A worthy comparison, I think.

The F1AZ has the advantage of a ranging radar and refueling probe.
The Jaguar has a laser ranging and marked target seeker whilst the F1AZ has the Thomson CSF laser rangefinder.

The radar should give the upper hand to Mirage, I feel.

Don’t Indian AF Jaguars have the Agave radar fitted?

The Jaguar sometimes had the reputation of being slightly underpowered, particularly in hot climates.

Only marginally less so than the F1. Both aircraft are really only in the same thrust class as the MiG-21.

Static dry thrust & SFC
Atar 9K50: 5,000kg / 0.97 kg/kg-hr
F100-PW-100: 6,800kg / 0.68 kg/kg-hr

600kts, low level penetration
Atar 9K50: 4,550kg / 1.37 kg/kg-hr
F100-PW-100: 4,700kg / 1.25 kg/kg-hr

Mach 1.15 supercruise @ 36,000ft
Atar 9K50: 1,900kg / 1.25 kg/kg-hr
F100-PW-100: 1,600kg / 1.32 kg/kg-hr

As you can see, the F100’s amazing static performance erodes with speed, so that by 600kts (M=0.91) the two engines are *almost* even. They then cross over somewhere between Mach 0.9-1.0, both in terms of dry thrust and SFC. This can be relevant for high-speed (especially low-level) penetration missions – interdiction, anti-shipping strike, reconnaissance etc.

And by the time you get to supercruise, the F100’s 30-35% thrust & SFC advantage has turned to a 5-15% DEFICIT! This can be relevant for high-level reconnaissance and offensive fighter sweeps. The Spanish Mirage F1’s favorite tactic against F-16s and F/A-18s is to stay high and fast, and tempt these to expend their AMRAAMs (which the Mirages can outrun). Presumably, the Mirages will then either wait for the F-16s/-18s to bingo or swoop down for a Fox 2 kill.

Source: Soviet performance estimates
http://www.scribd.com/doc/129554773/Defense-Ministry-of-the-USSR-Military-Air-Forces-Multirole-Fighters-%C2%ABMirage%C2%BB-F-1-%C2%ABMirage%C2%BB-2000-French-Air-Force-In-Support-of-the-Regular-Unit?in_collection=4170277
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119901703/Defense-Ministry-of-the-USSR-Military-Air-Forces-Fighter-Aircraft-F-15-USA-Air-Force-In-Support-of-the-Regular-Units-of-the-VVS-Military-Press

Source for Mirage F1’s supercruise performance. Page 373:
Maximum speed without afterburner at 35,000ft, Mach 1.15
http://www.portalcultura.mde.es/Galerias/revistas/ficheros/RAA_390.pdf

I’m not doubting any of the above for a single moment, were did I say otherwise? But is it relevant to Iraq’s needs? That’s the question, for it doesn’t seem to relevant to the major military powers. Do you know what the bypass ratio is of the AL-31Fon the Flanker, an major air superiority type? Here’s a hint, it’s a lot more than any F-16 motor.

BTW, the Mirage F1 was never considered a supercruise type just like the F-104, F-105 EE Lightning, MiG-21 or any other fifties/sixties turbojet design.

No, it’s turbojet versus turbofan, especially for supercruise flight. Read it.:rolleyes:

Yes… and no. 😉

The F-16 is clearly the better choice as a MULTIROLE air superiority and close air support fighter.

And that is the only choice and roles that Iraq or any other developing country would actually want, what else would they be looking for?

BUT… the Mirage F1 remains competitive if you play to its strengths. Or rather to the Atar’s inherent strengths as a turbojet. 😉 Namely, TRANSONIC and SUPERSONIC performance.

Not a requirement for Iraq or most other countries I would have thought? How many pure turbojets are being developed today, supercruisers, yes, turbojets?

So this explains why the Mirage F1 can supercruise quite nicely (~Mach 1.15), despite its “underpowered” turbojet. This transonic efficiency is also useful for high-speed low-level penetration missions, like anti-ship
strike.

Nonsense. Did turbojet types like the F-105, F-4 supercruise while carrying out their bombing raids over Saigon? Clean with no stores, yes, not with 4,000kg of bombs though. Are you saying that Iraqi F1s regularly supercruised with a pair of Exocets hanging from over the Persian Gulf in the 1980s?:confused: I’d be fairly sceptical of F1’s supercruising talents…

Furthermore, the Atar’s transonic/supersonic fuel-burn advantage extends into most afterburner regimes. And the higher you go, the more thrust it produces relative to the F100 (also thanks to the shock cones). This could be useful for high-altitude supersonic penetration missions, like reconnaissance or offensive fighter sweeps.

Why has the king of the supercruisers, F-22, got turbofans and not turbojets?Why did the Soviets replace the turbojet MiG-25 with the airliner-engined turbofanned MiG-31 (which flies just as fast as the Foxbat but at much greater range)?

To sum up, the Mirage F1 still has some interesting niche uses, which can be especially attractive for air forces that need to penetrate heavily defended airspace. Give it any mission that requires a high-speed ingress/egress, down low or at very high altitude, and it will shine.

Sounds like a job for F-35, isn’t that exactly what its designed for?

Not about payload and range,

what do you mean – F1 has better payload and range? Mind you, I’m not saying the Mirage F1 still isn’t competitive.
The biggest problem is that can’t be that many F1 airframes left suitable for upgrading – they’re all too old?

The F-4 is still more than capable of taking on a lot of potential opponents in WVR dogfighting around the world. Not every “potential opponent” is a MiG-29…

If we want to talk about numbers out of context, the RuAF is paying around 32 million for each Su-34….considering how much larger it is, the twin engines and more sophisticated systems compared to the J-10, it looks pretty good indeed. 😉

$32 million for a Su-34 must surely be too cheap? Price of a new An-148 is around 30 million. A new Tu-204SM, 40 million at least:

http://www.wing.com.ua/content/view/10979/52/
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2006655

Thay are second hand!

Seriously, second-hand Mi-28MEs! Are there such a thing?

Edit: On second thoughts – you weren’t being serious… were you?:confused::o