Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[carvalho2008]

See my post here. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...during-falklands-war.41308/page-6#post-609874

Just asking a) could a Dagger with one 1300 L belly tank + 2*JL-100s "mix tanks" reach the Falklands and british fleet ?

And b) (I'm thinking of Crippa and his MB-339 here, who did that) how hard would it be for a Dagger, coming full bore and very low over the water, to put a few of 36 unguided FFAR into a British warship ?

c) what kind of damage can 68 mm FFAR do to a warship ?

I think this might be an interesting whatif. Considering the fact that Crippa managed to put a few FFAR into a british warship with a MB-339;
Whatif Argentina had JL-100s for its Daggers, and managed to put some on Skyhawks ?

Would it be suicide to attack the British fleet with the same Daggers and Skyhawks as per OTL, same low altitude and speed, except firing 2*18 68mm FFAR rockets ? Instead of obsolete bombs or bombs dropped too low and fast and not exploding half of the time ?

I think those are important questions to ask (and answer).

Try focusing on this, folks...

Friends, why the doubt if the flight and attack profile would make it possible to use and hit rockets?

The profile was flat against the sides of the ships, at the last second the fighter climbed to pass over the ship...

Remembering, the fighters arrived at the level and using the cannons .... so .... there is no doubt ....

 

[carvalho2008]

 

[H_K]

Just asking a) could a Dagger with one 1300 L belly tank + 2*JL-100s "mix tanks" reach the Falklands and british fleet ?

Short answer is no. The Daggers needed at least 2x 1,700L or 3x 1,300L tanks to reach the Falklands… already explained earlier in this thread.

So 1x 1,300L tank + 2x 278L in the JL100s wouldn’t cut it. Perhaps 1x JL-100 could be carried on the centerline store with 2x 1,700L underwing.

Now you may have noticed that there also was a « super JL100 », the giant JL300 with 36x 68mm rockets. Fuel capacity unclear although some sources say 1,300L. One of those under one wing balanced by a 1,700L tank under the other wing would be interesting, maybe with a JL100 or 2 bombs on the centerline. Or the CEM-1 combined store with 18x rockets and 1x 250kg bomb.
JL200:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/1689282990274-png.703510/

CEM 1:

 

[carvalho2008]

I found this image that is very illustrative of what I had said that the MB-326 would do the same mission as the A-4.....

Does anyone think the A-4 was at 600 knots? Less than 50 meters high?....impossible...the terrain was rough...it wasn't Maverick flying an F-18...rzrzrz...at most, about 450 knots... .see the distance from the ship to the slope of the island, which was when the fighters were finally captured....100 knots of difference from the MB-339 would not be irrelevant given the distance...there is no time....and a detail...flying an MB-326 in this flight profile is absurdly more comfortable than a high-performance fighter...it has a better flight envelope at this altitude...

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Short answer is no. The Daggers needed at least 2x 1,700L or 3x 1,300L tanks to reach the Falklands… already explained earlier in this thread.

So 1x 1,300L tank + 2x 278L in the JL100s wouldn’t cut it. Perhaps 1x JL-100 could be carried on the centerline store with 2x 1,700L underwing.

Now you may have noticed that there also was a « super JL100 », the giant JL200 with 36x 68mm rockets. Fuel capacity unknown. Maybe one of those on the centerline would be interesting. Or the CEM-1 combined store with 18x rockets and 1x 250kg bomb.
JL200:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/1689282990274-png.703510/

CEM 1:

H_K
Looking that photo, I would say that the original drop tank was an 1700Lts tank (size an little wing)

Finger IIIB with 1700lts tank (you can see the same little wing)
The rocket pods is 1/3 of the tank.
Only a guest

 

[H_K]

@carvalho2008 Yes I found a source saying the JL 300 used a 1,700 tank and had 1,300L fuel capacity… edited my post.

 

[Archibald]

Ok ok, keep on the good work folks.

The Daggers needed at least 2x 1,700L or 3x 1,300L tanks to reach the Falklands

Starting from this: a Dagger needed 3*1300 L of kerosene to reach the Falklands. Okay ?

Now, those 3*1300 L, how about
- 1*1300 L under the belly
- two of these

a « super JL100 », the giant JL300 with 36x 68mm rockets. Fuel capacity unclear although some sources say 1,300L

I would say that the original drop tank was an 1700 L tank (size an little wing)

That's the thing. Our Dagger would have 1*1300L + 2*1700 L "except cut to 1300 L plus JL-100"

So our Dagger would have its 3*1300 L of kerosene plus two JL-100.

