrir kills, 2 were R-3S,  8 were SIDEWINDER and 1 was SPARROW. There are big holes in the data, but the 19 cases of confirmed missile use against Egyptian Mig 21s shows a heavy emphasis on the gun.  
 
 
33 Mirage III and Nesher types downed or damaged by Mig 21s; or a 2.6 to 1 kill ratio for the period of combat seen.
 
25 or so were R-3S missile kills, which is something of a shocker. The Egyptians used their missiles successfully during that period, the Israelis didn't so much. 
 
That is pilot training at work. The Egyptians preferred the missile ambush hit and run.
 
Dropping out all data that is not Mig 17, 19, or other types and just culling Egyptian Mig 21 vs  Mirage III and Nesher encounters we see a rough 2.5-1 ratio between the types that favors Israel. Different tactics and doctrines can be a part of this, but one would expect a much wider kill disparity between Egyptians and Israelis if the Mirage was all it was cracked up to be. The case history shows  actual performance as based on the Israelis forcing the gunfight versus the Egyptians making it a missile hit and run fight. Given even marginally better missiles and using their existing training to use same, the Egyptians would have likely evened the exchange ratio. That speaks a lot against the Mirage as I previously stated. No good SARH or IR missile, and no good radar, equipped with a  problem engine, and a pair of  guns that was so spaced far apart that its paired bullet/shell streams could miss port and starboard when fired line astern at a Mig, bracketing the fighter = a very mediocre fighter. It had to be the pilots that made that plane's reputation. It wasn't the technology.  The Israelis had to fix it (engines and guns) to actually make it work.      
====================================
American missile kills and why the PK was so terrible;
 
Absolutely awful statistics.   yes its another forum discussion.
 
And those were GOOD missiles.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       10/25/2009 6:37:34 PM
Hello usajoe1
 
I want to know what MRF of the 60's, outside of the F-4, and Mirage III was better than the Mig-21 at doing what is was designed to do, and why? 
 
F-5 maybe? it depend on which version we are talking about. Mig-21 have so many version. Iran used the F-5 against the Mig-21 with some success I think. Its hard to know what was the win/lost ratio between them. Does someone have "accurate" data about f-5 VS Mig-21 in Iran/Iraq war? I would really like to now more about it.

Nothing can really be compared to the Mig-21, it was produced in a so large number.
Mig-21 was a "trow it away USSR style" aircraft in its pure form lol
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/26/2009 3:49:03 AM

I want to know what MRF of the 60's, outside of the F-4, and Mirage III was better than the Mig-21 at doing what is was designed to do, and why?

I'll say from the outset that the additional criteria that I am judging the fighters by, which I acknowledge that I didn't make clear when I first laid out my criteria but which I have alluded to since, is appropriate mission specification. That means that the question about the quality of the fighter is more than just whether or not the fighter was able to do what it was designed to do in. Whether what the fighter was designed to do is appropriate for the expected users matters as well. This is where the  Mig-21 fell down. It was supposed to fulfill the role of principle tactical fighter for a superpower but it lacked the flexibility for the full range of missions that that necessarily entailed, and its users suffered for it as a consequence. Other than that the COG and cockpit vision design faults were big minuses.  
 
With that in mind the multi-role fighters (to the extent that these existed in the 60's, they were generally just interceptors with bomb racks) that I think were better than the Mig-21 were:
 
1. The F-8 Crusader: It had better range and better cockpit vision. It was perfect in its role as an interceptor able to operate of the smaller US carriers but could also be used with good effect in air superiority and strike missions. This was bourne out in Vietnam with a positive kill ratio against the Mig-21.
 
2. The Saab Draken: Better range, better cockpit vision and more advanced avionics (from the B), including a datalink to recieve information from ground based radar stations. It was perfect for homeland defence in Sweden and for the other small neutrals who bought it.
 
