Mirage F1EE vs F1CT

[streakeagle]

One thing to consider with RWRs is that in a game environment, they are extremely useful and it is hard to understand why anyone would not have added RWRs on any aircraft entering service from the mid 1960s and later. The reality is that even the relatively advanced ALR-67 has an incredibly high false alarm rate, which makes it more of a beeping/flashing distraction rather than the life-saving device it is in games. The modern world is crammed full of radio emitters that trigger false alarms during flights over 100% safe areas. Imagine what it looks like in an actual threat environment with both friendlies and enemies clogging the radio bands with all kinds of traffic and jamming.

Robin Olds was forced to mount a RWR in his F-4C and quickly decided to turn it off. He knew he was surrounded by radars and that one or more were tracking him. So, what were the audio and visual indications really telling him? He knew he could only dodge a missile he could see. He already had too much audio information between the radios and back seater. He preferred to keep his eyes out of the cockpit to focus on spotting SAMs and MiGs as well as tracking his own flight to provide warnings, guidance, and congratulations on good kills. Of course, most pilots don't have Olds' legendary situational awareness and would certainly like to have at least a launch warning and a bearing to check.

Consider the F/A-18 Hornet that was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 during the opening days of Desert Storm. In DCS he would have clearly seen the MiG-25 threat and been able to decide the appropriate course of action, but during a massive aerial attack in the dark, he probably suffered from information overload and his RWR was probably lit up like a Christmas tree. So, the MiG-25 was able to slip through AWACS and escorts undetected and snipe the F/A-18 without any evasive action.

So, I can't really fault the F-1C for not having a piece of crap RWR that was comparable to the one in the MiG-21 with no digital display and a primitive form of threat prioritization/indication. Even in the magical world of DCS where RWRs behave ideally, I find the RWR in the F-1CE to be primarily the same kind of annoyance the Robin Olds despised.

But having said all that, effective or not, I love having RWRs in flight sims even if my situational awareness and reflexes make them nearly useless for me. If all we are given are versions with RWRs, it is easy enough to leave it turned off if you want to simulate a version that doesn't have one.

What I want the most is historical accuracy. If the version being modeled had a RWR, give it one. If a version is modeled that didn't have a RWR, then don't give it one. My preferred option is to have more than one versions to reflect the variety of aircraft available or at least an option check box to choose a cockpit with/without a RWR as required to match the desired version.

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by streakeagle

[Kev2go]

On 10/14/2022 at 7:15 PM, streakeagle said:

One thing to consider with RWRs is that in a game environment, they are extremely useful and it is hard to understand why anyone would not have added RWRs on any aircraft entering service from the mid 1960s and later. The reality is that even the relatively advanced ALR-67 has an incredibly high false alarm rate, which makes it more of a beeping/flashing distraction rather than the life-saving device it is in games. The modern world is crammed full of radio emitters that trigger false alarms during flights over 100% safe areas. Imagine what it looks like in an actual threat environment with both friendlies and enemies clogging the radio bands with all kinds of traffic and jamming.

Robin Olds was forced to mount a RWR in his F-4C and quickly decided to turn it off. He knew he was surrounded by radars and that one or more were tracking him. So, what were the audio and visual indications really telling him? He knew he could only dodge a missile he could see. He already had too much audio information between the radios and back seater. He preferred to keep his eyes out of the cockpit to focus on spotting SAMs and MiGs as well as tracking his own flight to provide warnings, guidance, and congratulations on good kills. Of course, most pilots don't have Olds' legendary situational awareness and would certainly like to have at least a launch warning and a bearing to check.

 

On 10/14/2022 at 7:15 PM, streakeagle said:

Consider the F/A-18 Hornet that was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 during the opening days of Desert Storm. In DCS he would have clearly seen the MiG-25 threat and been able to decide the appropriate course of action, but during a massive aerial attack in the dark, he probably suffered from information overload and his RWR was probably lit up like a Christmas tree. So, the MiG-25 was able to slip through AWACS and escorts undetected and snipe the F/A-18 without any evasive action.

