Kev2go

1987 yes Nope you choose to interpret it as such Exactly the reason why Iraq settled for the Mirage f1. Because that's the only aircraft fighter they could got for export from the west when prior to that they had been exclusively soviet client. I've said this for past few posts. Again targeting pods(lantirn) did become a tthing eventually stating with block 40s. F15E got first few lantirns in the gulf war. Obviously the usaf was requiring f15e and thier block 40s and later block 50s to have targeting pods since f111s and f4s were slated for retirement it was just a matter of gradual phaseout and including next gen tgps for teen series. Already explained. Logic and common sense analysis. And it wouldn't need to be revamped any more than a foreign operator that had f16 Mirage, rafale snd eurofighter all in 1 airforce , or a foreign operator using a mix of Russian aircraft like su30mki, rafale , Mirage and even some homegrown fighter designs alongside each other. Tell that to a country like india. Or uae, which operate mixed fleets of avation from various nations. You don't need to be nato to use us aircraft. By the same set of logic it doeant make sense to operate a fleet of mirages with soviet aircraft. Or even for other nations to mix us , French european consortium aircraft in 1 airforce. Yes bombing missions in hostile airspace, where yould be intercepted or shot down by a sam is a good debut. Besides Vipers performed quite well with heaters in the 1982 Bekka air war. Managed to score more a2a kills than the f15 mind you Yes you keep saying that but then you cherry pick comparisons to the f1eq5/eq6, which seems to be selected as the gold standard of the cold war era. Most Mirage f1s were no eq5 or e6 levels but more far more basic. It's far more enticing to offer a complete package from the get go which both f16 and Hornet offer, you manage to ignore this for how many posts now? So really your typical mirage f1 that is going to be encountered is going to more akin to f1ce or f1ee, rather than Mirage f1eq6, which you like to use as a "gold Standard". KA3, KA6 and s3 werent fighters. Not really fair to compare the navy as even a supercarrier is too small for something like a kc130 let alone a KC135 whereas an airforce operating from land does have airfields that can support such aircraft. Not really mental gymnastics since f1 was used in a2a role and a multirole fighter will be used in situations for a2a. Again Israeli conflicts of 80s are perfect example of this. They had f15s yet f16 had plenty opportunity for air kills, even though it was invented for tactical air wings. Lol might want to actually want to recheck the numbers on that. and further in the gulf war F15C's did even better against F1EQ's, and they didnt have anything like the Aim54. Better then soviet exported stuff iraq had at that time to be sure , but that's not a very high bar. Lmao Sounds like projection on your behalf tbh