Provided of course that the additional drag of "1700 L size" wing tanks don't ruin the day... that's the price to pay !

 

[carvalho2008]

The warhead of a rocket is similar to the explosive of a cannon projectile of the same caliber.

On November 30th, around 9:30 pm, about 300 miles off Cabo Frio, during Operation FRATERNO, the Brazilian frigate Type 22 Rademaker was accidentally hit by 40 mm cannon fire from the Argentine frigate ARA Sarandi, which was carrying out an exercise against a towed target. Four men were injured, three from the Brazilian Navy and an Argentine observer officer, CF (ARA) Marcos Emílio Mateso.

The photos above are of the unintentional damage caused by the projectiles without an explosive charge.....imagine if they were with a charge, and 68mm....it would literally pierce all the ship's sensitive skin and gun ports and sensors would be out of combat, for months...

 

[Archibald]

So, in a few words...

One Dagger. One 1300 L drop tank under the belly. Two 1700 L tanks under the wings, EXCEPT they contain each "1300 L of kerosene + 2 JL-100 rocket pods".

Do we agree on that ? @carvalho2008 posts above makes some good points, that throwing FFAR rockets at British warship has been proven by Cuppa, somewhat, with his MB-339.
Also the low altitude and speed of OTL Daggers and Skyhawks. If they could place bombs into warships, flying that way; in comparison, just pressing a button and firing a total of 36 rockets (rather than two bombs) should be doable.

I can see two major advantage for Daggers, flying the exact same speed and height as OTL

- they have 36 rockets instead of two bombs : statistically, they have higher chance to hit something (LMAO)

- they don't have to calculate anything about dropping bombs: for rockets, it's kind of "press the button, fire the 36"

- well in fact it is much like firing the DEFA 30 mm guns: you point, and you shoot. This could help.

Personal opinion: If I were a pilot and fly the same crazy profile as the Skyhawks and Dagger pilots, I'd rather press a fire button (guns or rockets) like crazy, rather than trying to drop bombs at the correct split second for them to hit the warship firing at me like crazy, by all tubes (from MG to Sea Darts).

 

[carvalho2008]

Então, em poucas palavras...

Uma adaga. Um tanque de queda de 1300 L sob a barriga. Dois tanques de 1700 L sob as asas, EXCETO que cada um contém "1300 L de querosene + 2 cápsulas de foguete JL-100".

Nós concordamos com isso? @carvalho2008 as postagens acima fazem alguns bons pontos, que o lançamento de foguetes FFAR no navio de guerra britânico foi comprovado por Cuppa, de certa forma, com seu MB-339.
Também a baixa altitude e velocidade de OTL Daggers e Skyhawks. Se eles pudessem colocar bombas em navios de guerra, voando dessa maneira; em comparação, apenas apertar um botão e disparar um total de 36 foguetes (em vez de duas bombas) deve ser possível.

Eu posso ver duas grandes vantagens para Daggers, voando exatamente na mesma velocidade e altura que o OTL

- eles têm 36 foguetes em vez de duas bombas

- eles não precisam calcular nada sobre o lançamento de bombas: para foguetes, é como "pressione o botão, dispare o 36"

- bem, na verdade, é como disparar as armas DEFA 30 mm: você aponta e atira. Isso pode ajudar.

Opinião pessoal: Se eu fosse um piloto e voasse com o mesmo perfil maluco dos pilotos Skyhawks e Dagger, preferiria apertar um botão de disparo (armas ou foguetes) como um louco, ao invés de tentar soltar bombas na fração de segundo correta para eles para acertar o navio de guerra atirando em mim como um louco, por todos os tubos (de MG a Sea Darts).

yes...

 

[Archibald]

Ha ha it is so weird to see my answer in Brazilian language... Note that it started as french, in my brain... so, french in my brain, english out of my keyboard, and then, brazilian (should I say, portuguese ? please take no offense... )

I think we are up to an interesting, realistic whatif.

Whatif Argentina air force bought "JL-100 / 1700 L drop tanks" for its Daggers ? Or, d'oh, silly me: for their Mirage IIIE ? (often forget those Mirages, since they were out of the fight after early May, per lack of range and the need to defend airspace against Vulcans)

And whatif they adapted those tanks to Skyhawks ? (I have no clue about Skyhawk drop tanks, all I know is that they had very tall undercarriage: they looked like grasshoppers, on frail and long legs. Not so frail, btw, since they performed carrier landings, most brutal landings in aviation history outside crashes).