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.

 

 

 

On 10/14/2022 at 7:15 PM, streakeagle said:

So, I can't really fault the F-1C for not having a piece of crap RWR that was comparable to the one in the MiG-21 with no digital display and a primitive form of threat prioritization/indication. Even in the magical world of DCS where RWRs behave ideally, I find the RWR in the F-1CE to be primarily the same kind of annoyance the Robin Olds despised.

But having said all that, effective or not, I love having RWRs in flight sims even if my situational awareness and reflexes make them nearly useless for me. If all we are given are versions with RWRs, it is easy enough to leave it turned off if you want to simulate a version that doesn't have one.

What I want the most is historical accuracy. If the version being modeled had a RWR, give it one. If a version is modeled that didn't have a RWR, then don't give it one. My preferred option is to have more than one versions to reflect the variety of aircraft available or at least an option check box to choose a cockpit with/without a RWR as required to match the desired version.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Kev2go

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/15/2022 at 11:29 PM, Kev2go said:

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.

Their aircraft were quite attractive on the export market. Dassault built them to the specs the customer wanted and what the customer was willing to pay for. Hence the iraqi EQ5 and EQ6, which were pretty hot stuff back in their time.

France was a 50'ish million sized country with nuclear submarines to pay for. They didn't even buy two-seaters of the F1 at first, hence the serial-numbers in the 5xx-range with the AdlA F1Bs. It was only after export-customers bought them, they'd buy some, too.

A CAFDA requirement for RWRs in the early-mid 70s would have made about as much sense as strapping RWRs on an USAF ADC F-106 or F-101B: None.

[Kev2go]

On 10/18/2022 at 7:44 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Their aircraft were quite attractive on the export market. Dassault built them to the specs the customer wanted and what the customer was willing to pay for. Hence the iraqi EQ5 and EQ6, which were pretty hot stuff back in their time.

 

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. 

 

 

On 10/18/2022 at 7:44 AM, Bremspropeller said:

France was a 50'ish million sized country with nuclear submarines to pay for. They didn't even buy two-seaters of the F1 at first, hence the serial-numbers in the 5xx-range with the AdlA F1Bs. It was only after export-customers bought them, they'd buy some, too.

A CAFDA requirement for RWRs in the early-mid 70s would have made about as much sense as strapping RWRs on an USAF ADC F-106 or F-101B: None.

 

 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.

 

 

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/20/2022 at 3:00 AM, Kev2go said:

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.

Yeah.

*cough* bribes *\cough*

On 10/20/2022 at 3:00 AM, Kev2go said:

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).

The Viper's flyaway cost started low, mostly because it was bought by the USAF in four digit numbers. Plus it shared the exclusive motor with the Eagle for almost a decade.

On 10/20/2022 at 3:00 AM, Kev2go said:

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.

One post ago you claimed it was installed on the second tranche of CEs right from the factory. Make up your mind.

On 10/20/2022 at 3:00 AM, Kev2go said:

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. 

An F-16 with comparable capabilities would have taken at least two additional years on top. That is IF they'd have gotten the export-clearance, which is of course an exercise in what-ifism in itself. Then again, buying Vipersand Hornets wouldn't make much sense if you already had a decent Dassault fleet (EQ2 and EQ4 aircraft and some SuEs).

Got a source on how they would have preferred the Viper/ Hornet?

On 10/20/2022 at 3:00 AM, Kev2go said:

 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. 

Dude, you brought up the M2k. I'm talking about the F1. Besides, Dassault delivered what AdlA ordered. Ignoring this fact is a path you're taking voluntarily.

The F1 is a 1960s airplane by design. And it's a very good one. In fact, it's a budget version of the F3, which the AdlA would have preferred after they were told they wouldn't get the F2, after they couldn't get the G8. They were under pretty severe budgetary constraints. The same is virtually true for the M2k vs M4k, which could never be built because of ca$h issues. By the time the M4k got to be a thing, the Rafale was already another thing and FRance was going to be pulling through with this supposedly eropean project on it's own.

