Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1?

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nastle
    Rank 5 Registered User

    #21
    interesting aircraft , i always wondered why it did not capture more orders from f-16
    how did it compare to Mig-23ML in air2air combat ? it was up against this type in angola

    Comment

    • Sens
      Rank 5 Registered User

      #22
      Originally posted by H_K View Post
      I once made a similar comment to a French Mirage F1 pilot, and you should have seen him laugh! Turns out, F16As were no match for Mirage F1s, even as recently as the early-1990s...

      Why? Because electronics and weapons systems are usually more important than raw performance in air combat. And before the MLU/ADF update, F16As had no BVR capability. Meanwhile, the Mirage F1 had Matra Super 530Fs (comparable to AIM-7s). Additionally, he told me that in exercises the Mirage F1's ECM systems (presumably he was talking about the offboard Barax) would greatly disrupt Belgian F-16s, which rarely carried ECM systems.

      So even though the F-16A had the better engine and FBW, it was often at a significant disadvantage. Don't believe the "conventional wisdom"...
      That claim of the French pilot does seem questionable to stay polite. The Belgian F-16As did field an internal EW-system taken by the IDF-AF too.
      When and all Belgian F-16As were equipped with that was another question.

      http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article2.html ....red after posting about Carapace ECM equipment and real introduction.
      Last edited by Sens; 28th September 2008, 15:30.

      Comment

      • kukri
        Rank 5 Registered User

        #23
        Originally posted by nastle View Post
        interesting aircraft , i always wondered why it did not capture more orders from f-16
        how did it compare to Mig-23ML in air2air combat ? it was up against this type in angola
        IIRC, the F1 didn't do that well. The SAAF F1s lacked effective AAMs and their experience was that the Floggers had enough of an energy advantage to be able to pretty much engage or disengage at will.

        As a result, the SAAF took to operating at treetop level to avoid them. The MiGs managed to damage one F1 which crashed on landing, crippling the pilot.

        Comment

        • Sens
          Rank 5 Registered User

          #24
          Originally posted by kukri View Post
          IIRC, the F1 didn't do that well. The SAAF F1s lacked effective AAMs and their experience was that the Floggers had enough of an energy advantage to be able to pretty much engage or disengage at will.

          As a result, the SAAF took to operating at treetop level to avoid them. The MiGs managed to damage one F1 which crashed on landing, crippling the pilot.
          At that moment the SAAF did learn, that the weaponary of the Angolan Floggers had a new head-on engagement capability.
          The SAAF had to change its former tactical behavior and to add similar capability AAMs to deny the Angolian that tactical advantage. It is not the aircraft to blame about that, but the lack of SAAF intelligence to be surprised by that.

          Comment

          • kukri
            Rank 5 Registered User

            #25
            Originally posted by Sens View Post
            At that moment the SAAF did learn, that the weaponary of the Angolan Floggers had a new head-on engagement capability.
            The SAAF had to change its former tactical behavior and to add similar capability AAMs to deny the Angolian that tactical advantage. It is not the aircraft to blame about that, but the lack of SAAF intelligence to be surprised by that.
            They were Cuban MiGs and while better intelligence may have addressed some tactical issues, they would still have been sitting with a performance disparity to address.

            Comment

            • H_K
              H_K
              Rank 5 Registered User

              #26
              Originally posted by Sens View Post
              That claim of the French pilot does seem questionable to stay polite. The Belgian F-16As did field an internal EW-system taken by the IDF-AF too.
              When and all Belgian F-16As were equipped with that was another question.

              http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article2.html ....red after posting about Carapace ECM equipment and real introduction.
              Carapace was delivered in 1994. Prior to that, Belgian F-16As had no internal ECM, and apparently no external ECM either. All other F-16s in the European theatre used external ECM pods, as did Mirage F1s. However, U.S. F-16Cs did not have BVR capability until AMRAAM entered service in 1992, and European F-16As only got BVR capability with the MLU upgrades in the late 1990s.

              So Mirage F1s would have held an advantage over all F-16s in the European theatre throughout the 1980s and until the early/mid-1990s, thanks to their BVR capability (Matra Super 530F). In WVR, the Magic 2 was superior to the AIM-9L/M, so from 1986 onwards the Mirage F1 would not have been totally outclassed even in WVR (except against Belgian F-16s which fielded the Magic 2!).

              The French pilot I talked to was flying in the early 1990s, so his claims do fit the context at that time.
              Last edited by H_K; 28th September 2008, 21:04.

              Comment

              • Sens
                Rank 5 Registered User

                #27
                Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                I always had the impression that the changes in performance that resulted from the different engine were misunderstood by the general aviation public (overrating top speed, not looking at more operational figures). In most books the Speys are not really looked at, just a word is given that top speed was reduced.
                It surely received bad press as it was British, and at that time anything British in aircraft was apparently considered worse than anything you could get from America, at least in the UK.

