Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 151

Thread: How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawk View Post
    That makes no sense, as the RAF would have to know how ZA467 was lost and that the crew was killed. If the crew could still be alive, the whole lie could be killed by the Iraqis instantly. So it makes no sense at all.
    Post war the Iraqis claimed that one of their MiG29's shot down on the 19th January killing the crew. Looking through Allied losses this matched up with ZA396, but the fact that the crew survived contradicted the claim. The claim has since shifted to ZA467 because the aircrew were lost and the fact that this loss was on the 22nd as been put down as Allied misreporting of the date of loss, rather than admit that the claim turned out to false.

    The Iraqi Air Force are not the first (and assuming the continuation of air combat won't be the last), to make claims which turn out be incorrect. Its just part of the nature of combat and especially air combat that claims are made with the best of intentions, which turn out later to not be correct (interestingly the MiG29 which claimed the Tornado was reported as subsequently being shot down by a USAF F.15C, in a clash in which the USAF claimed two MiG's, but the Iraqis report only one loss, overclaiming by the other side...). So it's natural that the ex Iraqi air force personnel would like to find evidence to support their claims, but shifting the date of a reported loss to match it is not going to be one them.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,114
    Been here before i think. All i'll say is that if you think the american (and even their british "ally"- considering the "special" relationship) government will undoubtedly tell the truth and only the truth about incidents like above, not hide anything unpleasant, not distort anything, and that the iraqis (f.e.) will obviously lie and only lie in claiming such and such shoot-down that is not recognized by the americans (especially), is so ridiculous and biased it's not even funny. May i remind you the americans lie and deceive far and wide (iraqi WMD's anyone? afghan terrorists anyone?), and aviation wise, as you all know they have scores of all kinds of secret craft that they've hidden for decades (allegedly including testing them in UK, how did they managed to hide that huh, if not for the complicity of the obedient UK government?), and even hide crashes of such craft. Not so "open" now, is it? Particularly when also considering the propaganda and racist factor (iraqis are only incompetent useless cowards who ran to Iran from the mighty free and democratic flag waving american heroes blah blah blah), and also the corporate factor, it ain't looking good at all to admit that this or that uber- super invincible fighter that they try to sell for $100 mil a pop is not exactly THAT good and it actually got the short straw a few times.

    Me, i'm willing to bet the iraqis shot down more that one "coalition" aircraft, maybe even the 4 or so alleged by more recent research. Anyone else is free to believe what they wish.

    On a more exact theme, Sheytan thank you again for bringing these very interesting memories of ex-IrAF pilots here. If it's possible and the ex-IrAF fliers you are in contact are willing to, would they be able to compile (time permitting of course) some sort of list with what they think they lost air-to air and when, and what they think they have shot down? That would be most interesting to read.
    --------------
    NO to NATO
    NO to WAR!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    54
    [QUOTE=Steve49;2083523]Interesting website, always valuable to get information from a different point of view. Would I be right in reading via the power of 'google translate', that the two pilots were Capt Shahid Ali Hussein Fadel and Capt Mohammed Salim Ahmed from No89 Sqn? Brave men considering the odds against them and must have known that they were unlikely to return.

    Sheytan can you confirm if my translation is correct regarding the names of the two pilots?

    Regards,

    Steve

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,341
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    as you all know they have scores of all kinds of secret craft that they've hidden for decades (allegedly including testing them in UK, how did they managed to hide that huh, if not for the complicity of the obedient UK government?)
    A list of those 'scores of aircraft' would be more impressive than a simple claim. 'Scores' implies at least 40.

    For me, claims of "as you all know" or "everybody knows" immediately trigger my anti-BS filter.

