Jump to content

Mirage F1 in air combat


Leviathan667

Recommended Posts

Yeah, while I personally don't do online myself, I know that there are 2-3 fairly popular Cold War only servers, Enigma and Alpenwolf being the two foremost afaik.

I recall Enigma saying they'll feature it on Blue side on the Caucasus map and Red on Syria map.

  • Thanks 1

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been learning to fly it in offline mission against AI MiG21 .The AI sticks to the vertical and the 21 out climbs and out dives the Mirage. But the Mirage is surprisingly good at low speed, high alpha. Very close match to the MiG21 it this regard.  Looking forward to multiplayer Mig21 v Mirage F1 .

I love how the Mirage engine flames out when I fly through jet wash at close range ... This should maybe be a feature of all early jet engines in DCS ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to Mirage F.1 it can comfortably fight anything pre-4th generation fighters. And the beauty of this era is pilot's skill is way more important than machine itself, if you manage to maintain better situational awareness and manage to attack from advantageous position it doesn't matter it is MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, Phantom, Viggen, F-5E or anything else. Gun shooting or even going into position to fire early heatseeker from manual flight control tempremental aircraft is not so simple, there is lot more in such combat than 1-2° sustained turn advantage in one particulat conditions. You won't yank full stick and release 80° off-bore missile across the circle without aiming at first half turn.

After one day flying it i think Mirage F.1 is in a great spot rigt now. Compared to i.e. Mirage 2000 which is too recent variant for Cold War scenarios, but outclassed by 2005 AMRAAM, JDAM, Link16, JHMCS Hornets and Vipers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bies said:

When it comes to Mirage F.1 it can comfortably fight anything pre-4th generation fighters. And the beauty of this era is pilot's skill is way more important than machine itself, if you manage to maintain better situational awareness and manage to attack from advantageous position it doesn't matter it is MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, Phantom, Viggen, F-5E or anything else. Gun shooting or even going into position to fire early heatseeker from manual flight control tempremental aircraft is not so simple, there is lot more in such combat than 1-2° sustained turn advantage in one particulat conditions. You won't yank full stick and release 80° off-bore missile across the circle without aiming at first half turn.

After one day flying it i think Mirage F.1 is in a great spot rigt now. Compared to i.e. Mirage 2000 which is too recent variant for Cold War scenarios, but outclassed by 2005 AMRAAM, JDAM, Link16, JHMCS Hornets and Vipers.

I think once 9.12 gets released, Mirage 2000C will get its dance partner.

НЕТ ВОЙНЕ!

Gib full-fi Su-27 or MiG-29 plz!

AMD R7 3700X|32GB DDR4 RAM|Gigabyte RTX2070S Gaming OC|2TB NVMe SDD + 1TB SSD + 2TBB + 1TB HDD|Dell P3421W|Windows 10 Pro x64

TM Warthog|MFG Crosswind|Samsung Odyssey+|TrackIR 5

Modules: Mirage F1|Mi-24P|JF-17|F/A-18C|F-14A/B|F-5E|M-2000C|MiG-21bis|L-39|Yak-52|FC3|Supercarrier || Terrains: Persian Gulf|NTTR|Normandy|Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2022 at 1:56 PM, Kev2go said:

Even though the Mirage F1 counts as a 3rd generation aircraft. the issue is still radar limitations. even for its timeframe.   American 4th gen teen fighters have Radars with planar array antennas with digital signal processing . save for  tomcat, even though its its a Analog PD, it is still a proper PD radar.

Cyrano 4 is Pulse radar cassegrain antenna with MTI like functions for lookdown (  that mode which wasn't known for being particularly useful for that purpose) . I think its even more limited than the Saphir radar of the Mig23MLA/MLD,  for air to air which is also an MTI radar.

 

I cant find any information whether the F1 has an IFF interrogator, It would be unfortunate if it didnt, since many other aircraft of same generation already did in that timeframe.