                Finally, I don't think the writers of the history of the F-4 Phantom (who are in their majority Americans) really have any real interest in the F-4/Spey.

                You know how it works, write some crap into a book, attach a few nice pictures and people start thinking you actually know stuff about aircraft.
                Some details about the Spey in F-4K.
                "The need to operate from RN's short-decked aircraft carriers meant that more power and more bleed air (for boundary layer control) would be needed. It was decided to power the aircraft by an afterburning version of the RR Spey, the greater mass flow of which demanded the provision of enlarged intakes. These imposed a significant drag penalty, and ..."
                "As it turned out, the Spey gave 10 percent increase in operational radius, a 15 percent increase in ferry range, and better take-off, initial climb and low-level acceleration figures. On the other side of the coin, the maximum speed dropped from Mach 2.1 to Mach 1.9, and ceiling, performance at altitude and afterburner light-up time deteriorated."

                Comment

                • Sens
                  Rank 5 Registered User

                  #28
                  Originally posted by kukri View Post
                  They were Cuban MiGs and while better intelligence may have addressed some tactical issues, they would still have been sitting with a performance disparity to address.
                  That were flown by Cubans and there was no performance disparity, when it comes to flight perfomances.

                  Comment

                  • Sens
                    Rank 5 Registered User

                    #29
                    Originally posted by H_K View Post
                    Carapace was delivered in 1994. Prior to that, Belgian F-16As had no internal ECM, and apparently no external ECM either. All other F-16s in the European theatre used external ECM pods, as did Mirage F1s. However, U.S. F-16Cs did not have BVR capability until AMRAAM entered service in 1992, and European F-16As only got BVR capability with the MLU upgrades in the late 1990s.

                    So Mirage F1s would have held an advantage over all F-16s in the European theatre throughout the 1980s and until the early/mid-1990s, thanks to their BVR capability (Matra Super 530F). In WVR, the Magic 2 was superior to the AIM-9L/M, so from 1986 onwards the Mirage F1 would not have been totally outclassed even in WVR (except against Belgian F-16s which fielded the Magic 2!).

                    The French pilot I talked to was flying in the early 1990s, so his claims do fit the context at that time.
                    I do like the F-1 system, but stay serious with some claims. There were different lost of Magic 1 and Magic 2. The first Magic 2 did enter service in 1984. The Magic 2 was similar to the AIM-9L and later variants.
                    The Belgian delays by money issues had nothing to do with the other F-16 users. All could be fitted with related ECM-pods in short notice, even the Belgian ones, if such need had arised.

                    Comment

                    • flex297
                      Senior Member

                      #30
                      Originally posted by H_K View Post
                      ... (except against Belgian F-16s which fielded the Magic 2!)...
                      Got a single photo to back it up? On the photos I have, Belgian F-16s carry Sidewinders.

                      Comment

                      • H_K
                        H_K
                        Rank 5 Registered User

                        #31
                        Originally posted by flex297 View Post
                        Got a single photo to back it up? On the photos I have, Belgian F-16s carry Sidewinders.
                        Apologies. You're correct. My claim was based on an internet source, and I didn't question it because the FAB had Magics in inventory for its Mirage 5s, so it seemed plausible. I checked, and no other sources mention it. They either say that only Pakistan uses Magics on its F-16s, or that the Magic has been qualified on the F-16 but never used...

                        Comment

                        • MiG-23MLD
                          Senior Member

                          #32
                          Originally posted by Sens View Post
                          That were flown by Cubans and there was no performance disparity, when it comes to flight perfomances.
                          There was not an overwhelming superiority but the MiG-23ML was better, better radar, better missiles and better agility.

                          To cue and lock on the missile you need good agility, the Mirage F1 were unable to do it, it was performance not the missile, the missile was an element but not the main reason if they could not lock on the MiG-23s on the gun sight was simple lack of better performance and at least one Mirage F1 was shot down, since the missile hit it and disabled it to the degree of crash landing it

                          http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/figh...m/mig23m-2.gif

                          This is a chart showing even the MiG-23M had a better radar
                          Last edited by MiG-23MLD; 29th September 2008, 04:47.

                          Comment

                          • Sens
                            Rank 5 Registered User

                            #33
                            Originally posted by MiG-23MLD View Post
                            There was not an overwhelming superiority but the MiG-23ML was better, better radar, better missiles and better agility.

                            To cue and lock on the missile you need good agility, the Mirage F1 were unable to do it, it was performance not the missile, the missile was an element but not the main reason if they could not lock on the MiG-23s on the gun sight was simple lack of better performance and at least one Mirage F1 was shot down, since the missile hit it and disabled it to the degree of crash landing it

                            http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/figh...m/mig23m-2.gif

                            This is a chart showing even the MiG-23M had a better radar
                            The better radar and AAM are ok, when it comes to SAAF examples.
                            Better agility is wrong, maybe you have some data to bolster that claim.