    My stock response to claims of secret trials in UK airspace is to wonder if the person making the claim has any experience of trying to organise a trial in UK airspace. It is not an easy process.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    971
    In the main the F-1 is a very capable peace of kit it has suffered from ill inform press and lack of real upgrades until MF-2000 came along it has proven its self to be a true multi-role platform with success in A2A – A2G and anti-shipping roles with little or no support against both US and Russian types that include F-5/ F-4/F-14/ F-16/ Mig-21/ Mig-23/ and in MF-2000 fit it would be a handful for Mig-29 / Mirage 2000/ F-18C & E and Gripen

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    54
    [QUOTE=mack8;2083591]Been here before i think. All i'll say is that if you think the american (and even their british "ally"- considering the "special" relationship) government will undoubtedly tell the truth and only the truth about incidents like above, not hide anything unpleasant, not distort anything, and that the iraqis (f.e.) will obviously lie and only lie in claiming such and such shoot-down that is not recognized by the americans (especially), is so ridiculous and biased it's not even funny. May i remind you the americans lie and deceive far and wide (iraqi WMD's anyone? afghan terrorists anyone?), and aviation wise, as you all know they have scores of all kinds of secret craft that they've hidden for decades (allegedly including testing them in UK, how did they managed to hide that huh, if not for the complicity of the obedient UK government?), and even hide crashes of such craft. Not so "open" now, is it? Particularly when also considering the propaganda and racist factor (iraqis are only incompetent useless cowards who ran to Iran from the mighty free and democratic flag waving american heroes blah blah blah), and also the corporate factor, it ain't looking good at all to admit that this or that uber- super invincible fighter that they try to sell for $100 mil a pop is not exactly THAT good and it actually got the short straw a few times.

    Me, i'm willing to bet the iraqis shot down more that one "coalition" aircraft, maybe even the 4 or so alleged by more recent research. Anyone else is free to believe what they wish.

    mack,

    Yes we've been here before....

    The problem is that the RAF didn't hide their losses, I was growing up during the war and remember in the early days of the air war the RAF reporting their losses on a daily basis and the British papers getting excited about their 'unsafe aircraft'. So if they're not hiding the loss, then what merit do they have for hiding the cause? Don't forget this a ground attack aircraft we're talking about, it would hardly effect 'sales' to report that it could be shot down by a air defence fighter, infact the reverse is almost true, and the fact that the RAF's premier low level strike aircraft was very vulnerable to ground defences would probably do more to hamper sales, but this information was out there from the start... But if we follow your theory, on the second day of the war the RAF, who at this time probably would not even have known the true cause, decide to commence a plan to hide the cause of loss, by changing the identities of lost aircraft and even changing the dates of death of serving air crew just so that in the future the Iraqi Air Force couldn't confirm an air to air claim. What would be the point?

    So you have one hand an air force which reported its losses at the time (and over the next 20 years the number of losses has remained constant), and on the other we have people trying to support a claim, by initially claiming one aircraft and then shifting it to a second one (lost three days later), when the 'facts' didn't support the first claim. I know which one sounds more credible and I know which one I believe in this case...

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    [QUOTE=Steve49;2083646]
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve49 View Post
    Interesting website, always valuable to get information from a different point of view. Would I be right in reading via the power of 'google translate', that the two pilots were Capt Shahid Ali Hussein Fadel and Capt Mohammed Salim Ahmed from No89 Sqn? Brave men considering the odds against them and must have known that they were unlikely to return.

    Sheytan can you confirm if my translation is correct regarding the names of the two pilots?

    Regards,

    Steve
    Ali Hussain Fadhel
    Mohammed Salim Ahmad.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    The full story of the pilot Nafe' Najm abdullah al juburi, he died in April 2003, whilst trying to take off from a narrow road loaded with a 2200 liter tank and bombs on a mission to attack US forces concentrating between Razazza and Karbala on their way to Baghdad.

