Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 151

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

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26
    MATRA Corail chaff flare dispensers can be mounted in fairings that looked like stub pylons, between the inboard wing pylon and the fuselage root of the Mirage F-1. A further Alkan Lacroix flare ejector could be inserted in place of the dragchute cover and the ventral fins (on the SAAF models) were thickened with their own ejectors.

    http://i18.servimg.com/u/f18/09/01/13/73/489_gu10.jpg

    https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%203244.PDF


    All told, you might have maybe 120 expendables. The Israeli standard is around 400, minimum.

    The problem with all EXCM options are three fold:

    1. With the exception of toweds, they are a reactive measure which means you are already past the suppression or delay of acquisition/tracking phase. You can still defeat the missile but the measure is so transient that if you are in a SARH vs. IRH fight, you can end up Emperor's New Clothes conditioned, really fast. A-10s with 16 buckets worth of RR-180 series chaff (theoretically 288 cartridges) were SCREAMING for SEAD packages the few times they got sent north to hunt SCUDs in unreduced air defense missile trap arenas. The Hawg community was furious because the worthless F-16s were dropping Mk.84s on 'area targets' just across the FSCL in Kuwait.

    2. Pilots don't like to fly straight and level when being shot at. Which means that the expendable burst has to be correctly patterned from buckets at the middle and end of the jet, doubling the use rate, even with very rapid-blooming/kinematic lightoff to provide proper obscuration of the target signature (why modern flares are so 'smokey' is to block as much as dazzle staring arrays from seeing the airframe silhouette image). Rotate the velocity vector to escape the tracking cell in this brief breaklock window period and you knock 100-150 knots off the jet in honoring the threat. While burner use to honk the nose back around to return the favor makes you a VERY bright target for a threat which is doing shoot-shoot-look combinations with R-24R/T or quad launcher R-60.

    3. Where you are at very low level, the threat can kill you with very cheap, shoulder fire, weapons from atop every termite mound in saturation mode. Threat reaction window is measured in hundredths of a second and without an effective MAWS, you can be dead before you are aware of the shot.

    Given the era and other collaborations, I'm assuming Armscor or Atlas simply went to the CIA for surplus ALQ-101V(10) or Elta and picked up a few EL-8202 pods, they would not have had access to the Thomson Barem or Electronica/Selennia (ALQ-234) alternatives due to the arms embargo.

    The problem here is that of coverage. SPJs, even when celled up, have very little ability to act in a suppression (SOJAM) mode (not enough ERPs wattage) and if you are on the deck to avoid EWR cue, the horizons are very short and your look up angles against threat DCA, almost non existent. Essentially, the threat SHORADS sees you and lights off, well within burn-thru range and the interceptors just ramp down ontop of you. A Mirage F-1 is not going to outrun a MiG-23 with 10,000ft of burner acceleration.

    And of course, the trashfire doesn't care.

    This is why the USAF never bought into the European lawnmower approach to penetration. We had lost too many 105s, screaming down the karst of Thud Ridge, to be suckered into avoiding the radar threats by tackling the 100X greater density of AAA. And we never faced MANPADS over RP5/6 (did over the HCMT and were thrown off it).

    Short of Real Money for a complete SEAD systems aggregate, the only way to kill a threat IADS is to either sabotage it with commando raiders taking out key radars and hunting down TELARs so that you can hit the sites blind. Or to use indirect ALCM/GLCM and simply force the threat to shoot at a lot smaller targets.

    'Somewhere' in Langley or Wright Pat I'm sure there is still a photo taken from a BQM-34 flying so low that the cameras tripped when the drone flew under a telephone line, just south of Hanoi. That drone flew something like 200 missions in a bait and geolocate mode with another drone flying about 5-10km to the side of it's ground track, watching the North Vietnamese get their mad on as radars coming up and AAA bursts were all ELINT'd and Photographed.

    People actually cried when that Lightning Bug was finally lost: 'somewhere, up there'. But they also knew that it was about 190 missions more than a manned recce asset would have gotten away with.

    Where they failed to make the connection was in seeing how very easy it is make a GLCM out of exactly this kind of system with the option (including RAM and contrail suppression tanks) of high or low penetration /instead of/ sending manned packages.

    Considering that primitive versions of TERCOM and DSMAC had been around since the Navajo, that was a real shame.

    We lost 320 out of 833 F-105s at roughly 2.2 million apiece in 1970. At 530% inflation, that's roughly 4 billion dollars in hardware at 2017 prices.

    With 40-60 million dollar force structure leverage on the JAS-39 and very long replacement production lag, even now that ZA is 'readmitted' to the world community; you simply cannot afford that kind of writeoff risk to a todesfarht by penetrating tacair. A couple bad sorties and you not only collapse your combined DCA/OCA/INT sortie generation for the next day's home defense, but you leave people badly exposed on the pointy end. See: Argentine Mirage III pulled out of the Falklands to defend Buenos Aires against the 'Vulcan Menace' Thatcher threatened when they had all but destroyed the SHAR CAP the previous day with long range Super 530 shots.