Get a decent book on the subject and read it. It won't hurt, I promise.

The F1 is precisely comparable with the 101B and 106, since their initial service role was congruent.

On 10/20/2022 at 3:00 AM, Kev2go said:

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.

The F1 was supposed to be a transitionary aircraft, replacing earlier types as the SMB2. It wasn't going to be France's answer to designing fighters in the 70s or even seen as a replacement for the Mirage III. That would have been the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000. The latter would have been the F-15's contender.

[Kev2go]

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah.

*cough* bribes *\cough*

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.

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The Viper's flyaway cost started low, mostly because it was bought by the USAF in four digit numbers. Plus it shared the exclusive motor with the Eagle for almost a decade.

One post ago you claimed it was installed on the second tranche of CEs right from the factory. Make up your mind.

 

I think thats a misinterpretation on your part. I showed examples of later tranches fitted with CM and early tranches without, based on aircraft #

 

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

An F-16 with comparable capabilities would have taken at least two additional years on top. That is IF they'd have gotten the export-clearance, which is of course an exercise in what-ifism in itself.

 

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.

 

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Then again, buying Vipers and Hornets wouldn't make much sense if you already had a decent Dassault fleet (EQ2 and EQ4 aircraft and some SuEs).

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.

 

 

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Got a source on how they would have preferred the Viper/ Hornet?

 

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.

 

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Dude, you brought up the M2k. I'm talking about the F1. Besides, Dassault delivered what AdlA ordered. Ignoring this fact is a path you're taking voluntarily.

 

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. 

 

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The F1 is a 1960s airplane by design. And it's a very good one. In fact, it's a budget version of the F3, which the AdlA would have preferred after they were told they wouldn't get the F2, after they couldn't get the G8. They were under pretty severe budgetary constraints. The same is virtually true for the M2k vs M4k, which could never be built because of ca$h issues. By the time the M4k got to be a thing, the Rafale was already another thing and FRance was going to be pulling through with this supposedly eropean project on it's own.

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.

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Get a decent book on the subject and read it. It won't hurt, I promise.

 

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.

 

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The F1 is precisely comparable with the 101B and 106, since their initial service role was congruent.

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.

On 10/23/2022 at 2:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The F1 was supposed to be a transitionary aircraft, replacing earlier types as the SMB2. It wasn't going to be France's answer to designing fighters in the 70s or even seen as a replacement for the Mirage III. That would have been the Mirage 2000 and Mirage 4000. The latter would have been the F-15's contender.

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. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Kev2go

[gnomechild]

Get a room

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

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.

The EQs were using laser-guided ammo during the Tanker War as early as mid '86. That's when supposedly superior Vipers and Hornets (Horpers) were mostly flinging dumb ammo with CCIP/ CCRP. You know, F-16As and Hornets that just debuted their combat careers that same year.

The iraqi F1s were also using ELINT pods and buddy-refuelling pods. Good luck finding those on contemporary Horpers.

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

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)

Supposedly "superior" F-16As.

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

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.

The lack of PD wasn't an issue. The lack of a comparale long range missile to the AIM-54 was.

The Super 530F and D were as good as contemporary Sparrows.

Good luck fighting a Tomcat in a heaters-only F-16A in that scenario. But no biggie as the Horper is "superior".

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

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. 

I'm not rationalizing, I'm telling you AdlA had no money for all the bells and whistles. Hence they'd only put a RWR into the F1 starting at No°79. How many internal jammers does the F-16 have? How many internal jammers and EW gear did contemporary Jaguars and Tornados have?

If you want to have an idea what the aircraft was ultimately capable of, have a look at all the export customers (or the FATAC CR and CT models). The EH, EDA, EJ and EQ models (especially the EQ5 and EQ6) were all very advanced for their time. Even gauging against american aircraft.

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

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.

Yeah. Or alternative facts.

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The EQs were using laser-guided ammo during the Tanker War as early as mid '86.