    The right wheel broke on the bad uneven asphalt causing the 2200 liter drop tank to touch the ground and alight. He ejected, but the parachute did not open.
    Last edited by sheytanelkebir; 2nd November 2013 at 15:27.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,341
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Me, i'm willing to bet…
    Anyone else is free to believe…
    I must confess to being an old-fashioned sort of chap, who prefers facts to ‘bets’ and ‘beliefs’.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    [QUOTE=Steve49;2083689]
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    The problem is that the RAF didn't hide their losses, I was growing up during the war and remember in the early days of the air war the RAF reporting their losses on a daily basis and the British papers getting excited about their 'unsafe aircraft'. So if they're not hiding the loss, then what merit do they have for hiding the cause? Don't forget this a ground attack aircraft we're talking about, it would hardly effect 'sales' to report that it could be shot down by a air defence fighter, infact the reverse is almost true, and the fact that the RAF's premier low level strike aircraft was very vulnerable to ground defences would probably do more to hamper sales, but this information was out there from the start... But if we follow your theory, on the second day of the war the RAF, who at this time probably would not even have known the true cause, decide to commence a plan to hide the cause of loss, by changing the identities of lost aircraft and even changing the dates of death of serving air crew just so that in the future the Iraqi Air Force couldn't confirm an air to air claim. What would be the point?

    So you have one hand an air force which reported its losses at the time (and over the next 20 years the number of losses has remained constant), and on the other we have people trying to support a claim, by initially claiming one aircraft and then shifting it to a second one (lost three days later), when the 'facts' didn't support the first claim. I know which one sounds more credible and I know which one I believe in this case...
    nobody is claiming coverups or "conspiracy theories"... its just that we're trying to match the Iraqi picture with the allied picture and slowly clearing away the "fog"... especially from the completely unreported Iraqi perspective. Some items will be ERRONEOUS or INACCURATE in BOTH sides accounts... anyway, lets focus in this thread ONLY on the Mirage F1s performance, as per thread title.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    continuing the "story" of Nafe' Najm al juburi

    http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/view...php?f=7&t=1578

    The pilot was initially tasked with flying his Mirage F1 with 2x 250kg bombs and a 2200 liter drop tank against a US aircraft carrier in a suicide mission in 2003. The plan was changed due to the impossibility of the mission to targeting US ground forces near Karbala.

    When the 2003 aggression started, Nafe' Najm was in Saddam AB, he was visited by an air defence officer from Bakr AB and he was fuming about the aggression against Iraq and wanted to carry out a suicide operation against the invaders. He asked about the state of Al Bakr AB and was told that all the runways were inoperable. On the 31st of March they received approval to carry out the attack from the commander in chief and the best ground staff unit set about preparing for the attack. There was one issue however, that Nafe' had been grounded as "unfit" due to Diabetes. He spoke of what the invaders will do, rape and pillage and destroy Iraq and this is the only thing he can do to fight them and begged to be allowed to fly the suicide mission. This despite the runway being bombed 2-3 times a day and being completely unsuitable for takeoffs. Adamant, he was allowed to fly, as things were ending anyway. He chose a small country road near Al bakr airbase to take off from which was completely unsuitable and uneven.

    On the sunrise of the 1st of april he bid farewell to his comrades and went to baghdad to receive orders. On the 2nd of april he gave his final will and testament and handed it over as he climbed into his aircraft.
    The distance between the undercarriage is 4.2m and the wingspan over 8m. the take off weight was 16.2 tonnes and needed over 1000m take off run. but the little uneven road was just 5-6 m wide. the engine started up and the afterburner started, the aircraft rolled for 500m on the uneven road when the right undercarriage broke and the aircraft veered off the road and the 2200 liter drop tank caught fire.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    54
    [QUOTE=sheytanelkebir;2083886]
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve49 View Post

    Ali Hussain Fadhel
    Mohammed Salim Ahmad.
    Thanks for that correction to my translation.