    See the sudden shortfall in counterair missions over Stanley when a couple of SHAR got shot up by the Skyguard 35mm system and the GR.3s not yet ready, leaving the RN with a set of hard choices between defending the Falklands Sound anchorage and TF Corporate itself with less than a squadron of ready aircraft generated, each day as CANA/FAA were seemingly supplying 'a ship kill per foray'.

    Fighters have the energy to maneuver for position, either in getting squint angle for LOROP/SAR or in Poling up missiles against counter strikes by equivalent threats. But without stealth and standoff munitions, they should never be used as a penetrating asset in an A2AD environment. Even with dedicted DEAD equipment and training, it's just not worth the cost in sorties.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,947
    If the wall of text came from someone else i would have been impressed, but remembering what LEG posted and his style (mixing a bunch of military terms to sound like "someone in the know" then mix it up with facts and factoids both real and imagined) in https://forum.keypublishing.com/show....php?2902-F-32, i have no choice but to be skeptical. Just a head up, long posts may or may not be accurate
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 2nd December 2017 at 17:33.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Mig-31bm, having witnessed your efforts at derailing various Russian threads over the last while, your ad hominen attack, off topic and unwanted here, is very unwelcome.
    Your post has added ZERO to the thread or its actual subject. It has been an interesting ON TOPIC discussion until your unwanted off topic post, and it really should on another day be reported as a blatant attempt at derailing.
    Mods, can we please keep an eye on this please?

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,947
    Mig-31bm, having witnessed your efforts at derailing various Russian threads over the last while, your ad hominen attack, off topic and unwanted here, is very unwelcome.
    Your post has added ZERO to the thread or its actual subject. It has been an interesting ON TOPIC discussion until your unwanted off topic post, and it really should on another day be reported as a blatant attempt at derailing
    Me derailing various Russian thread ? nope. The only Russian thread i usually on is PAK-FA one, and even then i rarely comment there. And iam not trying to derailing this thread but rather a head up for others about the accuracy of LEG posts. Because, it has been my experience that, while they seem very long and informative at first, they more often than not contain many mistakes ( or better said just made up numbers).

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    105
    I was not aware Argentine Mirage IIIs “shredded” ANY Sea Harriers during the Falklands war. Especially with it highly unimpressive BVR capability’

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    No one cares.

    142 words posted over 2 posts, and still you haven't bothered to even mention the TOPIC MATERIAL, the Mirage F-1, nor contribute in any meaningful way at all to the topic.
    You are simply derailing and flamebaiting by carrying on a personal feud.
    There are lesser forums you can go to carry on that kind of behaviour.

    Mods?

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    105
    Sorry. I did ask if any thought was given to reengining the F-1 with the Spey turbofan in SA as this was already in use by the SAAF....

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    tankdriver67
    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.
    That is an interesting point that I had considered before.
    I do wonder though how feasible it would have been. The main issue would have been sourcing those additional engines. Even if that was possible, I am unsure whether civilian Speys could have been leveraged into a spare parts capacity.
    What has been stated is that the SAAF was interested in the M53, which in a funny sort of way, would have brought the Mirage F1 full circle back to the Mirage F1M53 which first flew on 22nd December 1974. It had quite blistering flight performance.
    I suspect it would have been difficult though to get that through sanctions.
    Whilst the additional ATAR 9K50's for the Cheetah C programme did come from from France, via Israel, there was a strong element of deniability that could be attached to that as SA was already a user.
    The same apparently was due for the Snecma M88, that would have been rerouted through Yugoslavia as it was to be used on the Novi Avion.
    I suspect that the M88, whilst more modern than the 9K50, would not have offered any advantages in thrust.
    I suspect the M53 was first choice, especially as it had previously been fitted into a modified Mirage F1 airframe.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    105
    M53 on the lightweight F-1 airframe sounds like amazing performance! Would have been very interesting to see the new nose on the F-1A. Any thoughts on possibly rebuilding a couple as two seaters?

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by LEG
    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.
    Iam a fan of Tom Cooper book but Super 530D can't out pole AIM-54, the Phoenix has significant longer engagement range and is ARH so F-14 has freedom to turn away while Mirage cannot. Apg-71 performed superb against jammer with the assistance from AAS-42. With same competency and training, F-14 will dictate the engagement.
    Last edited by moon_light; 2nd December 2017 at 18:46.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    I'm not sure tankdriver.
    Remember, the Cheetah C and Super Mirage F1 were originally envisaged to be interim types until the Carver was fully developed and inducted.
    So perhaps we are talking of around 10-15 years service? I'm not sure...conjecture on my part.
    South Africa had bought a manufacturing licence for the Mirage F1, and indeed, assembled a large portion of the fleet locally, but again, another gentleman on the SAAF forum connected to the project stated that no more than parts, sub-assemblies etc were manufactured for the fleet. He had seen some of the jigs used for that.