only Eq5 and Eq6 could self designate LGB's/ Laser missiles in 86, with a target pod. And F4 phantoms were already using Targeting pods (pave knife) in Vietnam, however few they were. by 80s DMAS upgraded F4E's could use F111's pave tac. Not to mention against mere tankers , AGM65 or AGM62's would have sufficed. which F16 and F/A18 respectively had. Against actual combat ships harpoons would of been monsters. F16A's weren't debuting in 86. try again lol . Israel was using F16A block 10 in strikes against Iran as early as 1980. Mind you those block 10s were initially slated to go to Iran but the revolution happened. Now that certainly would of been a interesting what if : IF the revolution happened a tad bit later and those F16A's managed to be all delivered Iran, and said aircraft were available for combat. So a hypothetical F16A block 10 vs mirage F1EQ a interesting what if. What if scenario digression aside, by 1986 that would of been the debut of F16C block 25/30 by that point in time. Hornets came around in late 83/early 84, Although 1986 was simply their combat debut in the lybia air campaign. They could from day 1 use an/aas38 nitehawk FLIR based TGP and ASQ 173 Laser pod, although the fact that not every aircraft is equipped with one for every mission, because not every mission require it. Also consider the US navy had A6E's are at least TRAM or AWCSI by that point in time which can buddy lase for hornets. But all in all looking at the F16's and F/A18's combat record through 1980-91, it performed quite swimmingly. Also consider these were specific export versions with extra features thrown in. So yes out of the gate F16 and F/A18 offer more complete package from the production lines without needing to have "extra" features ticked in at extra cost that would of otherwise been standard. poor mans aerial refueling. A nice option for sure if you can't afford actual aerial tankers. mhm perfect demonstration F1EQ's didn't exist in 1979. First ones weren't delivered until 1981. And the ones that mirage fans likes to brag about are EQ5/EQ6 as the ultimate examples of what a strike Mirage could be arent around until 1986. So yes even F16A's would still be able to cope against F1's with just heaters, considering all they would have to do is fly low to the ground until getting within IR range and F1's will get screwed because they dont have PD radars. The Cyrano 4's MTI was so bad that even Mig23ML would had better lookdown shootdown capability. So yes from the perspective of a fly off between the two for export, F16 offers more out of the gate more so for F/A18, and they can self escort. Ugh nope radar was still a limitation. given its lack of ability to deal with ground clutter. Also no ability to IFF targets, which even venerable phantoms could do since Vietnam. No one said otherwise. S530F was a good medium range missile but it was limited by the Cyrano 4 radar ( above GS F1 vs F16 Aim9 only video is perfect demonstration), where it was the opposite situation IN USAF teen fighters. They had proper PD radars ( high tech for their time) limited by missile initially. AIm7F still had seeker head limitations at low altitude/ lookdown shootdown until Aim7M was introduced in 1982 for the USAF. IRRC S530D was only capable with RDI equipped Mirage 2000's (S4 and S5) . Not compatible with RDM of earlier mirage batches, and not on Mirage F1's with Cyrano 4. Considering USN aggressor squadrons adopted the F16C block 30s ( redesignated F16N) and those proved to be far more challenging opponents than F5 tiger's. yes, if those Vipers get within Heater range, your going to have a bad day. Also Remember alot of Soviet aircraft that IRaq had didnt really have any adequate EW equipment. It makes me wonder would Aim54A's really performed as good as they did in that conflict, if Iraq had more aircraft with more modern EW/jamming suites, and Countermeasures. So yes F16's would of still fared better than Mirage F1. Still Hornet is better off because it can engage BVR with sparrows. its a lightweight fighter. It could carry jammer externally, its a more convenient placement on centerline position rather than on wing hardpoint position With a Integrated CM suite F16 wouldn't need a CM pod. Still 1 less pod to be carried. F/A18 Hornet on the other hand had both Internal Jammer and a integrated CM suite. True F111's and F15E's fared better in the gulf war. less losses than the Tonka. But then again F111F' had FLIR targeting pods and a healthy amount of laser guided bombs that they could self designate. something like 46% of all LGB's in the gulf were dropped from F111's, and the F15E's case also had a amazing SAR mapping capabilities to use for acquiring surface targets. yes I did. And its basically sticking some higher tec stuff of that timeframe ( gen 4ish) into a gen 3 airframe. ITs really no different that seeing some foreign users of the F4 that modernized them to have some more modern and comparable features from Teen series. like the F4F ICE or the HAF F4E AUP, etc etc. Which given the timframe are going to have more advanced features given 90's to 2000s era timeframe of upgrades. yes as opposed to " real" facts like F16A coming into initial service 1986.