    Regards,

    Steve

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    714
    If memory serves, its main limitation was in terms of defensive aids and hardpoints, meaning that in later life combat missions necessitated carriage of chaff/flare and ECM pods on the two wing hardpoints. This meant that the centerline hardpoint was the only one available on some missions. I suspect the slim fuselage caused some of these difficulties, i.e. not providing room for the added equipment.
    EdLaw, I guess this was the problem with Dassault taking the decision to chose to literally use the existing Mirage III fuselage as the basis of the Mirage F1 design. But replacing the Mirage III's delta wing with the new shoulder mounted wing design, in an effort to save cost.
    I've always thought that Dassault could have applied more combat experience gained by the Mirage III, when designing and building the Mirage F1, and the inherent Chaff/flare and ECM deficiencies should have been built in. I wounder if this was the case with the original larger, heavier and more expensive Mirage F2, from which the Mirage F1 was derived as a cheaper alternative?
    For me what I have always loved with the Mirage F1 design is it's wonderfully robust and efficient rough-field landing gear design (reminiscent of the SEPECAT Jaguar's! I wounder if Dassault's experience with the designing of the Mirage F1's landing gear was responsible for the Jaguar's landing gear design??). Speaking about lack of hardpoints on the Mirage F1, when needing external carriage of chaff/flare and ECM, I'm surprised that Dassault never considered employing the 'over-wing hardpoint' arrangement used by later SEPECAT Jaguar International! This in essence would have freed up the wing-tip hardpoints otherwise used for Matra 550 Magic/Aim-9 Sidewinder SRAAM's to carry flare/chaff pods! On the issue of ECM, I don't think the French have traditionally taken such individual defensive systems very serious. But I could be wrong!!

    Just a thought

    Regards
    Pioneer
    Last edited by Pioneer; 3rd November 2013 at 03:22.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,527
    I doubt the Jaguar landing gear was derived from Dassault, & its experience with Mirage F.1. Dassault didn't design the landing gear, & Jaguar was designed by BAC & Breguet, with AFAIK no input from Dassault. Both Mirage F.1 & Jaguar were flying years before Breguet merged with Dassault.

    But - both Mirage F.1 & Jaguar have landing gear designed in France by Messier, now Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, a subsidiary of Safran. I expect the people at Messier knew a good thing when they'd designed it, & didn't want to waste effort re-inventing, & so offered Breguet something similar to what they'd just designed for Dassault.
    Last edited by swerve; 3rd November 2013 at 19:26.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    I doubt the Jaguar landing gear was derived from Dassault, & it's experience with Mirage F.1. Dassault didn't design the landing gear, & Jaguar was designed by BAC & Breguet, with AFAIK no input from Dassault. Both Mirage F.1 & Jaguar were flying years before Breguet merged with Dassault.

    But - both Mirage F.1 & Jaguar have landing gear designed in France by Messier, now Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, a subsidiary of Safran. I expect the people at Messier knew a good thing when they'd designed it, & didn't want to waste effort re-inventing, & so offered Breguet something similar to what they'd just designed for Dassault.
    I think the design was created for a STOL design by Breguet with a fold-able nose section fielding that characteristic landing gear geo. Although I Can't remember the name for now. Sry not much help.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26
    First off, the missiles which the Mirage F-1EQ4s used were Super 530D, not the Super 530F. The difference is enormous in terms of useful envelope from the all aspect Doppler seeker mechanics ability to accept a trajectory shape without the ASE/fuzing limit in look up and a hard clutter boundary in look down that characterize the F. The 530D was essentialy an AIM-7M seeker (with a bigger antenna gain) attached to a STARM missile equivalent. A real monster for the 1980s.

    The autopilot and 'fighter target' motor impulse curves gave the 530D a genuine Mach 4.6 flyout whereas the AIM-54A is called 'The Buffalo' because most of it's mid course is in the range Mach 2.65 with only the snap down being the famous 'Mach 5 class'.

    And thus you have a SARH weapon which routinely outpoled the Alpha model Phoenix, even as the Cayman and similar support jammers degraded the AWG-9 Kalmann filtering, badly.

    Super 530D and the Cyrano-IVM2 were thus a powerful combination which greatly destabilized the tanker war fights and forced the Ali Cats to assume more and more of an MFFC standoff director mode, using offset (forward, low) F-4s and F-5s to bum rush the Iraqi Mirage's and throw them off their SARH game. Which simply led to the Mirages shooting down the Phantoms and Tigers instead.