    The Super Mirage F1 would make an interesting modelling or drawing project. Basically a Cheetah C forward part, refuelling probe, and the different tail/vertical stabilizer base.
    He did mention there were other smaller refinements, but either my memory fails me on that right now, or he didn't go into detail.

    The F1M53 was slightly longer than the vanilla F1, had a very slightly larger wingspan, and weighed about 500-600kg heavier when empty.
    I think it's maximum speed at altitude (12000m used as the base IIRC) was unchanged, but apparently it demonstrated a very healthy leap forward in speed at sea level/low altitude (Mach 1.25 IIRC). But its maximum climb rate showed a massive 45% improvement leap.
    The fact that the vanilla Mirage F1 was no slouch on the deck, being one of the faster fighters on the deck, illustrates how fast the M53 powered variant was.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Again, just an addenda, as the edit function seems crippled..
    The F1M53 had increased fuel capacity, slightly enlarged engine air intakes, and a strengthened undercarriage. The nose was subtly reprofiled to enable a retractable inflight refuelling probe.
    I guess it was these mods, as well as the slightly lengthened fuselage, that made up the 500-600kg empty weight increase.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    er, what would they use the M-88 for? for the ATAR replacement, the differences are huge

    - 700mm wide (1000 for the ATAR)
    - 3.5m long (5.9m for the ATAR)
    - 900kg (vs 1500 for the ATAR)

    adapting it to the Mirage F1 would be a real mess as it would require an enormous work of redesign of the rear fuselage...

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Sorry, I could have been a bit clearer.
    It was looked at as an engine for the Carver.
    This was intimated by someone who was peripherally involved on that programme.
    Apparently, whilst trying to finalise the engine for that project, an opportunity came up as Yugoslavia were going to use it on the Novi Avion.
    If used on Carver, its clear it was to be used on the later twin engine model, not the original single engine model.
    Like you, I have my doubts it would ever be worthwhile on an F1, even though the interim Super F1 and Super Cheetah C were to try and leverage as much commonality with the Carver.
    Once Carver went twin engined towards the end, any motive commonality went out the window I suspect.
    Having said that, the SMR-95 as used in the Cheetah and Mirage F1 airframe also had considerable work done to it to make it a better fit, not least the repositioning of engine ancilliaries, and lengthening the engine.
    In my opinion, the only worthwhile option to re-engine the Mirage F1 from a SAAF perspective were the upgraded ATAR 9K50 that was worked upon, the SMR-95 as fitted, or the M53. I idly have wondered about the PW1120 as used in the Lavi, but I suspect that would have been fraught with political difficulties, and became moot anyway once Lavi was cancelled.
    I suspect (I recall reading or being told actually) that the M53 was what was wanted, which makes perfect sense in light of the Mirage F1M53.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    Quote Originally Posted by tankdriver67 View Post
    I was not aware Argentine Mirage IIIs “shredded” ANY Sea Harriers during the Falklands war. Especially with it highly unimpressive BVR capability’
    Neither you, nor anyone else.
    SHAR's were attacked with the MATRA 530 and the MATRA 550 (not the "Super 530") but the missile was so unreliable and the shots were so off the target that the British pilots were in doubt of what they were seing (the AAMs failed the targets by hundreds of meters, they dived into the sea a "couple of miles" from the Harriers).
    The two paragraphs of that text wall that mention the Falklands conflict are a compilation of... not particularly well researched "facts" (only one SHAR lost to AAA, the other loss was to a Roland SAM on an entirely diferent day, and so on).

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    The French sabotage of Argentina's ordnance stocks was documented. They even gave the British kill codes for the Exocets. Amazing enough the British failure to revise their IFF patterns was the primary reason the Sheffield failed to engage the incoming missile. The missile signature was ignored because it thought it was a friendly.

    PW1120 in an F.1 was never likely. J79 would have been cool in one. M88 is a slimmed F.1 always sounded good to me. Too bad EJ200 wasn't an option. Spain might have been interested much more so than an M88-powered F.1 rebuild. On the other hand, an F404-powered F.1 may have made better sense to Spain.
    Go Huskers!

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    607
    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.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    105
    The Mirage F.1EQ-5 and EQ-6 are described as "anti-ship" variants, so theres a good possibility that they had the Agave radar, otherwise they would have the Cyrano IV (?) with alterations to operate Exocet. I'm basing this off the Indian AF Jaguars with an anti-ship role and Agave radar.
    Last edited by tankdriver67; 3rd December 2017 at 00:41.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    105
    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?

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Tankdriver..yes indeed there was a project for a navalised Mirage F1.
    I seem to recall it being designated the Mirage F1M or F1 Marine.
    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.
    It's a bit late here now, so I'll try and dig up the info tomorrow.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,525
    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

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    538
    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.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    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

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,895
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 3rd December 2017 at 10:04.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    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:	39 
Size:	63.1 KB 
ID:	257450

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    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:	57 
Size:	61.6 KB 
ID:	257451
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MirageF1-m-532.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	41.4 KB 
ID:	257452

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    522
    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 at 19:34.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,525
    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

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    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!

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    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

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