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. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That's when supposedly superior Vipers and Hornets (Horpers) were mostly flinging dumb ammo with CCIP/ CCRP. You know, F-16As and Hornets that just debuted their combat careers that same year.

 

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. 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The iraqi F1s were also using ELINT pods and buddy-refuelling pods. Good luck finding those on contemporary Horpers.

poor mans aerial refueling. A nice option for sure if you can't afford actual aerial tankers. 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Supposedly "superior" F-16As.

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. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The lack of PD wasn't an issue. The lack of a comparale long range missile to the AIM-54 was.

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Super 530F and D were as good as contemporary Sparrows.

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.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Good luck fighting a Tomcat in a heaters-only F-16A in that scenario. But no biggie as the Horper is "superior".

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm not rationalizing, I'm telling you AdlA had no money for all the bells and whistles. Hence they'd only put a RWR into the F1 starting at No°79. How many internal jammers does the F-16 have?

 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.

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

How many internal jammers and EW gear did contemporary Jaguars and Tornados have?

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.

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

If you want to have an idea what the aircraft was ultimately capable of, have a look at all the export customers (or the FATAC CR and CT models). The EH, EDA, EJ and EQ models (especially the EQ5 and EQ6) were all very advanced for their time. Even gauging against american aircraft.

 

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah. Or alternative facts.

 

 

yes  as opposed to " real"  facts like F16A coming into initial service 1986.  

[Bremspropeller]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

only Eq5 and Eq6 could self designate LGB's/ Laser missiles in 86, with a target pod.

Only EQ5s. EQ6s weren't around in 86.

4 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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. 

So by your independant logic the superiority of the Horper is driven home by the availability of Pave Knife for the F-4.

There wasn't any need for more advanced targeting options in the USAF, as other assets had that role already (F-4, F-111), making this role financially unavailable for export-customers. The AGM-62 was ill-suited for the attack-profiles flown (no Viper could carry them anyway). The Hornet had TGPs available, but at the time of it's combat debut most of the PGM weight was carried by the A-6 community anyway. Still no evidence that the Hornet would have been a more valuable aircraft to the iraqis - unless their whole air force would have been completely re-vamped. Iraq, however, was not working embedded in a NATO-environment and hence buying one or another type of aircraft alone would not have significantly shifted their weight into another direction. That's what your logic fails to grasp here.

AS.30Ls were the preferred laser-guided ammo here. Seems like the Iraqis weren't quite satisfied with the BGL-250/400 LGBs, though.

How many Harpoons could the Viper carry back then in the mid 80s? IIRC the Norwegians did integrate their Penguins in the very late 80s.

5 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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.

I didn't write that. You chose to interpret it that way. Mind you that in '86 Hornets debuted by shooting HARMS. EQs had been using BAZAR missiles for some time before.

Israeli Vipers CCIPed the sheet out of that new clear reactor in Iraq. Superiority.

18 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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. 

There is no gold standard for the Mirage, as each version is built to customer specs. You now manage to ignore this fact since how many - four or five posts?

19 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

poor mans aerial refueling. A nice option for sure if you can't afford actual aerial tankers. 

So the USN can't afford actual aerial tankers. They did quite well for the past 60 years with organic or air wing tanking alone.

Iraq was conducting low-level buddy refuelling to bomb targets deep inside Iran or down low in the southern Gulf region. This capability came in handy, when they'd retrofit Su-22s and some MiG-23s with AAR probes. Retrofitting IL-76s wasn't deemed practical. Nor did they offer this kind of strike-capability.

22 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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.

That's some nice mental gymnastics here. The F1 wasn't bought primarily as interceptor (the EQ2 served this role because the EQ4-6 wasn't ready yet), but as multirole and attack aircraft after it was clear that it not only surpassed everything the soviets had to offer (and were willing to export), but that it also had substanttial growth potential.

33 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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. 

It seems the jamming outfit on the Mirages worked quite well, as supposedly none was shot down when carrying Remoras.

