How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

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/showthread.php?2902-F-32, i have no choice but to be skeptical. Just a head up, long posts may or may not be accurate

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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?

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

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).

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 113

I was not aware Argentine Mirage IIIs “shredded” ANY Sea Harriers during the Falklands war. Especially with it highly unimpressive BVR capability’

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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?

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 113

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....

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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.

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 113

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?

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 999

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.

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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.

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

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...

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

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).

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

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.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 906

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.

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 113

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.

Member for

8 years 4 months

Posts: 113

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?

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 1,620

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.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

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.