    When the Iranians could not hold over Kharg, becase the MIG-25RBs were Peleng bombing the crap out of the HAWK sites and the big refinery stacks, they had to shift to moving raw crude down to Bandar Abbas in small oilers and the few genuine tankers which were willing to run the write off risk in trade for huge markups on the 'conflict oil' (which was then partly refined and retransfered to VLCC/ULCC, again drastically effecting Iranian profits).

    Air Superiority in turn allowed the Mirage F-1EQ5 (single centerline Exocet + Agave radar) and F-1EQ6 (Banana tank, two wing pylon Exocet and buddy refueling range extension) to replace the previously wet-leased SUE in running right down the Gulf to sink the Iranian Tankers (and anyone Stark else that made a habit of warning the Armilla and Earnest Will escorts for the Bahrainian flagged ships), practically at the gates of Hormuz.

    Had the F-14s been capable of stopping the lolo'ing Mirages, they would have but the Iraqis got 'the good stuff' from France and kicked the American export customer level AWG/Phoenix combination's behinds.

    Indeed, according to some, it was not even Iraqi pilots who flew those sorties as the aircraft and weapons were in fact employed by 'Free French' mercs so that nobody could possibly get lost and pull a Black Buck with the latest Matra product onboard.

    This is one illustration of where a weapons system makes the most of the airframe.

    The SAAF tactics model is similar but opposite in that the V3b Kukri was basically a modified Magic 1 in terms of performance with a wider boresight limit and VTAS level helmet sight that let them cut the corner on threats they could not turn with or, more often, using engagement geometry to snap-cue the radar from a passive standby to beat the Sirena 3 RWR warning, coming out of an offset lead turn.

    Here it must be said that the MiG-23 is a piece of junk. The wing is effectively not just a lifting area and aspect ratio changer (retractable wing area being the essence of dumb in VG, in that you don't sweep the wing until you are at high altitude where the thin air means you need the lift more, not less) but actually a structural and CG limiter to Alpha as G. It was so weak that the early Gs could not in fact change wing sweeps when the plane was loaded up, honking on all of 4.5G.

    What the MiG-23 COULD do was energize a weapon pole like nobodies business and then bleed turn with the wings at full sweep, unload and wick right on back through Mach Wow. It was a veritable rocket.

    Hence, the SAAF's surprise when the Cubans started fielding the R-60B with the equivalent of AIM-9P4/P5 performance. The weapons platform being what gives the little Aphid the 'little motor that could' FQ ability of a 90lb missile with a Mach 1.35 launch boost. Zero weapon drag and boosted Mach at launch translates to a 4-5 mile ranging weapon at medium altitudes.

    Stack back with Kuban Shelf tactics and you have Parthian Archer thing going whereby wide-set SAAF pilots cannot turn away from the threat and drag him in front of another shooter because the Cubans will simply run another MiG right down the wingman's throat too.

    The SAAF couldn't match this with the Kukri and so sent off a 'Hulp!' to Israel for what became the V3s 'Slang' aka Python 3. With a 220lb munition weight and the massive ND-10 motor, this was a transmerge IRM and while it was draggy as feather boa in in a hurricane, it was (just) small enough to be carried outboard, without having to sacrifice wing tanks-

    http://i43.tinypic.com/s4f9.jpg

    This once more made the Mirages king of the skies, though it was a tenuous dominance because the Python needs full radar support and a longish tracking period (like the R530 in a way) before launch and so the threat knows you're there, for sure.

    This is not altogether bad in and of itself, but the fairly narrow bore limits of the Python restrict it's ability to rapidly multi-service targets and against a high speed, Company Front skirmish line you can still find yourself eating Aphid.

    The real problem however; especially towards the end of the war, was the fact that the Russians were simply willing to replace every loss as an excuse to field test, not just their fighters but their IADS/ADGE systems too.

    This pushed the Mirages right back down into the weeds to avoid early tracking by a numerically superior threat and while the F-1AZ was fairly comfortable there (moving map, doppler nav, tailored EXCM/tail warner suite) the loss of position meant that the Floggers could set up their own advantaged geometry, almost uncontested and then simply ramp down onto the ingressing SAAF cards from behind the 3/9.

