Dassault Mirage F1

[Dawes]

Looking at it's operational history, was this design a success for Dassault?

[shep854]

ISTR at least one video (Weapons Detective?) that gave it the nod as Dassault's most successful Mirage.

[TrustMe]

It had really good sales around the world but mainly in the middle east. Susposedly in WVR combat it could nearly match the F16.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I hope its not inappropriate to point out the existence of this really rather excellent research tool...

I dont think it would hold a candle to an F16 in a Dogfight, but it did have better BVR capablities, at least against F16's that werent packing Sparrow.

[TrustMe]

I loved that video  

[lucklucky]

Yes really good video.

[lucklucky]

17 hours ago, Dawes said:

Looking at it's operational history, was this design a success for Dassault?

 They returned to the delta with small canard for M2000 so i think they did not found it as successful as they expected.

[TrustMe]

I think the reason why the Mirage 2000 had a delta wing was that the French industry couldn't build an engine with sufficently power for any other aerodynamic configuration.

I do know that with the Rafale, the French designers had a similar problem. They wanted a single engine Mirage ( like the 3/5/F1/2000 to keep costs down, but industry couldn't provide it so they had to go with two.

[Olof Larsson]

22 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

I think the reason why the Mirage 2000 had a delta wing was that the French industry couldn't build an engine with sufficently power for any other aerodynamic configuration.

I do know that with the Rafale, the French designers had a similar problem. They wanted a single engine Mirage ( like the 3/5/F1/2000 to keep costs down, but industry couldn't provide it so they had to go with two.

The engine was not a huge issue for the Mirage 2000. It had 90% the power of the engine of the F-16. So more power than the F-20 or Gripen. For the Mirage F1 on the other hand, power was truly lacking, having  about 65% the amount of power of the F-16. That makes the fact that they were able to make a single engine, multi role aircraft, with radar guided AAM's, anti ship missiles and air to ground PGM's in the form of the F1E, quite impressive.

[TrustMe]

2 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said:

The engine was not a huge issue for the Mirage 2000. It had 90% the power of the engine of the F-16. So more power than the F-20 or Gripen. For the Mirage F1 on the other hand, power was truly lacking, having  about 65% the amount of power of the F-16. That makes the fact that they were able to make a single engine, multi role aircraft, with radar guided AAM's, anti ship missiles and air to ground PGM's in the form of the F1E, quite impressive.

That's interesting thanks for sharing.

[Arminius]

I think it was a much underestimated plane. I wish it would have had more sales success.

I think no country that bought it, ever regretted this. It did its duty.

And it was a beautiful plane.

Hermann

[Dawes]

5 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Yes really good video.

Cartoons are so much more sophisticated than they used to be.

[Tim Sielbeck]

If it were a cartoon I would agree.

[Dawes]

To me, it's just a high-tech cartoon. Looks good, though.

[Tim Sielbeck]

Highly edited video of a flight simulator.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The video is a little hyper, but the module itself is actually pretty accurate, as far as I can tell.

 

Ive not spent much time on it, I have gone off dcs for a bit through panicking around the boat in the F14. But I think this and the F4 are probably going to be the ones I play when I do.

[DB]

"simulation" is an exaggeration for even the best of consumer games. Some of them are going to be better than others, but dynamics models and performance of most military systems is going to be based on published publicity material, not guaranteed levels of performance.

And in particular, using toys like this to "game" scenarios like "Would three squadrons of F-16s win the Normandy Invasion?" are just wankfests.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so I really must jump in to defend DCS here. Not all modules by any means, because some fly like Toffee (there is at least 2 helicopters that probably could do with a massive makeover in the flight modelling). But some, such as Heatblurs Tomcat, the development time of them was actually approaching that of the real F14, and they really pushed the boat out. I think dev time was something like 6 years. And they are still taking input now from guys who actually flew it to get it dialled in. Some of the discussion about the aerodynamics on the real aircraft on the DCS forum should really be read before passing judgement. That the USAF, the French Air Force and now the Ukrainians use it as a training aid for the A10, Mirage 2000 and F16 illustrates that it does have value. Toy it isnt. Study sim is closer to it.