So,

- 1972: Argentina buy Mirage IIIE as per OTL

-they buy JL-100 / 1700 L tanks for them (unlike OTL)

- fast forward to 1982: the Mirage IIIE still lack range and get kicked by SHARs in their first fight (high vs low, AIM-9L etc.), so they are withdrawn for potential fights against marauding Black Buck Vulcans - which never happen.

- this makes their JL-100-tanks (let's call them that way) grounded: unused

- then some smart guy has a light bulb moment "Eureka ! Let's mate this to the Daggers ! Which are similar enough to the IIIEs !"

- first try, it works in a rather encouraging way ("encouraging" except for the RN, obviously)

- later somebody else gets another "Eureka !" moment and try his chance mating a JL tank to Skyhawks

I don't think this could change the course of the war, but it could give (at least) the RN a more bloody nose. Provided of course Argentina doesn't runs out of FFAR rockets, because blockade / embargo / whatever.

By the way, if FFAR rockets proves devastating enough (and not too much a pilot suicide !!), then who knows ? Maybe in a desperate move the Fuerza Aera Argentina could go all out with Port Stanley's MB-339s: not ONE Cuppa but a few more of them. And then are the MB-326s, but that would really be a last ditch move. Plus, as said repeatedly, even for Aermacchis Port Stanley rudimentary infrastructure remain a big bottleneck. Maybe - maybe - screw the Pucaras and go all out on Aermacchis, 326 and 339 altogether. But there are not that many of them... and british warships are shelling the shit out of the place.

 

[carvalho2008]

Now, let's go back and once again analyze those ships that were fired upon by 30 mm guns and were not put out of action.

remembering that the rocket hypothesis does not have to be absolute, it can be merged with planes with bombs in subsequent attacks....

And not just main ships, but also amphibious and cargo ships...

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Ha ha it is so weird to see my answer in Brazilian language... Note that it started as french, in my brain... so, french in my brain, english out of keyboard, and then, brazilian (should I say, portuguese ? please take no offense... )

I think we are up to an interesting, realistic whatif.

Whatif Argentina air force bought "JL-100 / 1700 L drop tanks" for its Daggers ?

And whatif they adapted those tanks to Skyhawks ? (I have no clue about Skyhawk drop tanks, all I know is that they had very tall undercarriage: they looked like grasshoppers, on frail and long legs. Not so frail, btw, since they performed carrier landings, most brutal landings in aviation history outside crashes).

Archibald
I think (my opinion only) the A-4 attacks load are OK, and with the advantage of AAR
Perhaps, Snake Eye for the FAA.
The Snake Eyes, are use by the Navy only ( anti ship role before war)
The Air force use the MK-17 of 454kg ands BRP Expal of 250kg
I the phot you see A-4 B and C from the Air Force



A-4Q on the carrier, during the war


Similar loads was use to the attack of the HSM Ardent

 

[_Del_]

Personal opinion: If I were a pilot and fly the same crazy profile as the Skyhawks and Dagger pilots, I'd rather press a fire button (guns or rockets) like crazy, rather than trying to drop bombs at the correct split second for them to hit the warship firing at me like crazy, by all tubes (from MG to Sea Darts)

If I were the pilot, I would be wondering "¿Pot que no los dos?" Cannon and rockets to keep the heads down on my way in, and bombs to sink the ship.

The "armed drop tank" idea was just a random thought when everyone was discussing range and weapons. I'm not sure how feasible it is or was for this particular usage (being range from the mainland to the Falklands), but might help. Even four bombs and the small tank on the centerline and two larger tanks on wing stations seems a feasible idea to me.

Rockets would make a mess of a ship, but bombs (that detonate as planned) will sink them. Particularly desirable for those pesky landing ships near shore which then create a navigation hazard for the next wave.

Closer to the topic, I wonder if a bigger pre-war emphasis on armed rotary wing forces might have come in clutch for Argentina.

 

[H_K]

@Archibald If the Daggers use JL 300s then it would actually be 2x 36 = 72 rockets.

Also perhaps the Mirage III gunbay fuel tank could be used, which would add +350L of fuel instead of carrying the guns.

 

[1635yankee]

Why would the Americans sell it? The system was designed for use by the Marines to establish airfields ashore following an amphibious assault. It was a very specialised bit of kit that had essentially no other use.