    Had the war in Angola and SWA gone on much longer, it would have become very difficult for the South Africans to continue to do their famous 'externals' in support of SADF raider teams as they were not getting any spares or replacements for combat losses and while Atlas was a good enough home grown manufacturer; they could not compete with the USSR's ability to replace losses two and three times over as they did when the Angolans wrecked things.

    SA-6b with the Buk missile and Flat Face replacement radar, late series SA-8 and the SA-13 were all first encountered in the Bush War, with examples being handed on to the CIA. The majority of the threat air defense was of course still AAA but the real killers were going to be the MANPADS which the SAAF flew heart-of-envelope through. Get into that 20,000 dollar per weapon bryar patch with a Vlamgaat and you're going to suffer the same fate as the Israeli A-4N that rolled in on a PLO shoulder fire training school in South Lebanon and took a total of 50 launches, straight to the teeth.

    It was this 'Early A2AD' experience of what the future would look like that drove the SAAF to start looking at MUPSOW, Raptor and now the Umbani.

    http://www.saairforce.co.za/seed/pub...bc33_large.jpg
    http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/files...11/Raptor1.jpg
    http://www.saairforce.co.za/seed/pub...ae39_large.jpg

    Because they knew, before we did, that it was simply no longer going to be practical to use Laydown PGM, even with Stealth, and they could not afford a comprehensive SEAD plan the way the Israelis had, with UAVs, decoys and ground launch ARM, for the Mole Cricket Bekaa campaigns.

    It's always better to buy new bullets and better scopes than new rifles and while a smart weaponeer plans his purchases to match the strengths of his existing platform capabilities, the reality is quite simply that you often end up finding a ground launch cruise or ballistic weapon is a better option than a bussed LGB/IAM as the cost differential also buys you a fast targeting UAV like Compass Dawn, Mirach or Reis-D.

    It should be remembered that 70% of the targeting in Vietnam was done, not by RF-101, Vigilante or RF-4C but rather the lowly AQM-34 series and 'target drone' conversions are potentially alsothe basis of highly effective GLCM for the simple reason that they are designed around portable stand rather than complex TEL tubed launch (no retractable surfaces etc.).
    Last edited by LEG; 2nd December 2017 at 16:49.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    On the topic of the thread...on the SAAF forum a while ago, there was some very interesting info (by a fellow working on some aspects of the programme) on where the Mirage F1 was ultimately to be taken to...avionics, weapons systems, and aerodynamically/motive wise.
    A real "Super" Mirage F1 if you will.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Great post LEG.

    Indeed, the SAAF went first into expanded ECM (internal, podded, and Boeing 707) and expanded weapons envelopes - R-Darter BVRAAM and developed and expanded V3 helmet guided missile (Kukri was an export designation)......but there was a great move toward proper stand-off strike weaponry. .quite a slew of them in fact.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    106
    "Had the war in Angola and SWA continued much longer" I think it would have been a short waiting game for the SADF until the USSR collapsed. Not foreseen at the time but it happened very suddenly soon after the end of hostilities. If I remember correctly Cheetah E was in service at the end but not really used for anything other than QRA. But Cheetah C was in the works. One wonders if SA could have held out long enough for Soviet/Cuban aid to dry up?

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Yes.
    Only a fraction of manpower was deployed to Angola (a peak of 3000 during Operations Modular, Packer, and Hooper which were the peaks themselves.)

    The main issue regarding this thread was the sanctions regime, preventing replacement of existing fighters or procurement of newer ones.
    This however was being addressed, with the interim Cheetah E upgrade, followed by the Cheetah C (additional airframes added to the inventory from external source) which in turn was to leverage into the Super Mirage F-1 with aerodynamic changes and Cheetah C systems...followed by the Carver indigineous combat jet.
    In other words, a sensible and proper graduated programme.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    On the topic of the Super Mirage F-1 as being developed by Atlas, the gentleman involved with the project stated he was on the avionics side of the project.
    Their brief was basically to ensure that the Cheetah C and Super Mirage F-1 share complete commonality in avionics/cockpit etc.
    He was aware of the other sides that other teams were working on.
    He basically described the project as follows:
    The nose and cockpit were basically the same as the Cheetah C. I assume this includes the canopy.
    An in-flight refuelling probe was to be installed. Not the same as the Mirage F-1AZ. I assume the same as Cheetah C?
    The tail vertical stabilizer/fin was different, having an enlarged fairing at its base similar to an F-16.
    There were other refinements/changes he didn't elaborate on.

