Hughes TARAN 18 radar system

Privateer

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
Hello everybody!

My first topic on this forum! :)

I'm trying to find some information on the Hughes TARAN 18 radar system used in the Swiss Mirage IIIS variant of the Mirage IIIE instead of the usual Cyrano IIbis. Googling for it didn't bring any real results.

AFAIK this different radar system was selected since it was compatible with the AIM-26B / HM-55S Falcon missiles and the FLORIDA ground-based early warning and control chain, which was developed by Hughes for Switzerland.

Sadly that's it, though. Does anybody have some more information on this subject?

Thanks in advance for your help! :)
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,589
Reaction score
1,841
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Further to the above question, I just read in "The RAAF Mirage Story" by WGCDR Susans that the Swiss were well advanced in studying/developing a TARAN-18 and [AIM-7] Sparrow combination for the Mirage III. This may be a typo with AIM-7 meant to be AIM-4 Falcon though. Can anyone shed any further light in regard to this especially if a Mirage III/AIM-7 combo was ever contemplated/trialled?
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
669
Further to the above question, I just read in "The RAAF Mirage Story" by WGCDR Susans that the Swiss were well advanced in studying/developing a TARAN-18 and [AIM-7] Sparrow combination for the Mirage III. This may be a typo with AIM-7 meant to be AIM-4 Falcon though. Can anyone shed any further light in regard to this especially if a Mirage III/AIM-7 combo was ever contemplated/trialled?
Sadly some four years on GTX, but hopefully this might bring some information to the table, as it would be very interesting if the Swiss were in fact considering a Mirage IIIE/Sparrow combo.
As a side note, would I be safe in saying it would be somewhat easier to fit a Continuous Wave (CW) emitter to the Hughes TARAN 18 radar, as opposed to the Cyrano IIB??
Also, if I may, what other aircraft type flew with the Hughes TARAN radar system?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,867
Reaction score
5,716
On paper at least the Mirage III should be able to handle medium range SARH missiles... since the R530 was exactly that: a french Sparrow (the missile, not the pirate - scuttlefish).
Never saw a Mirage with two R530 underwings. F1, yes - but not its forerunner. Only one in the centerline. Which is not much. Must have been a matter of drop tanks, fuel and range.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,589
Reaction score
1,841
Website
beyondthesprues.com
On paper at least the Mirage III should be able to handle medium range SARH missiles... since the R530 was exactly that: a french Sparrow (the missile, not the pirate - scuttlefish).
Never saw a Mirage with two R530 underwings. F1, yes - but not its forerunner. Only one in the centerline. Which is not much. Must have been a matter of drop tanks, fuel and range.
If you think about it, the Mirage III was really an interceptor that had a secondary role as a fighter. Its primary intercept would have gone something like: race to enemy (burning fuel like crazy) - upon identification maybe fire a R.530 in the face with the idea being to either bring down a bomber or make the other guys at least go on the defensive - merge and dogfight (using up even more fuel) - maybe get 1 or 2 shots in - bingo fuel light goes off - hope one can extricate from fur ball - head home and fight another day.
 
Last edited:

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
669
On paper at least the Mirage III should be able to handle medium range SARH missiles... since the R530 was exactly that: a french Sparrow (the missile, not the pirate - scuttlefish).
Never saw a Mirage with two R530 underwings. F1, yes - but not its forerunner. Only one in the centerline. Which is not much. Must have been a matter of drop tanks, fuel and range.
If you think about it, the Mirage III was really an interceptor that had a secondary role as a fighter. Its primary intercept would have gone something like: race to enemy (burning fuel like crazy) - upon identification maybe fire a R.530 in the face with the idea being to either bring down a bomber or make the other guys at least go on the defensive - merge and dogfight (using up even more fuel) - maybe get 1 or 2 shots in - bingo fuel light goes off - hope one can extricate from fur ball - head home and fight another day.
I know and appreciate we've had a similar in-depth conversion about just this on another forum GTX.
On paper at least the Mirage III should be able to handle medium range SARH missiles... since the R530 was exactly that: a french Sparrow (the missile, not the pirate - scuttlefish).
Never saw a Mirage with two R530 underwings. F1, yes - but not its forerunner. Only one in the centerline. Which is not much. Must have been a matter of drop tanks, fuel and range.
If you think about it, the Mirage III was really an interceptor that had a secondary role as a fighter. Its primary intercept would have gone something like: race to enemy (burning fuel like crazy) - upon identification maybe fire a R.530 in the face with the idea being to either bring down a bomber or make the other guys at least go on the defensive - merge and dogfight (using up even more fuel) - maybe get 1 or 2 shots in - bingo fuel light goes off - hope one can extricate from fur ball - head home and fight another day.
I know and appreciate we've had a similar in-depth conversion about just this Mirage III missile loadout on another forum GTX.
As then, as in know I concur with your sentiment about the Mirage III being designed and intended as an interceptor, as opposed to a 'fighter'. But a couple of issues I have with the Mirage IIIC relying on a single R530 was not just the R530
inherently poor reliability - not so much because it was the R530, but because of the poor performance of all early AAM's of that period.
I'm envisaging that when the French Air Force development it's requirements and Dassault responded in kind with its Mirage III design, the principle perceived threat would have been Soviet nuclear armed long-range bombers. So I would have thought the destruction of such bombers would have been paramount - hence the reliance on only one unreliable R530 missile seems odd. Ok, I understand and commend the fact that the French Air Force/Dassault was astute enough to include two powerful and reliable 30mm DEFA cannon's for last opportunity close-in destruction of such bomber's, even at a time both the Soviet Union and the U.S. were putting all faith in all-missile armament for their then state-of-the-art fighters/interceptors.
I also appreciate that the French Air Force added Aim-9B Sidewinder's (and then later R550) to its Mirage IIIC's [as a side note, does anyone know when the Aim-9B was fitted to the French Mirage IIIC fleet??], a missile somewhat more reliable than the R530, but again, the Aim-9B still suffered reliability issues and limited engagement envalope. On top of this the Aim-9's warhead was quite small in terms of the Soviet bomber it would be intending to kill, before it could drop its nuclear weapon....
Long of the short, I would have envisaging the French Air Force wanting two R530 type/size missiles to allow for attrition - aka one R530 failing for what ever reasons.


P.S. I know my analogy is simple and dry, but I've come to appreciate the merit in the Soviet's employing a minimum of two missiles on their interceptors (one SARH and one IR) for this same operational reason, in meeting the same perceived threat - nuclear armed bombers...
Hence I guess my interest in the likes of two Aim-7 Sparrow III's equipping the Mirage III.


Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Top