Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The M53 engined Mirage F1 was also offered for land-based use, but IIRC it was dropped when it was decided to develop the Mirage 2000.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

    Comment


      It was originally touted to replace the original Etendard, but later it was realised it could also replace the F8 in the interceptor role.
      Again, I speak from memory so mught be incorrect, but I think it was to be powered by the M53 to provide better thrust IIRC.
      At the time, I think they settled on the Super Etendard for reasons of economy/budget. I personally think this was a missed opportunity to replace 2 airframes with one.
      A mockup, or partial mockup at least was displayed.
      Big problem with Jaguar M, Mirage F1M and Corsair (which was also considered) was that they would have required modifications for French carriers, which were pretty small. So it was decided to to with 'temporary solution' Super Etendard, until new & fancy ACT would be ready for the carriers. As it was, 'temporary solution' ended up serving for near 40 years.

      Comment


        from memory, the F1 with M53 engine was proposed for the european "century deal".. against the F-16.. it was dropped after the europeans chose the latter

        Comment


          correct

          Last edited by TomcatViP; 3rd December 2017, 10:04.

          Comment


            tankdriver
            A little off topic, much money was spent on the Jaguar M and in the end it was felt cheaper to go with the Super Etendard, and the program was to replace the naval strike a/c, but was any thought given to a navalized F.1?
            Here is a linedrawing of the original naval Mirage F1

            Click image for larger version

Name:	Naval MirageF1M.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	63.1 KB
ID:	3677885

            Comment


              The first pic below, although marked as the Mirage F1M53, is I believe the naval Mirage F1 Marine.
              The second is a linedrawing showing the difference in lines between the vanilla F1 and the F1M53.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	F1_M53.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	61.6 KB
ID:	3677886
              Click image for larger version

Name:	MirageF1-m-532.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	41.4 KB
ID:	3677887

              Comment


                Re: Spey in F1

                When BAC and Dassult studied re-engining the 9K-powered Mirage IV with the Spey 25R they required a 2ft fuselage stretch for CG reasons but more expensively a three-inch increase in fuselage depth. Plus enlarging the intakes and ducts.

                Quite a few differences between the RB163 and RB168 ( military ) Spey. Latter had higher TET and stronger bearings for all rotating components due to higher g-requirements. Also changes in some casing and blade materials for salt resistance. Not much commonality for anything that rotated.
                Last edited by Cherry Ripe; 6th December 2017, 19:34.

                Comment


                  from memory, the F1 with M53 engine was proposed for the european "century deal".. against the F-16.. it was dropped after the europeans chose the latter
                  Yep. Called Mirage F.1E at the time, but that designation was re-used after it was cancelled.
                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                  Justinian

                  Comment


                    Too bad there wasn't later any call for a Mirage F.1 "EJ", during the EF-2000 production run, based on a Mirage F.1 SLEF-program using the Eurofighter EJ200-family to boost performance. M53 performance in something that probably doesn't require a major redesign of the whole aircraft. The EJ spool up time would have been drastically better and it wouldn't have lost any performance at altitude like an M88-powered option. We'll never know, because any such option probably cures the need for high numbers of Eurofighters.
                    Go Huskers!

                    Comment


                      the Ej-200 and the M53 are still quite different as far as size and weight go... if you put one EJ-200 you'd need to add dead weight around it or lengthen the fuselage significantly of compensate for the reduction of weight in the rear part..

                      it is 1m shorter, 33% lighter and gives slightly less thrust than the M53-P2... in the end, not worth the hassle

                      Comment


                        Don't underestimate the luxury of room to grow. The biggest advantage over M53 is the reduced need to reinvent the fuselage as the intake is configurable on F.1 which reduces some pain in the exercise. F.1M53 was not just an F.1 with an M53. The work did in the end make M2000 less difficult to develop.

                        What is most intriguing about an F.1"EJ" is how well the existing platform conforms to the EJ200 motor. Especially appealing would be the shockcone intakes that would be tuned to match the motor. High altitude and high speed performance is a strong expectation. An F.1"EJ" sporting wingtip ASRAAM, two supersonic wing tanks, and a pair of MICA are formidable. Even if you drop the MICA pair for a single Meteor, you're talking amazing standoff potential. Magic II with MICA isn't a dog even in 2017.
                        Go Huskers!

                        Comment


                          Got a quick question.

                          hmm We know that Iraqi Mirage F-1 has exocet capability, however AFAIK Cyrano radar was not support this missile, i wonder if Iraqi F1's or some of them equipped with Agave instead.
                          that's one of the old myths.

                          Actually Iraqi Mirages (and the Falcon-50) had specially upgraded Cyrano 4MR radars to work with both Exocets as well as additional land attack modes. No agave (would be silly to include such an old radar).

                          Comment


                            The Mirage F1 was a very good multi-role fighter, a relatively cheap alternative to the late production F-4E, and altogether superior to any comtemporary Soviet fighter before the MiG-29.
                            As a multirole aircraft yes definately superior
                            but was Mirage F1 fighter versions capable of shooting down
                            1-Mig-25
                            2-Mig-23ML/P
                            any instances of that happening ?

                            Comment


                              capable, yes (Mig25 needed still to be caught close enough for missiles to bear which supposes either an error of the Mig or excellent interception guidance for the Mirage but their operating altitudes are in the same range (up to 65000ft), only the top speed of the Mig is significantly higher)

                              instances of that happening... don't know... but to have it happening, you need to have an opportunity to do it.. if they don't meet in combat, you won't see it, obviously

                              Comment


                                I remember reading one SR71 pilot claiming that they outrun a Fr F-1 while single engined over France (RTB after a recon on Libya). Max speed in that configuration was M2++

                                Comment


                                  quite possible... for the Mirage Mach 2.2 is a top speed it can reach @ 36000ft.. the SR71 never comes so low unless refueling... it normally flies @ 80000ft, having so much excess power that they have to reduce power once above Mach3 in order not to overspeed the aircraft.

                                  Imagine that, one engined, they got a bit lower, about 60000ft, it's still the operational ceiling for the Mirage and it can be there when supersonic, but nowhere near Mach 2

                                  Comment


                                    Yes, exactly. thanks for the detailed insight.

                                    Comment


                                     

                                    Working...
                                    X