3. The F-5A/C Freedom Fighter: This one didn't have the aerodynamic performance of the Mig and didn't have a radar, so I consider it a marginal call as to whether or not it is better. However, it was designed from the outset to be a very cheap fighter with an emphasis on ground attack, produced for US allies who didn't need more capability and couldn't afford sufficient numbers of a more advanced fighter. It was cheap, reliable, easy to operate, had decent cockpit vision and agile so it fulfilled this mission specification perfectly, and the mission specification was appropriate for the countries that used it.
 
I'd rate the English Electric Lightning about the same as the Mig. It had the same problem with range, slightly better performance and cockpit view but worse missiles and it was more expensive to purchase and operate, so it balances out.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/27/2009 3:55:01 AM
I'm going to nitpick here.
 
1) The success rate of the Sidewinder and Sparrow in Vietnam was abysmal.  That was the formal conclusion of the Ault Report, the AIMVAL/ACEVAL tests, and the Red Baron study.  So many USAF air battle stories include "I fired two Sparrows and one/both just fell off the aircraft."  The Sidewinder generally worked all right, as long as it was fired within parameters, but those parameters were very tight.  To be fair, the drawbacks of the early Sidewinders were no different than any other IR missile at the time.  But the Sparrow was a huge disappointment.
 
2) The Sparrow was always fired within WVR not because of capability, but because of ROE.  There was real fear of fratricide--overblown fear--and thus American fighters always had to visually identify their foes before they fired.  There was at least one occasion, in 1967 I believe, where two USN F-4s were cleared for BVR shots, but that was an exception.  In 1972, the USAF made a number of BVR Sparrow shots due to the presence of Combat Tree, but again, they were rare.
 
3) Hamlicar's not correct on the AMRAAM being the first true BVR missile.  The Phoenix was most definitely BVR (whether or not it was a reliable BVR is a different story, but it was BVR). 
 
4) Don't take everything ACIG says as gospel.  They're pretty reliable and Tom Cooper is a great aviation historian, but I've caught some mistakes on the Vietnam kill list, and IMHO he takes far too much of what Iranians say as gospel.  Pinch of salt.
 
5) Hamlicar, your hatred for Dassault is just as irrational as BW's worship of it.  Henry Ford was an anti-Semitic SOB, but I'm not giving up my F-150.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/27/2009 4:34:57 AM
Henry Ford was an anti-Semitic SOB, but I'm not giving up my F-150.

 
OT.  I used to go out with a nice yiddish girl in my youth.  Her father was quite wealthy and refused to buy any german cars due to the war, but was ok about buying the kids new ford falcons when they turned 16 (the legal age to drive).  Considering how much of a pr1ck Henry was and how visibly racist through his newspaper, I never did understand why he was lenient to FordMoCo.  (GM also retained the factories in Germany during the war, so they got off fairly lightly as well)
go figure
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Senty   10/27/2009 6:41:01 AM

I'm going to nitpick here.

 
I'm glad somebody else can be bothered because I can't any more. Hamilcar either can't read his own sources or thinks the audience here is stupid enough to fall for him misrepresenting them when he posts. There are a couple more examples of that in his last post, I won't bother pointing them out because I'm sure others have already noticed.

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       10/27/2009 5:06:56 PM

I'm going to nitpick here.

1) The success rate of the Sidewinder and Sparrow in Vietnam was abysmal.  That was the formal conclusion of the Ault Report, the AIMVAL/ACEVAL tests, and the Red Baron study.  So many USAF air battle stories include "I fired two Sparrows and one/both just fell off the aircraft."  The Sidewinder generally worked all right, as long as it was fired within parameters, but those parameters were very tight.  To be fair, the drawbacks of the early Sidewinders were no different than any other IR missile at the time.  But the Sparrow was a huge disappointment.

ROE was part of Sparrow, but the abysmal signal receiver needed a strong paint from the guiding fighter for a good signal return. That and the missile was shock sensitive meant get close and try to guide quick..  

2) The Sparrow was always fired within WVR not because of capability, but because of ROE.  There was real fear of fratricide--overblown fear--and thus American fighters always had to visually identify their foes before they fired.  There was at least one occasion, in 1967 I believe, where two USN F-4s were cleared for BVR shots, but that was an exception.  In 1972, the USAF made a number of BVR Sparrow shots due to the presence of Combat Tree, but again, they were rare.