Ah yes the copium response. "muh bribery" every time an American aircraft is chosen over another nations aircraft. before you are quick to accuse 1 side of bribery remember that other foreign defense contractors had been caught doing the exact same thing with other export military sales including Dassault. aka Pot meets Kettle. However this was not a F104 vs Mirage 3 scenario, where you objectively have enough reasons to have chosen Mirage 3 over F104 ( aircraft of a comparable timeframe) but bribery ends up getting in the way of fair and rational decision making. Now when comparing F1 to F16, You don't need bribes to get sales for what is objectively newer and superior next generation aircraft design. Its just common sense at that point, to choose a aircraft that also has better long term future growth for additional capabilities. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/27/archives/the-f16-and-how-it-won-europe-the-f16-and-how-it-won-europes-orders.html and TBH the F16 would only gotten more sales had there not been been tech restrictions in FMS for non nato nations. This is exactly why when said restrictions were lifted it was a final nail in the coffin for F20 tigershark, which also was competing against the Viper in foreign military sales, particularly among nations looking to replace F5's. I think thats a misinterpretation on your part. I showed examples of later tranches fitted with CM and early tranches without, based on aircraft # Its not what-if ism , when it was a attempt to explain why they ended up with the Mirage F1 family. There was no other nation from the west willing to sell them fighter/attack aircraft. beggars cant be choosers. its as simple as that. They were going to take whatever they could. It does make sense if you are at total war against your next door neighbor. You take anything you can especially a long term war. Remember it dragged on for 8 years. F1EQ doesn't compare to a Hornet.... or even a F16. Again its nice single seat multirole of its generation but still there would be no reason to choose mirage F1 over a Hornet, or even a F16 tbh, if that option was available. Especially not in the mid 80s or later. Not unless you aren't allowed export sale of such aircraft, or are so impoverished you cant afford operational costs of aforementioned newer generation aircraft. Also keep in mind as "multirole" fighters, F16 and F/A18 can also be used for air to air missions more effectively than either Mig21 , F1, and arguably the Mig23. ( except maybe F16A because no medium range missiles pre adf version) remember the Mirage F1EQ, still was limited by lacking a PD radar. This is why Iraqi Air force was still going to be an limited with how to deal with F14's. Even with Mirage F1EQ required situational circumstances needed to rely on hit and run tactics via using look up shoot up tactics for S530F launches , because the Cyrano 4 was still inadequate in filtering out ground clutter. PD radar > MTI radar. Hence i reiterate from earlier point that this is a matter of France being willing to sell F1's and no other western nation willing to offer alternatives. hence why you saw Iraq continue to Use mostly Soviet aircraft, and why it only saw France as the only western nation selling it combat aircraft. Logic & common sense.... because those are more modern and more capable and more versatile airframes . F1 is a last generation design. Its like asking to provide proof that someone would prefer an F104 over an F16. or an F4 phantom over an F/A18, etc etc. Besides even the French Navy since the 80s had considered buying ( or at least leasing) the F/A18 Hornet as a interim solution until Rafale M was a thing, since they were still operating Super Entendard for strike, and by that point very antiquated F8 crusaders for fleet defense, at which point the F/A18 could of filled both roles until Rafale M was ready. But of course however costly that would of been, Dassault lobbied the navy real hard not to buy any hornets, and as such the French naval aviation was not without a replacement for its antiquated fleet until well into mid 2000's. because you keep attempting to rationalize that you don't need RWR, Jammers or CM in a Fighter/interceptor, because " Muh CAFDA didnt think so." even in the 1980s, because "bomber only threat" which i say otherwise, that you don't put those things in unless you are needing to contend with Fighter A2A threats or operating in a environment with Air to surface threats whilst pointing out the inconsistency with M2K having first 2 from but not the latter until about the gulf war. No one said it wasn't an improvement over a Mirage 3, and that there isn't anything laudable by making an affordable interceptor that isnt a hangar queen or too complex and expensive in production. There is a place for such aircraft in domestic and export use. The Mirage F1 is great when compared to an even simpler fighter like the F5 , or as a more affordable export alternative to a more expensive F4 phantom which requires a crew of 2 to operate, F1 being actually valid as a interceptor option relative to an like an F5 which has a smaller and crappier radar, and lacks any medium range missile. Your only making assumption on what you think i know because I am able to infer different conclusions from same information? K. Its called independent thinking. By the same logic F4B phantom is comparable because its initial service role...... But F4B like Mirage F1C still had secondary ground attack capability present ( even if French AD squadrons didn't make use of it it) , and later versions were more multirole at least in the US Airforce, like later versions of the Mirage F1 were more multirole ( even if it was only for export ) Which cant be said of the same of the F106, which remained a 1 trick pony its entire life a pure interceptor, and had no export interest. yes correct, So then Dassault shouldn't of been surprised that their F1 ( even with some souped up offerings like M53 engine) lost to the F16 then. Plus the issue with this is investing money in a older generation platform also leaves you with less $$$ for your newer aviation fleet, like M2000.

I hate to be the "actually" guy. But F16 isnt wired for 4 harms. Harm on station 4 & 6 can only effectively be carried for showoff purposes. IE they can be carried and even jettisoned by not fired. Some real life F16 maintainers have answered this question that in reality they can only fire 2 harms from station 3 & 7

Yes attractive.... until the F16 became a thing and then Marcel Dassault himself was mad that one too many nations preferred to purchase such a next gen multirole fighter over his companies product. Problem is by the time the M2K came around the F16's already were dominating the market (and as time went on this would include other airframes competition) as such It was never going to get the sort of export success that past mirages did, especially as M2K's initially were not considered "multirole" until M2K-5 ( at least some export version) but even then that point it was attempting to compete in a market over saturated by various options by which point said alternative options effectively offered a comparable or better, and for a lower flyaway cost potentially ( depending on the year, aircraft variant and nation of course). Even then certain nations bought it because some nations have a policy that they can't expect rely on a single supplier for defense products and thus feel a need to buy from various defense exporters, even though it would of been more practical and cost effective from a logistics standpoint to just stick to a single aircraft family than have a mixed fleet of F16 and M2K's for example. Why did Spain have to buy AN/ALE40? Either Dassault was unable to provide such as system at all in the timeframe they were acquiring the F1's. , or It was more cost effective to have a US contractor Install a integrated countermeasure system onto a French airframe. Now Iraqi F1EQ is a very selective example from the 1980s EQ5 and EQ6 builds were especially late deliveries, effectively not coming in operational use until 1985 and 1986 respectively. Considering Iraq was at war with Iran, the Mirage F1 with some additional custom built specs was simply their best ( and really only) option on the export market from the West at that time. Im sure if F16 or F/A18 was allowed export to Iraq , they would have preferred those but of course reality of diplomatic realities was they had to settle for some souped up Mirage F1's with some extra avionic specs thrown in, considering the US at that time was unwilling to sell such aircraft to a nation like Iraq, even if they happened to be at war with Iran. It makes no sense to have an aircraft with RWR and integrated Jammer, but no countermeasures ( initially) on the M2KC. none. because if you need RWR and especially a jammer, then you certainly would find use for chaff and flare. What a false equivalency. The F1 is not a F106 or an F101 which not to mention are much earlier designs. F106 didn't even have any buyers on the export market, its not hard to see why given that the US companies had other options emerge on the export market that didn't suffer from a 1 trick pony syndrome. Besides designing a pure interceptor was an obsolete concept by the 70s, If not arguably earlier by the 60s. The F15 although an Air Superiority platform was effectively going to be performing the same role such as the F106 did in air defense, and most active F106 squadrons transitioned to F15s. ANG F106's were replaced with F16's.

Its called the fog of war. This can happen even in DCS, but only less often, because things operate in ideal circumstances, that and Players aren't handicapped by strict ROE/ needing verification and permission from a human Awacs to engage an aerial target unless its a squadron roleplay. Keep in mind that iif we want to speculate what would happen if recreated in "DCS" its very much possible to sneak up on flights if you operate via GCI instructions or datalink updates with all active sensors like radar on standby until the final moment you actually need activate it for missile guidance . Also consider if that Mig25 foxbat could have also potentially scored multiple A6 intruder kills, but the only reason he didnt fire on any other contact that day was because he was a disciplined pilot that did not break procedure. The Iraqi AWACS/GCI controller did not give him permission to fire. IN DCS people arent operating on strict ROE/ awacs intercept procedures either. Similarly worth noting vice versa, Mig25 could of easily been shot down by another Hornet from another squadron. a VFA 81 Hornet piloted by Michael Anderson had detected a Mig25 at 70 miles out on the radar and IFF'ed it BVR,. He saw its afterburner visually and even engaged in maneuvers with it. He would have shot it down had he not had needed to ask permission from AWACS to fire on it. ( which was unable to verify the Mig as a enemy aircraft from thier end) SO by that logic does that mean AWACS/GCI controllers are a liability? Or were they they ones information overloaded and unable to manage the airspace on a timely manner? The problem is that Scott Speicher did not live to tell the tale. We are unable to get his his side of the story to explain the circumstances of why he was unable to react against a incoming interceptor . So its nothing but realm of speculation to attempt to conclude he was overloaded with information or that ALR67 was providing false contacts and thus decided to ignore his RWR. For all we know the RWR itself could of malfunctioned and not even been working. From the perspective of the Mig25 pilot. He himself recounts as he kept keeping his eyes to check on his own RWR system regularly to keep SA. Not something a pilot would do if the rwr amounted to nothing buy a " false beep and noise maker". I think more can be said of the indispensable usefulness of having a standardized datalink system like Link 16, and how that would have made a difference in gulf war had it existed then. That maybe a complaint ROE and needing permission from Awacs to fire from thier end. Or maybe it can even be blamed on "politics" of the commanders not allowing F14's to escort strike packages because it was claimed they didnt have the IFF capabilities the Air forces F15C's, which cynics will say was just an excuse for air force to have the monopoly on air superiority mission in that conflict, so they could get more kills. Since there are demonstrably far many other variables in play in this particular situation i twould be unfair to conclude that a F/A18 got blown out of the sky only because of some perceived limitations of a RWR system. i dont think anyone here is complaining about lack of RWR. When the DCS Mirage F1CE has a rwr. If anything its more about the anticipation of Mirage F1EE having a better RWR ( there were some old WIP pics of a F1EE with a different more advanced RWR suite) , since anyone can see F1CE indicator is akin to a SPO10 on a mig21, and thus its obvious the limitations of such a primtive indicator unit. In any case even imperfect technology is indispensable, if you know how to properly use it. ITs better to have a feature and not use it, versus not having it and needing it. By the same logic whats the point of using any radar system prior to the adoption of Pulse doppler filtering techniques if your radar was filled with ground clutter and suffered interference from clouds? No of course its not useless, but its simply more situational, High altitude intercept. Also ALR67 being more a Flashing and beeping distraction is news to me. I have not read any memoirs about Hornet pilots complaining about thier RWR system being a liability. Again I only read complains like that regarding the early systems of 1960s-early 70s vintage like AN/APR25 . Even reading a book like Hornets over Kuwait. with the author having been formerly a Phantom pilot in the USMC, had overall good things to say about the Hornet, because even the F/A18A made his F4 look ancient in comparison. IF anything more envy that some of the squadron in USN were at that point were receiving the more modern F/A18C, with features like flir based Mavericks, that his older Hornet didnt have. And it also should vary which version of ALR67 we are talking about. V1? V2? V2 with ECP 510? or V3? IN any case i think the conclusion is the reason certain aircraft didnt have said fancy features until later is because of different operational requirements and much more modest military budgets ( associated with that point not as advanced defence industry perhaps) . Im sure if the French airforce had the Vietnam or Mid east war experiences of the Americans of Israelis respectively,( aka a reality check) they would have invested far sooner in such systems, realizing thier use, which of course would have also made thier aircraft more attractive on the export market if such options were offered directly from Dassault.

I was obviously referring to m2000 of which you said is a cafda plane and thus not needing cm And i pointed out i am scratching my head thinking it is inconsistent reasoning to include a integrated ew suite which includes more advanced rwr and a integrated jammer but not include countermeasures along with the Mirage 2000. ( at least not until eclair retrofit or spriale on s5) So . If your putting the effort to integrate jammer into the airframe it's obvious the use is against other fighters or surface to air threats, because it's not necessary against bomber threats.

Then again this is quite inconsistent with the logic of including A capable RWR ( at least more advanced then older BF) and on top of that including a Integrated jamming suite ( sabre) but no countermeasures. IF all you expect to use your air defense fighter is against the " odd bomber" then you wouldn't need a EW jamming suite let alone a more advanced RWR. Thats only necessary are only if you expecting use against enemy fighters, or to contend with operating in a environment with a presence of hostile Air to Surface systems. But then if thats the case you also aught to have the foresight to incorporate countermeasures in some form. Jaguar is an older design it gets a pass, not a 4th gen aircraft.

In sense sure because these aircraft are not locally produced in Spain via License agreement but produced in France and aquired from them. i would not consider it a "retro" fit considering An/ALE 40 in the way it is installed, is a elegant solution since it is directly integrated into conformal area of the fuselage airframe, like most of us familiar with more modern aircraft designs. So just because it was not installed day 1 into initial batches Mirage F1CE's delivered to spain in 1975-76, merely makes it a later production ( or technically post production refit since its an American system installed into a French Aircraft, and not locally produced via liscense in Spain) https://www.defensa.com/reportajes/llanos-casa-ultimos-mirage-espanoles The Mirage F1CE's delivered to spain were between 1975 and 1983 in 3 batches with some variance in avionics. ( last batch of 20 F1CE was between 1980 and 1983) So that image you posted is merely an example of one the remaining earlier batches ( aircraft registration # 14/22), that was still flying along side later mirage F1CE examples that did have AN/ALE40, before any refits were made. Typically you only see images the earlier aircraft No with ALE40, is post cold war when they have the Nato Grey paintscheme. One is a band aid solution add on ( external pods) limiting payload options, the other is still something of retrofit solution as its stuffed into where Parachute should be. ( sacrificing 1 feature for another) . Again even for fighter/ Interceptor i find it unusual there was no interest in having a integrated CM suite. considering it is really unusual for an Aircraft to be flying without countermeasures in the 80s no less . I hate to digress but i even found it unusual that It really took until S5 batch of Mirage 2000C to get Integrated CM suite (spirale) , with earlier batches needing to have Eclair rushed in as add on. so it could operate with countermeasures in the Gulf war. Not exactly a fair comparison as mirage F1CT modernization was done in the late 80s and not operational until the early 90s . At a time when France was already having Mirage 2000's operational. Mirage F1CE is effectively an OG F1C but with Aim9 compatibility and version that had integrated AN/ALE40 suite. this cockpit avionics level is more on par what you see in a Mirage 2000 So in Short Mirage F1CT is still more capable platform than Mirage F1EE, which is basically going amount to a Mirage F1CE with External refuel probe and a INS navigation system, and I think a more modern RWR.

obviously different system, and retrofit relative to F1CE which does not sacrifice landing chute for flares.

In certain features its simpler than the sabre jet. IT doesn't even have any Air to Ground computer for delivery, no radar aided gunsight. Its T/W ratio is about the same as the sabre. but lower top speed. This will essentially be bit smaller F86 with a fixed gunsight., with modestly better Air to ground payload options.. the luftwaffe version (R3) will have most appeal due to least having 30mm defa cannons, and not 50 cal ticklers. Frankly Its not surprising that some European nations like greece backed out of buying G91's and instead opted for F5A's, since by the time it was operational, F5 was a more viable option

where can i find the english translation?

has no point. its like... even with more modern aircraft. Nothing stopping people from flying with Iron bombs doing radar bombing or CCIP/CCRP drops in a Hornet or Viper if they really want to. somehow the only way an aircraft can fit in the cold war. if it exactly has the exact features it flew in X year. Im sure some sop would complain the the AJS 37 viggen is not cold war enough because its the AJS not AJ, and complain over it having glide bombs and RBS15 anti ship missile( post cold war), and a updated central computer ( even though its not something visible) even though said person can just not use them.

did the Luftwaffe IDS or RAF GR1 ever get a targeting pod? Italian IDS could use the CLDP TGP

i bring up the italian IDS version contemporary of Gr1 just had modest modification later in its life such as GPS and some advanced weapons. (according to a 2007 manual) Italians had Harms, Kormoran JDams and even Storm Shadow slapped onto a Gr1 where as the brits just a did a proper upgrade via Gr4.

a 2000s versions is still close enough to a 1989 variant. Just fly with only the Mk80 series bombs.......

I would argue besides a post cold war gr1. The next best would of been an Italian pa200 tornado. They didn't have a equivalent to gr4 so some modest modernization and addons of thier gr1 cousin saw some interesting weapons get added into the 2000s.

Shame it's only a 1989 variant.

Btw can anyone explain why in the old mirage 2000C model the countermeasures suite display Flare and chaff quantity but in the new model, the updated CM suite doesnt? It only tells you when the quantity is Low or Empty. This new CM indicator seems like a downgrade.

This was posted from the F15E WIP updates. soo it means we can expect to have 3 functional pods on Razbams F15E?

i searched that up further its a greek mirage 2000EG.

did the mirage 2000C ever get an updated navigation system ( INS/GPS or EGI?) or is this Mirage 2000C nav upgrade one of the foreign operated mirages?

yes true. R530's are pretty shorted ranged. only really useful against aircraft that dont have radar guided missiles of thier own, becausei im fairly certain even Mig23's with R23 or F4's with Aim7E's can outrange you. Super Matra 530F will be very desirable to have something that can can more resemble a "medium" range missile