 

Yup this is exactly the issue with the mirage F1 and BVR stuff. The radar was absolutely terrible in lookdown and at low alt. Hence the whole "giraffe" tactics they used against the Iraqis, since both the radar and the Super 530 excelled in that regime.  It should do "OK" at high alt as well as its not looking down. But the highalt lookdown/shootdown capability is one that did not really exist prior to the RDM/RDI radars and the Super530D. And given that the RDM, was charmingly described by the french pilots as Radar de Merde... Probably the first real LD/SD capability was the 87-88 M2000/RDI. 

At any rate, the F1 is very good for BFM vs other 3rd gen stuff. But as everyone said its gonna loose to 4th gens which shouldn't a surprise. 

For 70's BVR the 530's were terrible missiles, and are grossly overperforming in DCS right now, but then again so is the R3R. The issue being the radars on the F1 and 21 are modeled badly.  

 

  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yup this is exactly the issue with the mirage F1 and BVR stuff. The radar was absolutely terrible in lookdown and at low alt. Hence the whole "giraffe" tactics they used against the Iraqis, since both the radar and the Super 530 excelled in that regime.  It should do "OK" at high alt as well as its not looking down. But the highalt lookdown/shootdown capability is one that did not really exist prior to the RDM/RDI radars and the Super530D. And given that the RDM, was charmingly described by the french pilots as Radar de Merde... Probably the first real LD/SD capability was the 87-88 M2000/RDI. 

At any rate, the F1 is very good for BFM vs other 3rd gen stuff. But as everyone said its gonna loose to 4th gens which shouldn't a surprise. 

For 70's BVR the 530's were terrible missiles, and are grossly overperforming in DCS right now, but then again so is the R3R. The issue being the radars on the F1 and

 

 the R530 is over performing? oof, and I already find it underwhelming and wishing for the Super 530F.

 

Overall  yeah basically all the 3rd gen era radars suck relative to what we are used to on 4th generation. it will be a question which aircraft has the least sucky radar.  F4E  has may have better ranges on paper relative to the Cyrano 4 in ideal high altitude intercept, but  it will also struggle ( if not more so) at low altitude as it has no lookdown shootdown capability. APQ120 is just a pure pulse radar, so I think that leaves the planned Mig23MLA as the aircraft with the least worst radar from its generation.

 

11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

21 are modeled badly.  

 

 

When the Mig21 first came out i found its radar to be quite impressive emulation of such a simple radar of its timeframe It even had cloud interference on the scope.

 

AS for the mirage F1 its still EA. There are more radar modes that will be developed, and existing modes will be tweaked im sure. ITs a wait and see on how radar will behave in a fully finished product.

 

 


 

 

 

 


Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 1

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2022 at 9:20 PM, Harlikwin said:

The radar was absolutely terrible in lookdown and at low alt. Hence the whole "giraffe" tactics they used against the Iraqis, since both the radar and the Super 530 excelled in that regime

It was Iraq using "Giraffe" against Iran's F-14s, so they would not be blown away by the latter's Phoenixes. Had nothing to do with the S530F or the radar. They'd use MiG-23s as bait and have a couple of F1s sneak in below, pop up and kill the Tomcats. In fact, all the Tomcat kills were by S530Fs.

  • Like 2

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder about soft-properties especially in dogfight. I read about training dogfight F-104 against F-4, thus interceptor against very advanced and modern fighter - yet Starfighter was described as a nasty bird - they fought on vertical and due to their tiny frontal cross section, they were very hard to spot and keep in sight.

Soviet planes are notorious for ugly cockpits with event those small transparent parts are littered with "something" to obstruct the view (I always "loved" i.e. their HUD cameras). Thus besides "thrust to weight" - any idea of the possible situational awareness, cockpit workload / level of automation etc.?

How good was contemporary french ground control and pilot training compared to soviet standards?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mungo13 said:

I wonder about soft-properties especially in dogfight. I read about training dogfight F-104 against F-4, thus interceptor against very advanced and modern fighter - yet Starfighter was described as a nasty bird - they fought on vertical and due to their tiny frontal cross section, they were very hard to spot and keep in sight.