Any Argentinian expression of interest would prompt the question 'Who are you planning on invading?' Without a good answer that suited American foreign policy objectives, no sale.

Not invading: fighting communists, someplace or another. Angola?

 

[Archibald]

Found this on fessebouc... (ram's bottom, because Facebook sounds like that in french. Just like ChatGPT : cat, I farted).

MIRAGE III For Ever | 4 photos que j'avais récupéré à Cazaux, 2 photos d'un Mirage III E avec 1 missile "AS 30" en fuselage et 2 x "JL 300" en interne voilure (pour cha... | Facebook

4 photos que j'avais récupéré à Cazaux, 2 photos d'un Mirage III E avec 1 missile "AS 30" en fuselage et 2 x "JL 300" en interne voilure (pour chaque JL 300 nous avons 1 partie réservoir de 1200 L +...

www.facebook.com

Uh-oh, seems JL-300 was a basic 1200 L tank, partly taken by the rockets in the front... drats, back to square one. How about
- 2*1300 L tanks underwings
- 1 JL-300 tank on the centerline
On a Dagger, obviously, as the IIIE range was never enough, whatever tricks used.

 

[H_K]

seems JL-300 was a basic 1200 L tank, partly taken by the rockets in the front

I think by this they mean the JL 300 was a 1,700L tank modified with rockets in the front leaving 1,200L of fuel (or 1,300L according to some sources)

Air et Cosmos 1972
« …ces lance- roquettes étant généralement couplés avec des réservoirs supplémentaires (de 250 litres dans le cas des JL-100 à dix-huit roquettes; de 1300L dans le cas des JL-300 à trente-six roquettes »

Air et cosmos

books.google.com

 

[Archibald]

Good point ! So back to square one: one Dagger with a belly 1300 L tank, and two JL-300s under the wings. As noted before, 72 FFAR rockets is one heck of a huge firepower.
Imagine being on a RN warship, seeing Daggers coming extremely low and at insane speed, and then all hell break loose...

By the way, just thought that Peru, a country that passed Mirages to Argentina near the end of the war, may have bought those Matra JL- rocket-tanks. I'll check to see if they had JL-300...

Mirage III configuration armement étrange - Check-Six Forums

www.checksix-forums.com

I'll post a translation. Seems the JL-300 was only "Le Bourget" display, never bought nor used anywhere... Maybe I should ask at Air.defense.net.

 

[EwenS]

What is the attack profile required to deliver these unguided rockets? Does it involve an attack from a greater height than bombs (delivered properly)? Does that result in greater exposure of attacking aircraft to AA and SAMs?

WW2 rockets required to be delivered in a shallow dive.

 

[Archibald]

What is the attack profile required to deliver these unguided rockets? Does it involve an attack from a greater height than bombs (delivered properly)? Does that result in greater exposure of attacking aircraft to AA and SAMs?

WW2 rockets required to be delivered in a shallow dive.

Pertinent question for sure. We have Cuppa as an example of what-could-be-done. I think those big FFAR pods of the 1960's could be fired "horizontally" or close.
Big risk would be to fly through the blast and impacts...

 

[carvalho2008]

See... it was standard that once the mission was given in level flight to the ship's deck, the plane's cannons were used up to the point of firing the bombs...

Rockets would allow the same attack profile, given that they have more range than cannons.

they should carry out the same attack at low altitude and unload everything they have, crossing the bridge of the ships...

 

[carvalho2008]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SomberWhichArgali-mobile.mp4

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SomberWhichArgali-mobile.mp4

 

[Archibald]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alternative-fighter-for-argentine-af-navy-during-falklands-war.41308/post-610251

Okay, thanks for that. Yesterday I was wondering how on Earth could they plant unguided bombs into warships at almost supersonic speed; when WWII bombers at half the speed (if not dive bombers or torpedo bombers) usually missed by hundred meters if not a mile...

Answer 1 - Daggers and Skyhawks had computerized bombsights: "put that point of light on the ship, drop the bombs, and it should be a hit"

Answer 2 - I often forget the british warships were not manoeuvering at highspeed in the open seas - a) because they were shelling inland and b) because they were in a creek and c) because they were close from each others

Which (please) does not diminish the almost suicidal bravery of argentina's pilots. Proof on the pudding: this https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...f-navy-during-falklands-war.41308/post-610253

It's completely insane, how low and fast did they came. Then again, they had bought two Type 42 destroyers, so they knew what Sea cat / Sea dart could do - or not. Sea wolf was coming, too.

