Can someone explain F1 to me?

[DD_Fenrir]

4th generation is not defined by FBW; it’s a higher level distinction based upon the overarching design concepts driven by operational requirements - 3rd gen reflect the primacy of interception, and hence speed and climb, over any other characteristics; these aircraft were designed for shooting down nuclear bombers as the day of the dogfight was deemed to have passed. Vietnam and the various conflicts in the Middle East showed this to be a lie and thus 4th generation aircraft exhibit design choices that attempt to marry high speed AND excellent manoeuvrability in order to be competitive in all possible regimes of air combat.

[Cab]

9 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

4th generation is not defined by FBW; it’s a higher level distinction based upon the overarching design concepts driven by operational requirements - 3rd gen reflect the primacy of interception, and hence speed and climb, over any other characteristics; these aircraft were designed for shooting down nuclear bombers as the day of the dogfight was deemed to have passed. Vietnam and the various conflicts in the Middle East showed this to be a lie and thus 4th generation aircraft exhibit design choices that attempt to marry high speed AND excellent manoeuvrability in order to be competitive in all possible regimes of air combat.

That's just the thing though. There is no officially accepted definitions for the different generations of aircraft.

16 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The new thing in the F-16 wasn't the electric controls, but the relaxed pitch stability, enabling better performance. It's also the reason why it doesn't have a mechanical backup. It's just not controllable.

The A-5 Vigilante was the first american production aircraft with FBW controls (with mechanical backup). It also Intruduced the HUD, which was then called "Pilot's Projected Display Indicator" (PPDI). The first production aircraft with FBW altogether was most probably the Avro Vulcan, also with mechanical backups.

Careful with the "exclusive FBW" argument - that way, you'd throw airplanes like the Tornado or the F/A-18A-D (mechanical backups) over board.

 

Now let's go back to the F1.

All valid points, but I stand by my opinion of the F-14.

[Pikey]

The term "labels" redirects here.

[Snappy]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:38 AM, Cab said:

I have the same opinion except not specifically because of the lack of FBW. IMO Looking at the F-14 there was nothing really revolutionary about it so much as it represented the apex of existing technology. Nothing really new came about until the F-16 with its exclusive FBW controls.

But that is probably a tangent best left for a different thread. No point in high jacking this one.

 

Well the generation definitions are really somewhat blurry , but not necessarily defined by containing something revolutionary.

Still I find your view of the F-14 a bit peculiar, since it actually did contain quite a few innovative things, among others the AWG-9 with its TWS capabilities, the Aim-54 weapon system  , (which probably is the first airborne active radar missile fielded,  if you discount the aim-47 project) which again could be employed against several targets simultaneously , first aircraft to make use of a digital processor(MP944) , it’s  data link sharing capability between fighter aircraft of the same type (with  Link4c) The list probably goes on.

Some of these features are not exclusive to the Tomcat , but in my opinion it’s more than enough to put it in a very different league avionics-wise than the commonly used 3rd gen aircraft .

4th gen seems especially fluid/variable  in its definition, so personally I‘d say anything that was a significant improvement over 3rd gen in one or more criteria is 4th gen and the F-14 definitely fits that bill.

But you’re entitled to your own opinion of course.

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Snappy

[Quid]

The definition DD_Fenrir provided is the most typical that I see, basically those aircraft designed with the lessons learned from Vietnam especially focusing on increased dogfighting prowess atop the speed/interception capability as hallmarks of 4th Generation fighters, and include the F-14 through 18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 and the like.

7 hours ago, Snappy said:

Well the generation definitions are really somewhat blurry , but not necessarily defined by containing something revolutionary.

Still I find your view of the F-14 a bit peculiar, since it actually did contain quite a few innovative things, among others the AWG-9 with its TWS capabilities, the Aim-54 weapon system  , (which probably is the first airborne active radar missile fielded,  if you discount the aim-47 project) which again could be employed against several targets simultaneously , first aircraft to make use of a digital processor(MP944) , it’s  data link sharing capability between fighter aircraft of the same type (with  Link4c) The list probably goes on.

Some of these features are not exclusive to the Tomcat , but in my opinion it’s more than enough to put it in a very different league avionics-wise than the commonly used 3rd gen aircraft .

4th gen seems especially fluid/variable  in its definition, so personally I‘d say anything that was a significant improvement over 3rd gen in one or more criteria is 4th gen and the F-14 definitely fits that bill.

But you’re entitled to your own opinion of course.

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

Pretty much this.  The Tomcat was actually the first to have any revolutionary capability from a weapon system/power projection standpoint.  The F-15 was hydromechanical like the Tomcat, but had an all-digital radar with MPRF making it better at dealing with maneuvering fighters.  The thing is, it was a Sparrow shooter; the weapons it carried were no different than those of an F-4, with one-lock, one-shot for BVR engagements.  It took until the early 1990s until the F-15 had either an active homing or multi-target engagement capability and still lacked the datalink until even later.  The F-16 could best be considered a 2nd generation fighter on steroids when introduced because in spite of its FBW system, it had no BVR capability, no datalink, and in the earliest days of its initial deployment, not even an all-aspect IR missile; essentially an F-8 with ridiculous power and better visibility.  This is not in line with the other 4th generation fighters.  The F/A-18 was comparable to the F-15 from a weapons carriage/capability standpoint (AIM-7/AIM-9/gun).  The Tomcat also beat these fighters to Link 16 (in the F-14D).  So, I don't really agree with Cab's opinion other than to say it is true and valid that fighter generations are not well defined, so there is wiggle room, and you can bin them in different ways.

For the Mirage F1, I'd consider it "late gen 3," generally comparable to the F-4 in role, radar, weapons, etc.  But, that's just my opinion.

[Hummingbird]

Based on the F1's specifications and layout, I expect performance roughly similar to that of the MiG-21Bis. It might turn slightly better, due to automatic LE slats and a less swept wing design (despite the higher W/L), whilst it does lack a bit in terms of power to weight when compared with the MiG, so the climbing performance might not be as great.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Hummingbird

[FanBoy2006.01]

What I am going to say here are generalizations and some of it has been covered in this thread before.

The Mirage F1 is a 3rd Gen fighter and like have been said was an incremental progression from the Mirage III. Fighters like the F14, F15, F16, F18, Mirage 2000, MiG29, etc are 4th Gen fighters and were also referred to as super fighters.

4th Gen fighters were a technological leap forward compared to the previous generation and it covered all aspects of fighters. Like engines, avionics, radars, aerodynamics, etc.

For instance the fighters like the F14, F15, MiG29, etc make use of lifting body technology where the fuselage also provide lift like a wing. The Mirage F1 does not have this.

 

F16, F/A18 and Mirage 2000 have the centre of gravity moved back (Relaxed stability) past the centre of the aircraft making them  unflyable without an flight control computer. But this has advantages like it improve the sustained turn rate (My information is based on reading  a coffee table book decades ago). Apparently this makes a huge difference between Mirage 2000 and Mirage 3.

Leading wing root extensions (F16, F/A18, MiG29, Su27, etc) help with increasing the the angle of attack that these aircraft can reach before stalling. Bare in mind that the Mirage also have things like the slats, combat flaps, sharp dogtooth extensions on the front of the wings, all of which help with airflow over the wing at higher angle of attack. 

The point is the F1 came in right at the end of 3rd Gen fighters and started to compete almost immediately with 4th Gen fighters.

On a completely even more off topic note, it seems that nearly all operators of the Mirage F1 used it in combat!

Edited August 6, 2022 by FanBoy2006.01

[sedenion]

On 11/19/2021 at 11:36 AM, Bozon said:

Rafael

Rafale

RAFAEL :

RAFALE :

Edited August 8, 2022 by sedenion

[DD_Fenrir]

So rafale = sudden brutal gust of wind.

Hmmm....

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

So rafale = sudden brutal gust of wind.

Hmmm....

Yeah, for sure it ain't no Ninja Turtle.

[sedenion]

Spoiler

4 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

So rafale = sudden brutal gust of wind.

Hmmm....

Yes... here is the second meaning, derived from the first:

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by sedenion

[Cab]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:20 PM, Cab said:

That's just the thing though. There is no officially accepted definitions for the different generations of aircraft.

All valid points, but I stand by my opinion of the F-14.

Just saw this video and remembered this thread, so I thought I’d share. At 8:01 Nasty also calls the Tomcat a 3rd gen fighter.

[Quid]

7 hours ago, Cab said:

Just saw this video and remembered this thread, so I thought I’d share. At 8:01 Nasty also calls the Tomcat a 3rd gen fighter.

And Bio Baranek calls it a fourth.  Duck Auten and Hawk Smith referred to the F-14 as a third in the same sense as the F-15 was a third (referring to the F-14 as the "first third generation" fighter and binning the Air Force F-15 as the second, so by that logic, the F-22 would be a fourth).  Again, not well defined and it's hair splitting, but both FX and VFX were their Service's replacements for the F-4, both using lessons learned from Vietnam, the F-15 programatically was actually older than the F-14 (starting 1967 vs. 1968), flew a scant year and a half later, and didn't have all the same technologies of either the F-14 or the F-4 (no strike) until about 20 years later.  Both were designed to fill the same role, both were "next generation" to the Phantom II, both were reactions to a need for a fighter that could dogfight.  So, I consider the entire Teen-series a single generation.  Even the light-weight aircraft were built for the same purpose: make a plane less expensive that either FX (LWF) or VFX (VFAX), and resulted in a "high-low" mix of fighters (cost-wise), either or meant to augment the more expensive fighter.  So, you say third, I say fourth, and neither of us will change the other's opinion.

[Cab]

23 minutes ago, Quid said:

And Bio Baranek calls it a fourth.  Duck Auten and Hawk Smith referred to the F-14 as a third in the same sense as the F-15 was a third (referring to the F-14 as the "first third generation" fighter and binning the Air Force F-15 as the second, so by that logic, the F-22 would be a fourth).  Again, not well defined and it's hair splitting, but both FX and VFX were their Service's replacements for the F-4, both using lessons learned from Vietnam, the F-15 programatically was actually older than the F-14 (starting 1967 vs. 1968), flew a scant year and a half later, and didn't have all the same technologies of either the F-14 or the F-4 (no strike) until about 20 years later.  Both were designed to fill the same role, both were "next generation" to the Phantom II, both were reactions to a need for a fighter that could dogfight.  So, I consider the entire Teen-series a single generation.  Even the light-weight aircraft were built for the same purpose: make a plane less expensive that either FX (LWF) or VFX (VFAX), and resulted in a "high-low" mix of fighters (cost-wise), either or meant to augment the more expensive fighter.  So, you say third, I say fourth, and neither of us will change the other's opinion.

I’m really not looking to change anyone’s mind. It just caught my attention because I’d never had anyone “prominent” share the same opinion on that. 
 

FYI the F-14 had strike capability right from the beginning. The navy just chose not to use it.