                            Comment

                            • Satorian
                              Spinmeister

                              #34
                              Originally posted by MiG-23MLD View Post

                              http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/figh...m/mig23m-2.gif

                              This is a chart showing even the MiG-23M had a better radar
                              Could you explain that chart a bit? To me it seems like the F1 and F-4 both had better radars than the MiG-23M. Isn't that radar reach vs. height?

                              Comment

                              • MiG-23MLD
                                Senior Member

                                #35
                                Originally posted by Satorian View Post
                                Could you explain that chart a bit? To me it seems like the F1 and F-4 both had better radars than the MiG-23M. Isn't that radar reach vs. height?
                                It is not as difficult as it seems but of course i can explain it to you

                                first let us say сапфир-23д-III по Мираж F1 means the Saphir`s radar detection range of a Mirage F1 at different altitudes and ranges, the other ones are like this

                                Сирано IV по МиГ-23М this means the Cyrano radar detecting the MiG-23M

                                obviously AN/APQ-120 по МиГ-23М, means the AN/APQ-120 detecting the MiG-23M

                                Д this D means the range in kilometers and is on the horizontal axis and in russian means range and is the russian word for дальности, it is on what is traditionally the X ordinate in a math graph, so obviously the other vertical ordinate is altitude.

                                If you look well you will see the MiG-23M had a better radar, however the MiG-23ML has a better radar so we can not say it was inferior to the Mirage F1.
                                Consider it had also long range R-24
                                Last edited by MiG-23MLD; 29th September 2008, 11:49.

                                Comment

                                • MiG-23MLD
                                  Senior Member

                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Sens View Post
                                  The better radar and AAM are ok, when it comes to SAAF examples.
                                  Better agility is wrong, maybe you have some data to bolster that claim.
                                  Russian experts say the following
                                  Практически во всем диапазоне высот на скоростях 700-1100 км/ч МиГ-23М превосходил "Мираж" F-1 по маневренности и скороподъемности. При скоростях более 1100 км/ч на средних и больших высотах летчику МиГ-23М было невыгодно вести бой с "Миражом" на установившихся виражах

                                  basicly says practically in the whole altitude envelope at speeds of 700km/h to 1100km/h, the MiG-23M surpassed the Mirage F1 in agility and acceleration. at speeds higher than 1100km/h the Mirage F1 had the upper hand at medium and high altitudes

                                  source http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig23m.html

                                  this was proven simply by the fact the Mirage F1 could not nail a single MiG-23ML, and this was because the MiG-23ML is an improved MiG-23M
                                  Last edited by MiG-23MLD; 29th September 2008, 11:51.

                                  Comment

                                  • Schorsch
                                    Severely Transonic

                                    #37
                                    With a realistic true airspeed for each of 1000km/h in a head-on flight, the advantage of a kilometer additional tracking distance is equal to 2 seconds. I doubt very much that from the given technical advantage any real tactical advantage can be derived.
                                    Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                                    Comment

                                    • Sens
                                      Rank 5 Registered User

                                      #38
                                      To avoid the "frog-eye" view, it is important to put the related data in a real enviroment view.
                                      More important than every fighter radar range is the SA in a SOC or COC.
                                      The "live-map" is in a constant update by different sensors. Be it radar, intelligence reports or reports by pilots. Every fighter radar is limited and can be outsmarted. In most cases the first notice of an unknown opponent will come from a control center and the awarnes of the pilots directed in that sector of air-space. There is no much time left by a closing speed of 30 km/min, which is an ordinary 900 km/h for each in head-on and both do pose a small target only.
                                      Typical BVR engagements high up are less than 50 km most of the time, when close to ground that are lower than 20 km. When reached the much shorter WVR, the eyesight from the cockpit becomes dominant. The one who lose eyesight of his opponent at first is in a constant danger to be killed. The film 'Top-Gun' gives a good idea about that as the advantage to have a crew the share the burden and rise the SA. Otherwise your are very dependent on excellent teamwork with your wing-mates.

                                      Comment

                                      • MadRat
                                        Rank 5 Registered User

                                        #39
                                        Size and reflection of the target are also factors in the debate. The F.1 doesn't have the radar return of the MiG-23. This played a big factor in DACT when the trainers had A-4/F-5's and their diminutive radar reflections.
                                        Go Huskers!

                                        Comment

                                        • MiG-23MLD
                                          Senior Member

                                          #40
                                          Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                                          With a realistic true airspeed for each of 1000km/h in a head-on flight, the advantage of a kilometer additional tracking distance is equal to 2 seconds. I doubt very much that from the given technical advantage any real tactical advantage can be derived.
                                          It had advantages and they were clear, in fact this is a result, a South african Mirage F1 shot down by a MiG-23ML



                                          The MiG-23ML were shot down by SAMs but none was by a Mirage F1
                                          sourcehttp://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/...23/cuba23.html
                                          Last edited by MiG-23MLD; 30th September 2008, 01:47.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X