Yes, I agree that some of the guys making videos based on this sim are idiots, who really are not doing it any kind of service making stupid podcast about B2s savaging the Imperial japanese fleet. The more thoughtful ones that actually try to do ACM like the real aircraft, or how to do realistic intercepts (or in flight refuelling, or flying around the boat that matter) I believe it is possible to learn something useful. Ive learned more about getting the F14 on speed flying around the boat than I have in a dozen books on the F14 (and yes, I probably do have a dozen books on it)

Yes, you are right there is limitations based on published material. But its not really that much of an issue for aircraft that are now something like 50 years old. The real limitation of the sim is EW, for which there is virtually nothing published for very good reasons. Damage modelling for ground targets needs much improvement, but hey, these things take time.

Accurate to the switch? Pretty much.

Didnt mean to drag it off topic because its an interesting discussion. Im just saying anyone wanting to start learning how the aircraft actually worked, could do far worse than starting here.

 

[Yama]

12 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

The engine was not a huge issue for the Mirage 2000. It had 90% the power of the engine of the F-16. So more power than the F-20 or Gripen. For the Mirage F1 on the other hand, power was truly lacking, having  about 65% the amount of power of the F-16. That makes the fact that they were able to make a single engine, multi role aircraft, with radar guided AAM's, anti ship missiles and air to ground PGM's in the form of the F1E, quite impressive.

There was Snecma M53 equipped version of Mirage F1 as you probably remember, it was offered for NATO but lost 'Deal of the Century' for F-16 😃

However Dassault went back to delta wing for Mirage 2000, as it has many advantages (more internal space, better supersonic performance) and with computerized FBW, most of its down sides which led to F1 adopting swept wing configuration, could be overcome. One of the requirements for Mirage 2000 was to intercept MiG-25.

It's noteworthy that both F1 and 2000 were Dassault private ventures, as they seem to have had bit better grip on reality than AdA, which specified expensive, unaffordable monsters like Mirage F2 or G8.

Most interesting variant of Mirage F1 is the Moroccan ASTRAC modernization, which is basically Mirage F1 upgraded close to 2000-5 standard.

[TrustMe]

23 hours ago, Yama said:

....Most interesting variant of Mirage F1 is the Moroccan ASTRAC modernization, which is basically Mirage F1 upgraded close to 2000-5 standard....

As i understand it, the Atar 9K-50 engine like in the Moroccan F1's is hard to maintain due to the age of the components as not many F1's are still around and SNECMA doesn't want to build replacement parts. Only roughly 50% of Moroccan F1's are avaliable at any one time. It sad to say it but in a another 5 years no f1's will be flying anymore around the world.

 

[seahawk]

Mirage F1 and M2000 are different generations. 1966 vs. 1978 makes a big  difference when it comes to engines and FBW controls. The F1 compares to the MiG-23 or the Saab JA-37 Viggen and it does not do badly against those, especially if you look at the limited thrust of the engine.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

I always compare it to the Jaguar, which considering it does much the same thing with half as many engines (and with a radar guided missile), to me looks remarkably good value.

[Dawes]

I believe the F1 saw intensive use during he 1980's Iran-Iraq War. Haven't read much on it's effectiveness.

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I always compare it to the Jaguar, which considering it does much the same thing with half as many engines (and with a radar guided missile), to me looks remarkably good value.

Both the Jaguar and the Mirage F1 was tested by Iraqi pilots in France in a series of test to determine which one to buy. In the end the Iraqi's went for the multirole Mirage F1. 

[TrustMe]

17 minutes ago, Dawes said:

I believe the F1 saw intensive use during he 1980's Iran-Iraq War. Haven't read much on it's effectiveness.

It did indeed. It was bought prior to the war starting (1975) but due to Dassault's slow aircraft building rate it only arrived in country later in 1981 well after the war started. It was considered by Iraqi pilots to have good navigation systems (better than soviet Mig 21/23's) and was easy and safe to fly not like the early Soviet Mig23M that Iraqi had as well. 

It was mainly used for ground attack during the war, as well as a specialised anti-ship Exorcet carring version called Mirage F1-EQ5. A special squadron of F1's was trained by the French to take on Iranian F14's. It was moderatly successful.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by TrustMe