Didn't one Skyhawk pilot crashed when its wing clipped a warship mast ? Must have been much less than 100 ft high (or low !)

 

[carvalho2008]

This maneuver at 490 knots??? I doubt it....

 

[tomo pauk]

You’re talking about an aircraft that has maybe a 50% chance of being shot down and 10% chance of hitting anything, with most hits being insufficient to put a ship out of action.

I’m looking for an aircraft that has a 90% chance of surviving and 50% or better chance of hitting, where every hit feels like being hit by an Exocet.

What is the math behind the 50% chance of being shot down for the Aermacchi?
Ditto for 50% hit chance achievable for other plausible Argentinian A/C?

The difference in the math would be:
20 MB-326s = 1 ship seriously damaged or sunk
15 Etendard IVMs = 5+ ships seriously damaged or sunk and 5+ Sea Harriers shot down

As above - what is the math for the expected deeds of Etandards? Especially for 5+ SHars shot down by Etandards?

 

[carvalho2008]

"Malvinas 35 years old: why the bombs didn't explode? (PART 1)"

There is an excellent analysis of the pumps used and the adjustments and fuses, some of which were even national.

I indicate the reading of this analysis divided into 9 parts

Malvinas 35 anos: por que as bombas não explodiram? (PARTE 1) - Poder Aéreo – Aviação, Forças Aéreas, Indústria Aeroespacial e de Defesa

Há 35 anos argentinos e britânicos se enfrentaram na gélidas águas do Atlântico Sul para disputar a posse das ilhas Falklands/Malvinas.

www.aereo.jor.br

 

[carvalho2008]

In the analysis I indicated above, there is a mention that brings great reflection:

- What if Napalm bombs were also used?

What are the consequences for the ship? Napalm bombs explode immediately, using the smaller 125kg and 250kg, they would not pierce the hull and the incendiary material would occur inside the ship.

The material in the indicated link reports that Argentines did not use it for humanitarian reasons, but took napalm bombs to the islands...

 

[H_K]

What is the math behind the 50% chance of being shot down for the Aermacchi?
Ditto for 50% hit chance achievable for other plausible Argentinian A/C?

As above - what is the math for the expected deeds of Etandards? Especially for 5+ SHars shot down by Etandards?

1) A slow armed trainer flying at ~350 knots is much more likely to be intercepted by Sea Harriers than a strike aircraft flying at 480-550 knots. Evidence is how the Canberras were removed from daytime strike duties after the 1st day, and the number of times Sea Harriers failed to engage Daggers due to their lack of overtake speed. Likewise the slow armed trainer would be very vulnerable to ships’ guns relative to a strike aircraft using a missile with a 3km stand-off range.

2) The extremely low hit % and high failure rate of the Argentinian bombs is a matter of historical record. I don’t see why a guided missile like the AS-30 couldn’t achieve 50% or better success rates.

3) Basic kill ratio math. Assuming 15-18 Etendards are used in combat including air to air missions against the 20 Sea Harriers… if the kill ratio is even (1:1) or slightly favorable to the Sea Harriers (1.5:1) then it wouldn’t be unusual for 5+ Sea Harriers to be shot down for the loss of 5-10 Etendards. Considering the Etendard has a better turn rate, level speed and dive acceleration vs Sea Harrier’s better climb rate, the terms would be fairly even, with the main question mark in my mind being Argentinian pilot quality.

 

[carvalho2008]

1) A slow armed trainer flying at ~350 knots is much more likely to be intercepted by Sea Harriers than a strike aircraft flying at 480-550 knots. Evidence is how the Canberras were removed from daytime strike duties after the 1st day, and the number of times Sea Harriers failed to engage Daggers due to their lack of overtake speed. Likewise the slow armed trainer would be very vulnerable to ships’ guns relative to a strike aircraft using a missile with a 3km stand-off range.

2) The extremely low hit % and high failure rate of the Argentinian bombs is a matter of historical record. I don’t see why a guided missile like the AS-30 couldn’t achieve 50% or better success rates.

3) Basic kill ratio math. Assuming 15-18 Etendards are used in combat including air to air missions against the 20 Sea Harriers… if the kill ratio is even (1:1) or slightly favorable to the Sea Harriers (1.5:1) then it wouldn’t be unusual for 5+ Sea Harriers to be shot down for the loss of 5-10 Etendards. Considering the Etendard has a better turn rate, level speed and dive acceleration vs Sea Harrier’s better climb rate, the terms would be fairly even, with the main question mark in my mind being Argentinian pilot quality.