There was no coding of a fighter's radar signal sufficient at that time to discriminate which signal was a true signal in the missile in those days. Stray signals could confuse a Sparrow. Fraticide was a very real worry. In some ways, I wish Hughes might have continued work on the active radar variant of Sparrow, or maybe Italy on an early Aspide line they abandoned die to costs. Both might have reached the USAF in time for a fire and forget missile in the early 1980s. as a mattwer of discussion sucjh a seeker could still be back-fitted on the thousands of Sparrows we still have.

3) Hamlicar's not correct on the AMRAAM being the first true BVR missile.  The Phoenix was most definitely BVR (whether or not it was a reliable BVR is a different story, but it was BVR).
 
OOPs. it had the fly-out, but could it hit you? And what about the AIM 47 Falcon progenitor? Talk about an optimistic/missile!  
 
4) Don't take everything ACIG says as gospel.  They're pretty reliable and Tom Cooper is a great aviation historian, but I've caught some mistakes on the Vietnam kill list, and IMHO he takes far too much of what Iranians say as gospel.  Pinch of salt.

True but 10% +/- is fairly good accuracy given the crap data we have.

5) Hamlicar, your hatred for Dassault is just as irrational as BW's worship of it.  Henry Ford was an anti-Semitic SOB, but I'm not giving up my F-150.

 My reasons for hating Dassault products are based on performance fraud as revealed by operational history. They have an unearned, propagandized  reputation for excellence they don't deserve. When even your best customer says you are a fraud, its time to pack it in and start the prosecutions.

 
 

Six years after its first competition, however, the Rafale has yet to book its first export dollar. Future prospects are dim--which can't please French taxpayers, who have already shelled out $40 billion-plus in development and production costs. Says Francis Tusa, who edits the London newsletter Defence Analysis, "It's gotten the reputation of being a loser."

The losing streak started in 2002. That's when the Netherlands chose Lockheed's F-35 over the Rafale, even though that plane isn't due to leave the assembly shop until 2011. Six years ago South Korea picked Boeing's F-15 instead of the Rafale for a $4 billion contract. The process to award a big fighter contract stretches out over years, during which political muscles get flexed and inducements get dangled--sometimes on the up-and-up. In the case of the Seoul buy, Senator Christopher Bond (R--Mo.)--the F-15 plant was in St. Louis--leaned so hard on then-president Kim Dae-jung that even the Pentagon was embarrassed. "It was so rude and crude, we had to cover our eyes," says a retired U.S. general. The French still believe the Rafale bested Boeing in the air. They were livid.

In 2005 the Rafale lost once again, this time in Singapore. The French started talking conspiracy. "I think the U.S. wants to destroy the French fighter capacity," fumes one Parisian marketer of fighter jets.

But even the French concede they have no one to blame but themselves for le choc in Morocco. "A profoundly French screwup," is what the business daily Les Echos called it, and indeed the negotiations couldn't have been clumsier. In the summer of 2006 Morocco's King Mohammed VI told Jacques Chirac he needed to modernize his rickety air force and wanted to buy French. Chirac proposed the Rafale, knowing the plane far exceeded both Morocco's needs and its means. France's Délégation Générale pour Armement, the government arms-export agency, offered Morocco the flyaway price of $2.2 billion for 18 planes and threw in an export-challenged frigate in a $3 billion package. But Dassault quoted a price that was $444 million higher. With King Mohammed miffed but ready to sign, the French finance ministry turned thumbs down on the loan that dead-broke Morocco needed to pay for its shiny new planes. Not until Nicolas Sarkozy took over four months later did France's financiers bite the bullet, offering 100% financing, with no money down.

By then it was too late. Mohammed had bought Lockheed F-16s instead. The French never saw the Americans coming. "It was always easy for us to get our competitive juices flowing going up against Jacques Chirac," chuckles a Lockheed consultant.

 ====================================================================
 
$40 BILLION dollars paid for flying junk? And people scream about US defense programs! 
 
Don't believe the Dassault hype. Look at the numbers and the fraud.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5



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