Warbirds Thread
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
bintananth
behind a desk
The Desault Mirage IV:
commons.wikimedia.org
If you think it looks like an upscaled Mirage III that's because it basically was an upscaled Mirage III. They could maintain Mach 2 for 30 minutes while carrying an atomic bomb.
They also had refueling gear and a Mirage IV was also a tanker.
When the "Milk Cow" can hit Mach 2 and stay there for awhile the defense problem just got a whole lot more complicated.
File:Dassault Mirage IVP, France - Air Force AN0758316.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
If you think it looks like an upscaled Mirage III that's because it basically was an upscaled Mirage III. They could maintain Mach 2 for 30 minutes while carrying an atomic bomb.
They also had refueling gear and a Mirage IV was also a tanker.
When the "Milk Cow" can hit Mach 2 and stay there for awhile the defense problem just got a whole lot more complicated.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Is basically the French way to say fuck you. And very well done at that time, btw.
bintananth
behind a desk
Extremely well done because the Mirage series was something the French Government didn't even ask for.
Huh. I've never seen F-22s equipped with drop tanks before.
They've always had external hardpoints; not surprised they included drop-tank fittings.
Particularly when most 22s are either in Alaska or Hawaii, and thus need long legs.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
The YF-23 is still the coolest looking plane ever built.
Also there was the version for aircraft carriers
Also there was the version for aircraft carriers
Last edited:
bintananth
behind a desk
I just looked up the engine specs for the Mirage IV.
The SNECMA Atar is derived from the WWII-era BMW engines used by the Germans to power their jets and a fuel hog.
That 30 minutes of Mach 2 requires burning 15 tons of fuel.
The SNECMA Atar is derived from the WWII-era BMW engines used by the Germans to power their jets and a fuel hog.
That 30 minutes of Mach 2 requires burning 15 tons of fuel.
Last edited:
killerofa23
Well-known member
Does a mirage even carry that much in useful load?
paulobrito
Well-known member
So, like the other turbojets of the same era?
bintananth
behind a desk
Paris to Moscow is 1 hour at Mach 2 and a Mirage IV can carry about 12.5 tons of fuel and an atomic bomb without needing the drop tanks.
Mirage IV's almost always flew in pairs. One had the nuke, the other had the extra fuel, and getting ordered to nuke Moscow was a one-way trip.
bintananth
behind a desk
Sorta.
One of the design questions the French had to answer when designing the Mirage IV was similar to the one the US had to answer when designing the SR-71: How do we keep this from melting?
paulobrito
Well-known member
The fact is, the French get an elegant solution to the problem. AFAIK, nobody else designed a supersonic tanker to go with the bombers.
The Americans wouldn't need them as we had bases all over to fly tankers from
bintananth
behind a desk
The US also didn't design the B-58 to pull double duty as a tanker on top of being a supersonic strategic bomber with "which one has the nuke?" as a legit question a pilot intercepting one would need to answer.
What?
bintananth
behind a desk
Your lack of military knowledege is, shall we say ... impressive ... for someone who says they're military intelligence.
The Mirage IV outclasses the B-58 in practically every way.
I was confused at what you were getting at.
The US made the B58 and used it for ten years.
It's original plan was not as good after the Soviets came out with high altitude interceptors and high altitude missles.
So they went to flying low, so defeated thier purpose
bintananth
behind a desk
The MiG-25 and F-15 look very similar.
When the US got their hands on a MiG-25 the analysis basically amounted to "we vastly overestimated the Soviets".
The F-15 is still in service. The MiG-25 is not.
Where the hell dud you get what you are smoking
They look nothing alike.
The 29 and the 35 look more like the 15