Master HK, analyzing the photos, what is your estimate of the average distance from the ships to the slope? 1.5 km? 3 km?

Given the distance they were, the difference in speed between an MB 326/339 and a Dagger/A-4 would result in a difference between 2 -4 seconds at most.... just do the math.... and forget about this story that they did these maneuvers at 600 knots inside this extremely tight space.... the plane wouldn't even be able to turn in these obstacles... at most 450 knots.... I doubt it more than that... flying heavy, with high wing loading...

The Canberras were heavier with less maneuverability, but they were bombers with nocturnal capability and so they were used in higher altitude flights to escape the already allocated manpads...

 

[H_K]

@carvalho2008 I’m not talking about bomb alley. By that point the British were already ashore and the war was lost. I’m thinking of the battles for sea/air control prior to the landings: anti-ship missions in open water and all the aircraft intercepted by Sea Harriers on ingress/egress. Losing those early battles for air/sea control is why Argentina lost.

 

[carvalho2008]

@carvalho2008 I’m not talking about bomb alley. By that point the British were already ashore and the war was lost. I’m thinking of the battles for sea/air control prior to the landings: anti-ship missions in open water and all the aircraft intercepted by Sea Harriers on ingress/egress. Losing those early battles for air/sea control is why Argentina lost.

Master HK,

Taking the attack on Invincible as an example, in the open ocean, given the formation of 1 SE armed with exocet + 4 A-4 Skyhawk with bombs, noting that the speed of the missile is 600 knots and given that the firing was at 38 km, the report was that the A-4s followed the missile's wake only arriving at the location more than 1 minute after the missile....

What was the speed of the A-4??

 

[F.L.]

Master HK

You can just call him @H_K.

 

[carvalho2008]

Master HK,

Taking the attack on Invincible as an example, in the open ocean, given the formation of 1 SE armed with exocet + 4 A-4 Skyhawk with bombs, noting that the speed of the missile is 600 knots and given that the firing was at 38 km, the report was that the A-4s followed the missile's wake only arriving at the location more than 1 minute after the missile....

What was the speed of the A-4??

only 420knots....

why?

Because they needed to fly under 20-50 meters... this is very hard to control the plane too fast and low... also too weight...

 

[H_K]

only 420knots....

why?

Because they needed to fly under 20-50 meters... this is very hard to control the plane too fast and low... also too weight...

The Super Etendards flew at low level at 500-550 knots on their ingress and 570 knots on their egress. An Etendard IVM with AS-30 missile would be flying at similar speeds. That is very hard for a Sea Harrier to intercept.

Combined with the stand-off range against guns, that means the main threat would be Sea Wolf missiles (from only 2 T22s in theater). Sea Darts would have a very small chance of success during the final pop-up to 150m to launch the AS-30.

 

[Archibald]

But MCLOS was a colossal pain in the butt, for a very lonely and very busy pilot... then again, ships are huge targets.

 

[H_K]

But MCLOS was a colossal pain in the butt, for a very lonely and very busy pilot... then again, ships are huge targets.

Yes that’s the big question. I wish I understood better how AS-30 missiles were used in anti-shipping.

RAF Canberras typically launched in a shallow dive from 1,000ft, which seems too high. They had a 2 man crew so also easier to manage. There are videos of AS-30Ls used by Iraqi Mirage F1s against oil tankers & platforms, typically at 700-800ft… the action is fast & furious. But the laser guidance was much easier.

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NblKSqssoq4

 

[Hood]

RAF Canberras typically launched in a shallow dive from 1,000ft, which seems too high.

From what I've seen, the CEP from the Canberra was poor and around half the missiles fired were misses and judged to be a serious hazard to friendly troops in close air support use.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Did they make ~2000L tanks for the Mirage/Dagger (and could they carry that much weight on the pylons)?

If so, that would give the Mirage/Daggers space for an AS30 on the centerline with a little more fuel than 3x1300L tanks.

 

[H_K]

Did they make ~2000L tanks for the Mirage/Dagger (and could they carry that much weight on the pylons)?

If so, that would give the Mirage/Daggers space for an AS30 on the centerline with a little more fuel than 3x1300L tanks.

2x 1,700L tanks should be enough, ideally with a 350L gunbay tank (as that adds no drag).