The 104 is not really an interceptor. It's an air superiority fighter with secondary fighter-bomber capabilities by design. Everybody thinks it was an interceptor, because lazy authors like to copy each other, rather than figuring out by themselves, that the 104A was just a stop-gap solution to ADC's F-102 and F-106 troubles. TAC's 104C was the actual airplane that Kelly Johnson wanted to build in the first place. The eventual 104G and 104S (INS, more emphasis on A-G/ another wing-hardpoint, Sparow integration if you leave the gun at home) was just a logical extension.

Coming back to the 104 vs F-4 fight: An F-104G* (with maneuvering flaps**) should be about on par with a hard-wing F-4 at low altitudes. Take the 104A with the -19 motor ( and maneuvering flaps) and you'll fly rings around an F-4. Any F-4.

3 hours ago, mungo13 said:

How good was contemporary french ground control and pilot training compared to soviet standards?

That kind of depends on what you're looking for. First, the french air force was generally divided into four branches (somebody with deeper insight may correct me here):

- Strategical Forces (Mirage IV, AN22 bomb, KC-135 tankers, ICBMs) => deliver a deterrent of intense warmth and light to the enemy

- Tactical Forces (Mirage IIIE/R/RD, Mirage 5, Jaguar, other types) => mostly conventional weapons, but Mirage IIIE and Jaguar A also had a nuke-component // BTW: the Aèronavale used SuE with AN52 bombs

- Air Defense Forces (Mirage IIIC/E, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000?) => basicly what the name implies

- Air Transport Forces (C-130, C-160, etc.) => what the name implies

You'll see intense cooperation between those forces as times progressed - especially which french air power being deployed in Africa.

AFAIK, the french F1C aircraft had a datalink system installed, which was somewhat comparable to LAZUR (or the US SAGE system). I cannot tell whether it was as advanced as the contemporary US or SU systems, which essentially both allowed the interceptor to be steered by GCI.

In terms of pilot training, the AdlA should have had a higher standard of training and proficiency than either the VVS or the PVO, but it's hard to get precise data and quantify it. It's a safe bet their pilots had more hours and NATO generally had a denser environment for briefed and non-briefed training/ encounters and detachments/ exchanges with other NATO forces.

___

*that's the nuclear strike bird, not the initial ~1000lbs lighter tactical fighter

**meaning take-off flaps envelope extended up to M0.8 or 450KIAS and 7.33g

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It was Iraq using "Giraffe" against Iran's F-14s, so they would not be blown away by the latter's Phoenixes. Had nothing to do with the S530F or the radar. They'd use MiG-23s as bait and have a couple of F1s sneak in below, pop up and kill the Tomcats. In fact, all the Tomcat kills were by S530Fs.

The reason was both. Since the Cyrano didn't really work well in lookdown. 

On 7/25/2022 at 12:29 AM, Kev2go said:

 

 the R530 is over performing? oof, and I already find it underwhelming and wishing for the Super 530F.

 

Overall  yeah basically all the 3rd gen era radars suck relative to what we are used to on 4th generation. it will be a question which aircraft has the least sucky radar.  F4E  has may have better ranges on paper relative to the Cyrano 4 in ideal high altitude intercept, but  it will also struggle ( if not more so) at low altitude as it has no lookdown shootdown capability. APQ120 is just a pure pulse radar, so I think that leaves the planned Mig23MLA as the aircraft with the least worst radar from its generation.

When the Mig21 first came out i found its radar to be quite impressive emulation of such a simple radar of its timeframe It even had cloud interference on the scope.

 

AS for the mirage F1 its still EA. There are more radar modes that will be developed, and existing modes will be tweaked im sure. ITs a wait and see on how radar will behave in a fully finished product.

Well, when the 21 was fresh it was better than it is now. It basically works in lookdown when it shouldn't. And of course it doesn't see clouds etc. Like literally the only really relevant modes anymore are the ECM mode (which is a whole other can of worms) and the IFF mode. Using LA mode turns it into a lookdown radar ironically enough.

So, IMO the 530 should have issues being used against lower targets and at lower alt just due to how its conscan seeker works. Thats not at all modeled in DCS in general. Moreover the F1 radar should struggle with locks under those same conditions and for the most part it doesn't. Like once its locked it stays locked in my experience unless you notch it. Which well is kinda right, but not the whole story. At low alt its gonna suffer alot from SLC/MLC and shouldn't be very good if its looking ahead. 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Radar-performance wasn't the bottleneck here. It was keeping the Tomcats from successfully deploying AIM-54s from their fwd CAP stations.

Back that up please

Everything I've read per pilot accounts was the cryrano was not usable in lookdown. Hence necessitating shoot up tactics of which the giraffe is a variation. And yes ingress at low level to keep the phoneix at bay was also a factor. 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Everything I've read per pilot accounts was the cryrano was not usable in lookdown. Hence necessitating shoot up tactics of which the giraffe is a variation. And yes ingress at low level to keep the phoneix at bay was also a factor. 

Dude, stop raving about the lookdown-issues. The plane's out for less than a week and you're already sounding like a broken record. Give them some time. How long did it take to come up with the current radar in the M2k?

The cyrano "not being usable in lookdown" is not the reason for the Giraffe tactic. It's keeping the Pheonix at bay and exploiting the AWG-9's feet dry look-down performance. Are you really suggesting the EQs with shorter range radar and missiles would have been approaching the Cats from above if the Cyrano had a better lookdown capability?

Back that up please.

  • Like 4

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

**meaning take-off flaps envelope extended up to M0.8 or 450KIAS and 7.33g

To be nitpicky, iirc it was 450 for flap/slat extension/retraction, and 520 when having them just fixed in the takeoff/maneuvering position. I think the Mach limits were 0.8/0.85 respectively. Lowering flaps basically increased available G by 1 (idk about sustained turn rates though - there's literally nothing about it in all the F104 manuals I have read). Also, FINALLY someone who actually stops repeating all those stupid myths about the Starfighter. Kudos.

And to get back on topic, I think it's important to separate what can or cannot be done in DCS by ED vs 3rd parties. Conescan vs monopulse seekers sounds like a missile API/ED job to me, as is letting radars see the clouds with the new weather system. Basically anything EW related really. I don't know of any DCS modules that account for the seeker stuff properly, even the M2k (but I'm happy to be proven wrong), so complaining about Aerges here feels unproductive at best.


Edited by TLTeo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

To be nitpicky, iirc it was 450 for flap/slat extension/retraction, and 520 when having them just fixed in the takeoff/maneuvering position

540 for "out or retracting" if I remember the plackard correctly, yeah. Seems like at least one pilot went supersonic with the flaps at T/O and lived (RCAF pilot wondered about the slow acceleration and retracted the flaps at Mach 1.3).

12 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Lowering flaps basically increased available G by 1 (idk about sustained turn rates though - there's literally nothing about it in all the F104 manuals I have read). Also, FINALLY someone who actually stops repeating all those stupid myths about the Starfighter. Kudos.

Thanks! I'm a big fan of the Zipper.

I had once seen a P_s diagram over at the old key publishing forum - the 104G (half a tank, tip sidewinders, gun, low alt) IIRC topped out in the high sixes of G at about 450'ish KIAS. The kink at flap retraction was quite pronounced. 1 to 1.5 g seems about right from memory. It's somewhere on one of my old, dead hard-drives.

I seem to remember that during one of the Featherduster/Have Dougnut matchups they figured out that a 104C could spiral-climb away from a MiG-21F-13 at around 4g sustained. And the 104C with the large tail and optimized shock-cones would go Mach 2.5+ (no engine tweaks on top of the big tail and the optimized shock cones). A real hot ship, but it would take a competent pilot to exploit it's strengths. I'll take my Charlie with the bolt-on probe in SEA camo. 😎

 

  • Like 4

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:
Spoiler

The 104 is not really an interceptor. It's an air superiority fighter with secondary fighter-bomber capabilities by design. Everybody thinks it was an interceptor, because lazy authors like to copy each other, rather than figuring out by themselves, that the 104A was just a stop-gap solution to ADC's F-102 and F-106 troubles. TAC's 104C was the actual airplane that Kelly Johnson wanted to build in the first place. The eventual 104G and 104S (INS, more emphasis on A-G/ another wing-hardpoint, Sparow integration if you leave the gun at home) was just a logical extension.

Coming back to the 104 vs F-4 fight: An F-104G* (with maneuvering flaps**) should be about on par with a hard-wing F-4 at low altitudes. Take the 104A with the -19 motor ( and maneuvering flaps) and you'll fly rings around an F-4. Any F-4.

That kind of depends on what you're looking for. First, the french air force was generally divided into four branches (somebody with deeper insight may correct me here):

- Strategical Forces (Mirage IV, AN22 bomb, KC-135 tankers, ICBMs) => deliver a deterrent of intense warmth and light to the enemy

- Tactical Forces (Mirage IIIE/R/RD, Mirage 5, Jaguar, other types) => mostly conventional weapons, but Mirage IIIE and Jaguar A also had a nuke-component // BTW: the Aèronavale used SuE with AN52 bombs

- Air Defense Forces (Mirage IIIC/E, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000?) => basicly what the name implies

- Air Transport Forces (C-130, C-160, etc.) => what the name implies

You'll see intense cooperation between those forces as times progressed - especially which french air power being deployed in Africa.

AFAIK, the french F1C aircraft had a datalink system installed, which was somewhat comparable to LAZUR (or the US SAGE system). I cannot tell whether it was as advanced as the contemporary US or SU systems, which essentially both allowed the interceptor to be steered by GCI.

In terms of pilot training, the AdlA should have had a higher standard of training and proficiency than either the VVS or the PVO, but it's hard to get precise data and quantify it. It's a safe bet their pilots had more hours and NATO generally had a denser environment for briefed and non-briefed training/ encounters and detachments/ exchanges with other NATO forces.

___

*that's the nuclear strike bird, not the initial ~1000lbs lighter tactical fighter

**meaning take-off flaps envelope extended up to M0.8 or 450KIAS and 7.33g

 

I did not question F1 vs. NATO fighters (while it is not fully off the interest as due to proliferation of the Mirage as well as other planes such encounters either happened or were possible in case of the conflict) but rather those "soft stats" i.e. Mirage vs. Mig-21/23. Not(!!!) complaining for your answer, just to clarify.

When we talk about training - according to rather (locally) known pilot that was higher rank and even later display pilot from the former Czechoslovakia, annual flight time of the pilot was around 70 hours. Varying according to experience level, rank, branch of the aviation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 3:25 PM, Bremspropeller said:

In BVR, I wouldn't underappreciate the S530F in an 80s setup. Especially against a pre-AMRAAM Viper (not too many Block 15 ADFs around outside the US).

Those F-16 ADF would be a plane I will really like to have in DCS.

I don't understand anything in russian except Davai Davai!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 3:13 PM, TLTeo said:

To be nitpicky, iirc it was 450 for flap/slat extension/retraction, and 520 when having them just fixed in the takeoff/maneuvering position. I think the Mach limits were 0.8/0.85 respectively. Lowering flaps basically increased available G by 1 (idk about sustained turn rates though - there's literally nothing about it in all the F104 manuals I have read). Also, FINALLY someone who actually stops repeating all those stupid myths about the Starfighter. Kudos.

And to get back on topic, I think it's important to separate what can or cannot be done in DCS by ED vs 3rd parties. Conescan vs monopulse seekers sounds like a missile API/ED job to me, as is letting radars see the clouds with the new weather system. Basically anything EW related really. I don't know of any DCS modules that account for the seeker stuff properly, even the M2k (but I'm happy to be proven wrong), so complaining about Aerges here feels unproductive at best.

 

Not really complaining about Aerges. But yeah unfortunately missile API stuff is largely ED land, though to be fair the 530D and M2k radar seem to actually be done fairly realistically when it comes to stuff like chaff and I think that mostly was Razbams work not ED. But thats also on the Radar side, which seems to fall on the 3rd party. 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...