34 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

So yes F16's would of still fared better than Mirage F1.  Still  Hornet is better off because it can engage BVR with sparrows.

The F1 still managed a ~1:1 kill ratio against Tomcats - mostly depending on who saw whom first. All things considered, that's not bad at all.

36 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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.

By weight, the F1 is a LWF, too. It's just a fancy marketing term.

The F1EQ's Sycomor CM-pod could offer threat-specific chaff dispensing.

40 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

True  F111's and F15E's fared better in the gulf war. less losses than the Tonka.

That's because the Tonkas were arguably flying the most dangerous missions.

 

It's quite evident that the F1 was an aircraft with substantial capabilities - some of which preceeded the F-16's contemporary capabilities by a couple of years. This is going to be my last response to you, since you're cleary out on an agenda and your 'independant thinking' is mostly lost on the "not built here"-syndrome. I don't see any value in discussing this any way further.

[Kev2go]

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Only EQ5s. EQ6s weren't around in 86

1987 yes

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

So by your independant logic the superiority of the Horper is driven home by the availability of Pave Knife for the F-4.

Nope you choose to interpret it as such 

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There wasn't any need for more advanced targeting options in the USAF, as other assets had that role already (F-4, F-111), making this role financially unavailable for export-customers.

 

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.

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The AGM-62 was ill-suited for the attack-profiles flown (no Viper could carry them anyway). The Hornet had TGPs available, but at the time of it's combat debut most of the PGM weight was carried by the A-6 community anyway. Still no evidence that the Hornet would have been a more valuable aircraft to the iraqis - unless their whole air force would have been completely re-vamped.

 

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.

 

 

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Iraq, however, was not working embedded in a NATO-environment and hence buying one or another type of aircraft alone would not have significantly shifted their weight into another direction. That's what your logic fails to grasp here.

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.

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

AS.30Ls were the preferred laser-guided ammo here. Seems like the Iraqis weren't quite satisfied with the BGL-250/400 LGBs, though.

How many Harpoons could the Viper carry back then in the mid 80s? IIRC the Norwegians did integrate their Penguins in the very late 80s.

I didn't write that. You chose to interpret it that way. Mind you that in '86 Hornets debuted by shooting HARMS. EQs had been using BAZAR missiles for some time before.

Israeli Vipers CCIPed the sheet out of that new clear reactor in Iraq. Superiority.

 

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

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There is no gold standard for the Mirage, as each version is built to customer specs. You now manage to ignore this fact since how many - four or five posts?

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".

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

So the USN can't afford actual aerial tankers. They did quite well for the past 60 years with organic or air wing tanking alone.

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. 

 

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Iraq was conducting low-level buddy refuelling to bomb targets deep inside Iran or down low in the southern Gulf region. This capability came in handy, when they'd retrofit Su-22s and some MiG-23s with AAR probes. Retrofitting IL-76s wasn't deemed practical. Nor did they offer this kind of strike-capability.

That's some nice mental gymnastics here. The F1 wasn't bought primarily as interceptor (the EQ2 served this role because the EQ4-6 wasn't ready yet), but as multirole and attack aircraft after it was clear that it not only surpassed everything the soviets had to offer (and were willing to export), but that it also had substanttial growth potential.

 

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.

 

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

It seems the jamming outfit on the Mirages worked quite well, as supposedly none was shot down when carrying Remoras.

The F1 still managed a ~1:1 kill ratio against Tomcats - mostly depending on who saw whom first. All things considered, that's not bad at all.

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.

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's quite evident that the F1 was an aircraft with substantial capabilities -

 

Better then soviet exported stuff iraq had at that time to be sure , but that's not a very high bar.

11 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

This is going to be my last response to you, since you're cleary out on an agenda and your 'independant thinking' is mostly lost on the "not built here"-syndrome. I don't see any value in discussing this any way further.

Lmao Sounds like projection on your behalf  tbh 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Kev2go

[MAXsenna]

I really really want the F-16A now!