German Mirage III upgrade programme

[PraetorH]

Hi Forum,

 

I am currently thinking about a German upgrade program for the Mirage III, assuming the Luftwaffe had chosen the Mirage III instead of the Starfighter. So rather than entirely replacing the Mirage (like the Starfighter), it is to be upgraded in the mid/late 70s.

 

What would these upgrades be?

 

 

 

I am contemplating:

 

RWR system and countermeasures. Easy to be done

 

Mauser BK 27 replacing the DEFA. Equally easy, but is it possible or is the Mauser too large?

 

New engine: J79 has been proven to be possible by the IAI, but what about RR Avon (like the Draken), the Volvo RM8 (Viggen), or an upgraded Atar?

 

New radar: I am not sure about it, but do you have any ideas?

 

 

regards

[+Wrench]

Take a look at the "What If.." Panamanian Mirage I did ... it's got a (nearly) full ROSE-1 upgrade. Requires a Full-4 merged, as it uses bits and stuff from more modern aircraft (HUD, TEWS, etc)

 

wrench

kevin stein

[PraetorH]

Thanks for the response, Wrench! I have actually no problems with putting a new radar or engine or gun into the Mirage; I know how to edit the files properly (at least I have not run into problems... yet)

 

I would like to explore the "real life" possibilities. You know, just because we can exchange the DEFA for a Mauser via data.ini easily, it does not mean one could do it in "RL" - maybe the Mauser is too large to fit in, too heavy, etc. ... These are the problems I am thinking about.

 

But thanks again, when I make a more complicated avionics upgrade, your Mirage will be a good example to me.

[+aleks]

another option could be to use either a variant of APG-66 or the "grifo"radar,which actually operates with pakistan f-7 skybolt.that means also that the aircraft could be enabled to use newer variants of Aim-9 missiles and all the relative air-to-ground armament from west germany's arsenal.defa cannons were too effective to renounce and they are at the same caliber, so the plane doesn't gain anything in this sector. for engine better use a newer atar 9k-50, all the rest around the world in these days were bigger, older (avon) and j-79 proved that needs modifications(as they were made in kfir) to be installed in the mirage 3 airframe and work properly.this fact, in few words gave an aircraft not really much better than the initial mirage in agility and range, but only in the capacity to use a bigger font of changing parts provided by USAF

[Jaman]

I think replacing the twin DEFA 551 with a couple of Mauser BK-27 should be possible. Both are of similar size and shape and even though the BK-27 is a little bit heavier (100kg for 85kg of the DEFA) the difference doesnt seem big enough to be a concern.

[fallenphoenix1986]

Perhaps Aspide/Sparrow capability ala F-104S?

Fake Pilot adtion of an IFR probe?

 

Craig

[Gunrunner]

On the engine side we have three lines of engine we can use for a total of 6 engines.

 

First we can use newer members of the Atar family, either the 9C (from the Mirage IIIE/5 family) for a small thrust increase and increased reliability, it's an almost drop-in replacement but it still is an outdated engine.

Then given the timeframe we can opt for the Atar 9K-50 used on the then new Mirage F.1, it would offer both better performances, reliability and range at the cost of minor to no airframe change.

 

We could also opt for a member of the Avon family, they're not as easy to maintain, are a few hundred kilos heavier than the Atar but require very little adaptation and offer better thrust for a different fuel consumption scheme.

The Volvo RM 6A, an Avon 200 derivative used on the J 32B Lansen offers better fuel consumption than the Atar 9 family, with better thrust, it is however inferior on both instances to the Atar 9K-50 or the Avon 300 series.

The Volvo RM 6C, an Avon 300 derivative used on the J 35F Draken offers one of the best fuel consumption figures of the possibilities, with the greatest thrust, the swedish AB is probably more fuel efficient than the original one.

The Rolls Royce Avon 301, used on the Lightning F.6, offers good figures dry but is burning fuel like mad on afterburner.

 

Lastly, we could use the J79-GE-19 used on the italian F-104S, it would require more extensive airframe changes and offer performances somewhere between the Atar 9/Avon 200 and Atar 9K/Avon 300.

Take into account that the J79 is the heaviest of the possible engines, while having a real thrust and fuel consumption advantage only on afterburner.

Worse, to use it you'd have to perform extensive airframe changes, further increasing the weight.

 

If you still give the Germans getting F-4F, it may make sense to use the J79 though.

Otherwise the use of the Atar 9K-50 would be the simplest, easiest and less costly to perform, the use of the 9C would make little sense.

The Avon upgrade path makes sense however and, assuming the swedish AB is more fuel efficient than the Lightning's, the RM 6C would be a good choice.

 

Engine			Dry Thrust	Wet Thrust	M0TSFC	ABM0TSFC	M1TSFC	ABM1TSFC

Atar 9B			41.635		58.841		1.010	2.030		1.417	2.352
Atar 9C			41.973		62.760		1.010	2.030		1.417	2.352
Atar 9K-50		49.030		70.600		0.800	2.000		1.200	2.250
J79-GE-19		52.800		79.600		0.843	1.970		1.183	2.282
RM 6A (Avon 200)	47.000		65.300		0.863	??		1.211	??
RM 6C (Avon 300)	56.500		78.400		0.720	??		0.904	??
Avon 301		56.449		72.774		0.720	2.045		0.904	2.500

[PraetorH]

Interesting thoughts!

 

The Luftwaffe may not have needed the F-4F in this what-if-case, since the Phantom was planned as a stopgap solution and the Mirage had good upgrade possibilities. However some fighter-bomber squadrons may had received Phantoms and the reconnaissance most likely had gone for the RF-4 anyway. So the J79 is not totally unthinkable, but the airframe changes are what keeps me from using it.

 

So it seems like the Atar 9K-50 is the best choice. But would the Avon 300 fit into the Mirage as well without much changing the airframe? Its performance makes it a tempting choice.

 

I have got the same question for the radar: would the NASARR F15G of the F-104S fit into the nose of the Mirage IIIE (which is the basis for the Mirage IIIG) or would it have to be changed first? The radar appears to be the most difficult question, considering we are in the mid 70ies.

 

As for the DEFA… the main reason to replace it is political. The upgrade is supposed to be executed by German industry as far as possible (which would have been building Mirages in license already). Using the Mauser strengthens the German industry. Moreover, it is a better weapon than the DEFA thanks to higher rate of fire and greater muzzle velocity.

[+KnightWolf45]

what exterior airframe changes whould be need to fit the J79 engine?

from a 3d model point of vue?

[PraetorH]

Well I do not know, but since the Kfir has the J-79 in it, I think that is a good place to look at.

[+KnightWolf45]

yep forgot that detail

[+suhsjake]

From pictures, it looks like the BK-27 is smaller and more compact than the DEFA. I think it would be reasonable to use the BK-27, just post 1976.

[+Spillone104]

For the engine, keeping in mind minor exterior modification I say 9K50 unless an Avon 300/RM6C is possible. The RM6C use an eyelid nozzle like the Atar 09B, instead the the Atar 09C and 09K50 use a more conventional AB nozzle. For the guns the BK-27 is a far better choice than keeping the DEFA552, maybe adding some more rounds to the magazines. For the radar the NASARR seems to be a bit too large in diameter for the radome, maybe the F-4E radar could fit.

[+Wrench]

Or the SF2I Nesher body ...

 

wrench

kevin stein

[Derk]

On the engine side we have three lines of engine we can use for a total of 6 engines.

 

First we can use newer members of the Atar family, either the 9C (from the Mirage IIIE/5 family) for a small thrust increase and increased reliability, it's an almost drop-in replacement but it still is an outdated engine.

Then given the timeframe we can opt for the Atar 9K-50 used on the then new Mirage F.1, it would offer both better performances, reliability and range at the cost of minor to no airframe change.

 

We could also opt for a member of the Avon family, they're not as easy to maintain, are a few hundred kilos heavier than the Atar but require very little adaptation and offer better thrust for a different fuel consumption scheme.

The Volvo RM 6A, an Avon 200 derivative used on the J 32B Lansen offers better fuel consumption than the Atar 9 family, with better thrust, it is however inferior on both instances to the Atar 9K-50 or the Avon 300 series.

The Volvo RM 6C, an Avon 300 derivative used on the J 35F Draken offers one of the best fuel consumption figures of the possibilities, with the greatest thrust, the swedish AB is probably more fuel efficient than the original one.

The Rolls Royce Avon 301, used on the Lightning F.6, offers good figures dry but is burning fuel like mad on afterburner.

 

Lastly, we could use the J79-GE-19 used on the italian F-104S, it would require more extensive airframe changes and offer performances somewhere between the Atar 9/Avon 200 and Atar 9K/Avon 300.

Take into account that the J79 is the heaviest of the possible engines, while having a real thrust and fuel consumption advantage only on afterburner.

Worse, to use it you'd have to perform extensive airframe changes, further increasing the weight.

 

If you still give the Germans getting F-4F, it may make sense to use the J79 though.

Otherwise the use of the Atar 9K-50 would be the simplest, easiest and less costly to perform, the use of the 9C would make little sense.

The Avon upgrade path makes sense however and, assuming the swedish AB is more fuel efficient than the Lightning's, the RM 6C would be a good choice.

 

Engine            Dry Thrust    Wet Thrust    M0TSFC    ABM0TSFC    M1TSFC    ABM1TSFC

Atar 9B            41.635        58.841        1.010    2.030        1.417    2.352
Atar 9C            41.973        62.760        1.010    2.030        1.417    2.352
Atar 9K-50        49.030        70.600        0.800    2.000        1.200    2.250
J79-GE-19        52.800        79.600        0.843    1.970        1.183    2.282
RM 6A (Avon 200)    47.000        65.300        0.863    ??        1.211    ??
RM 6C (Avon 300)    56.500        78.400        0.720    ??        0.904    ??
Avon 301        56.449        72.774        0.720    2.045        0.904    2.500

 

The Avon powered Mirage was a very good idea. Actually one flew as a prototype for the RAAF

 

http://forum.keypubl...ad.php?t=104405

 

and it seems it is still in existence....

A missed opportunity............

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

Edited March 11, 2011 by Derk

[Gunrunner]

P.S. : Sorry Derk, wrote this before you then went away and published it only now.

 

Concerning the J79, on the top of my mind the changes on the Kfir were mostly due to three factors :

- The J79 ran marginally hotter dry than either the Atar or Avon and tremendously more wet, creating the need for some additional thermal protection.

On the Kfir that meant a titanium casing around the engine and a fuselage of a slightly larger diameter.

- Corollary of above, there was a need for more engine cooling for the afterburner, that was the purpose of the intake at the root of the vertical stab.

- Finally, the increased power and design of the J79 meant that more air was needed to feed it so slightly larger air intakes were fitted.

You probably could opt to create a J79 derivative not requiring those changes, however to do so you would have to reduce its performance, especially its afterburner, however such loss of power, added to the fact it wouldn't change the fact the engine would still be the heaviest of the choices would reduce performance to the point where it holds no advantage over the Atar 9K-50 or the Avon, it would also reduce fuel efficiency if I'm not mistaken.

 

The Mirage-Avon tested for the Australian market was a Mirage IIIC fitted with... an Avon 301 without major modification, it proved able to reach Mach 1.3 dry.

Here's a view of the nozzle :

 

The historically tested configuration are :

Mirage III + Atar 9B (Mirage IIIC) - Stock

Mirage III + Atar 9C (Mirage IIIE, Mirage 5) - Drop in

Mirage III + Avon 301 (Mirage-Avon (Mirage IIIO prototype)) - Minimal changes

Mirage III + J79 (Kfir) - Extensive changes

Mirage III + Atar 9K-50 (Mirage IIING) - Minimal changes

 

The RM 5A2 is highly possible (there is no additional constraint compared to an Avon 300), the RM 6C highly probable (it's an Avon 300 derivative, but the swedish afterburner may run too hot, see the rear air intakes of the Draken).

Edited March 11, 2011 by Gunrunner

[Derk]

P.S. : Sorry Derk, wrote this before you then went away and published it only now.

 

 

Derk

 

PS: so the Mirage III O Avon would have been a supercruiser !!!

[PraetorH]

Great infos again! Unfortunatly I am not a 3D-modeller, so I cannot change the model of the Mirage IIIE. This is its nozzle:

 

 

I actually think this can pose for an Avon, unless of course you all disagree.

Mausers are set. Indeed I did not plan this bird to go into production before 1976. Some parallel work the BK 27 and the upgrade programme would be quite reasonable unthinkable after all the BK 27 has been in developement since 1969 being planned for the MRCA (--> Tornado).

 

Any Idea for the radar? A simplified APQ 120 radar may not be a bad idea. However the Phantom is no much larger than the Mirage so I am not sure if there is enough space in the nose of the IIIE.

Edited March 11, 2011 by PraetorHonoris

[Gunrunner]

The Mirage IIIE can pose as a refitted Mirage IIIC with increased fuel capacity, you'll just have to remove the doppler and the rest is skinning and ini work (well, removing the doppler is ini work too).

 

For the radar, think that the time frame means it's not just a simple matter of taking the electronics and playing on the antenna size and shape to fit a plane.

In the 70's and early 80's electronics are still bulky and relatively hard to reconfigure spatially.

Think also that radars need electricity and you're starting with a design where mechanics and hydraulics are the rule, and engineered to generate enough power for it's initial needs, not a more powerful, more modern design, at least not without modifications (that should rule out the F-15A radar even if it would fit once heavily castrated).

 

For the era let's consider the alternatives, anything's an improvement over the Cyrano II anyway :

From France you have two choices, either the Cyrano IV (once again taken from the Mirage F.1), a definitive improvement over the Cyrano II, geared more toward air, with limited lood-down and multirole capabilities, or the Agave (taken from the Super-Etendard), geared more toward maritime strike but with air combat and classical strike modes (Marinefliegger ??).

From the UK you only one modern likely candidate, the Blue Fox (taken from the Sea Harrier FRS.1), the Lightning's AIRPASS wouldn't fit AFAIK.

From Sweden you have the PS-01 from the J 35F Draken, a purely swedish design, geared toward air interception.

From the US you have more choices, however the fit may create problem :

- APQ-120 taken from the F-4E, possible but doubtful.

- APG-66 taken from the early F-16A, very unlikely, at least not a full version of either the antenna or the electronics behind it, also I doubt the Mirage has what it takes to power it.

- APG-63 taken from the early F-15A, with a different antenna, maybe some loss of capability and definitely more around early 80's than mid 70's.

From Italy/US you have the F-104S R-21G radar.

 

If you want a pure interceptor you should avoid the Agave, APG-66 and Blue Fox as they won't offer SARH compatibility in your timeframe.

If you want to use Sparrow/Aspide/Skyflash you can take either the PS-01, APQ-120, APG-63 or R-21G.

If you want maritime modes in addition to air modes, only the Blue Fox and Agave offer them.

The Cyrano IV gains the advantage by being the easiest fit, however it limits you to the R-530s, clearly an inferior choice in the late 70's, however by chosing the Cyrano IV you have an easy upgrade path to the far better Cyrano IVMR a few years later.

However, since we are in the What-if realm, you can decide that special versions were made just for the Luftwaffe.

 

If you have MFG Mirages, you could buy French and use Agave radars for MFG planes and Cyrano IV for Luftwaffe ones.

 

Take into account that those changes cost time and money, some more than others.

 

Changing the Atar to an Avon would cost little, as much of the work has already been done by Dassault and they would be happy to charge you to do it; Another Atar might be a minor operation, the J79 however would require years of feasibility study, trials and refit.

 

Likewise, switching the Cyrano II for another french radar would be easy and painless, most of the work being already one, for the others, especially if there are necessary changes, it might be a long and costly process.

 

That is often a decisive factor in the real world.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Gunrunner

[PraetorH]

To clarify my matter a little: I had the honour of testing PGCs Mirage IIIG – a fictional Mirage IIIE version for the Luftwaffe. So it is a modified Mirage IIIE, although the model is the same.

 

And I want an upgrade for the mid/late 70ies, and as I should be capable of doing this on my own I am exploring possibilities (mostly ini editing and working a bit in the cockpit for the RWR). You are very helpful in this.

 

I am inclined to optimize this upgraded Mirage IIIG for the interceptor role, because the MRCA was already defined as low level striker by that time, which is why the British opted for developing an ADV version of the MRCA in 1976. In addition to the upcoming Alpha-Jet for the LeKG in the CAS role, the interceptor was the most pressing Luftwaffe issue that needed to be addressed. The Marineflieger would have to wait for the MRCA, as they had to in real history. The rather poor treatment of our naval aviation is kind of tradition...

 

Concerning the radar one has to remember that BVR did not matter too much for the Luftwaffe, considering the dense SAM line across Germany and the overall small territory, but all-weather-capability mattered a lot, which is again no surprise considering the weather here.

Consequently I am not sure about the radar. I would rather give them some radar guided missiles that can actually hit something, but then costs also matter indeed. Cyrano IV is the winner it seems.

 

I have little understanding of these things: is a Cyrano IV wired to use Sparrows totally unrealistic, or just quite expansive? Another option would be semi-active radar sidewinders tested by the Luftwaffe in the later 70ies. They knew about the US tests, but they wanted an all aspect all weather missile, and cared not so much about the range. On the other hand, all aspect Sidewinders also were not far away and German industry was well aware of this.

 

Again, thanks for your thoughts!

Edited March 12, 2011 by PraetorHonoris

[+Wrench]

all this radar running around has been taken care of in my aformentioned Panamanian ROSE1 Mirage (albeit, for the 90s - one could easily remove the HUD statements from the avionics ini, and rewrite it for a simplified, pre-HUD style, late 70s maybe; it that's a choice)

 

Y'all are working WAY too hard for a "What Ifer..."

 

(why do you think I use ALL stock, in-game items, right down to the CorsairIIs pit??)

 

wrench

kevin stein

[PraetorH]

I am sorry, I do not understand your point. I have looked into your Panama Mirage briefly, and I certainly learned from it (like the double Sidewinder launcher ), but the parameters for this what-if and my project are different in almost every aspect.

How exactly has this radar running around taken care of? What does it actually mean?

 

I for one mean: I know how to give the Mirage III any radar I want in game (at least I think so yet), I just want to know what would have been possible in real life. This concerns both, technical and political questions within the given timeframe and conditions.

These aspects are very important to me, since what-if is not the same as anything-goes.

 

As for the workload, I like theorizing what-ifs a lot (being historian I get my share of 'real life' history anyway ), and when it comes to editing inis... well, I need to learn. How to learn it better by doing it?

[+Wrench]

ok, NOW it's clear to me!! Well thought out!!! .. usually, for WhatIfs, one just 'shoehorns' in whatever seems to work, for a given time period.

Whereas, the SAN Mirage is loosly based off what the Paki's did to their Mir3s and 5s (using what's already in game due to laziness, although heavily researched on the PAF versions)

 

since what-if is not the same as anything-goes

 

As the Once (and maybe again Future) King of What If..I couldn't AGREE more!!!

"If so-and-so chooses to use this-or-that, how would it be made to work"

The very essence of historicaly accurate "What Ifs".

 

My compliments, sir!!

 

wrench

kevin stein

[Gunrunner]

Praetor, I'm not sure the Cyrano IV can't receive Sparrow guidance, but I'm sure it's never been done and given the state of French radar design of the era probably would have required extensive changes.

Moreover, you have to take into account the geopolitical implications of such changes, a Sparrow-compatible Cyrano would mean Franco-American cooperation in an era where we still were fierce competitors for selling planes, and not on the best of terms politically.

If the germans were to ask the US for assistance, I think at the time they would be offered a custom variant of a US design more readily and at a better cost than helping integrate Sparrows with a French design.

Any other european design though makes more sense if you really want Sparrows.

 

The main trouble with changing the radar on the Mirage for anything other than the Cyrano IV is the limited space and diameter.

 

On the engine front, here are some interesting figures :

Engine				Diameter	Length		Dry Weight
Atar 9B (Mirage IIIC)		1 000 mm	6 732 mm	1 356 kg
Atar 9C (Mirage IIIE)		1 000 mm	6 732 mm	1 430 kg
Avon 301R (Lightning)		  907 mm	3 200 mm	1 309 kg
Atar 9K-50 (Mirage F.1)		1 020 mm	6 589 mm	1 582 kg

However I'm not sure if the information given for the Avon takes into account the afterburner section or not (the Atars do).

[PraetorH]

Thanks for the information and the compliments!

 

 

I have now a good plan, I think:

 

Engine: RB146 Avon 67 RA.29 - It is a tested combination, gives ample thrust, and even strengthens the European partnerships of Germany to both, UK and France. This was quite important in the 70ies, because at that time the FRG, UK and France were involved in a lot of co-operations.

 

Radar: Cyrano IV - Again it is a tested combination (Mirage 50) and it should not be too expansive while offering increased AA capabilities

 

Armament 1 (guns): Twin Mauser BK 27 - although from a military point of view, the DEFA was rather sufficient, industrial concerns may had pressed for the Mauser. Thankfully it is a better gun after all.

 

Armament 2 (missiles): up to six Sidewinders using double launch rails, including Semi-active Radar guided Sidewinders (SARS) – the SARS was within the realm of the possible, it was delayed because of costs constrains and died because of the AMRAAM MoA in 1980. As the upgrade programme would be less expensive than it was buying the F-4F fleet (and upgrading it all the time…), the SARS may have a chance. I hope modifying the Cyrano will not be too hard, but the French are probably more willing to do this rather than modifying it for Sparrows. It gives the Mirage all-weather-capability without using more expensive Sparrows.

 

RWR, countermeasures, and maybe ECM: Germany had developed ECM for both, Starfighter and Phantom, so it may fit for the Mirage as well. RWR and countermeasures are set.

 

Camo: the Norm 81 used on the Phantom was a compromise between the fighters and fighter-bombers, consequently the light grey all-fighter camo tested in the 70ies, later leading to the Norm 90J, was not used. I think I will reactivate this trial. Admittedly I am doing this because I do like the light grey... Let's see how it looks on the Mirage.

 

 

 

The upgraded Mirage IIIG (77) may not be a world beater, especially in the 80ies, still it is a cost effective upgrade packing quite some punch, not to mention that it makes the Mirage a hotrod. The icing on the cake would be that it is an entirely European project (almost at least). Not that I dislike US products, on the contrary, it is just politically that I prefer a European solution.

 

regards!

Edited March 12, 2011 by PraetorHonoris