    This was to follow the Cheetah C programme.
    The Mirage III's were withdrawn fir upgrading to Cheetah E standard. The Cheetah C was following. Once the C was in service, it would allow the F1 to be withdrawn to be upgraded.
    The F-1 therefore might even have had an engine replacement before the Cheetah C.
    All of this would have been followed and eventually replaced by Carver.
    Some (but not all) of this initial F-1 work was later leveraged into the Spanish Mirage F-1 cockpit upgrade.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Sorry, just an addenda..The forum has a crappy edit function especially via phone. .

    Both F-1 CZ interceptor and AZ strike were to be upgraded into a new identical common multirole platform/configuration.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    106
    The engine choice being a version of the Russian RD33 I presume?

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    I assume the motive side closely followed the Carver's engine choices.
    There was an upgraded ATAR 9K50 with internal changes, including single crystal blades and different C ombustion chamber etc, that was to yield a +10% performance increase.
    There were reports of the Snecma M53 and M88 being looked at.
    And then obviously the RD33 based SMR-95 that was actually fitted to and flown in a Mirage F-1 And Cheetah.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    986
    Pioneer said:

    Speaking about lack of hardpoints on the Mirage F1, when needing external carriage of chaff/flare and ECM, I'm surprised that Dassault never considered employing the 'over-wing hardpoint' arrangement used by later SEPECAT Jaguar International! This in essence would have freed up the wing-tip hardpoints otherwise used for Matra 550 Magic/Aim-9 Sidewinder SRAAM's to carry flare/chaff pods!
    I completely agree with expendable soft-kill deficiencies. But disagree with your proposed solution.

    Over-wing hardpoints pose all sorts of problems which wingtip don't.
    The French had a very near 'armpit' solution for chaff and flares for their Jaguras (I have no idea if it was actually fielded) which I think would have suited the F1 just as well.
    (Certainly much better than the RAFs idea of stuffing some under the airbrakes).
    Rule zero: don't be on fire

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    The SAAF looked at 2 methods.
    One was a set of flare and chaff pods on each wing between the inner wing hardpoint and the fuselage, as well as a rather elegant solution that replaced the original ventral rear fins with a slightly wider new design that housed the chaff and flares.
    This was part of the RIMS. (Radar and Infrared Misleading System)
    This ensured no weapons pylons were used for that at least.
    There are some pictures of the system kicking around on the web that a google search should reveal.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Interestingly, the SAAF approached that with two solutions.
    One was a new "mini pylon" that housed chaff and flares, situated inboard on each wing between the fuselage and existing inner wing weapons pylon.
    Also, a rather elegant solution was replacing the existing rear ventral fins with a slightly wider new design that housed the chaff and flares.
    This was part of the Radar and Infrared Misleading System or RIMS.
    This ensured that no weapons pylon was taken up by that capability.

    A few pics of these can be found kicking around on the web after a google search.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    It's amazing that the forum functionality appears to have actually gone seriously backwards over the years. Inability to properly edit posts. stuff lost in the ether.. etc
    It's A LOT worse than it was a decade ago. That takes some doing.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    850
    The French had a very near 'armpit' solution for chaff and flares for their Jaguras (I have no idea if it was actually fielded) which I think would have suited the F1 just as well.
    It was named LLP (Lance Leurres Plaqué) and fielded on both platforms.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    106
    On the engine side, was any thought given to the Spey? Any attempt to obtain some clandestinely? Only reason I ask is that they were used by 24 Squadron’s Buccaneers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES