I think the replacement for the Tracker/Tracer/Trader will be a hybrid helicopter.

Not necessarily the V-22 Osprey though (too cumbersome and expensive). Sikorsky and Eurocopter are both on the verge of breakthroughs in hybrid helicopters… their demonstrators’ technology will eventually trickle down into real production aircraft.

The X3 wing, for example, enables excellent fuel economy and endurance (by unloading the main rotor), as well as higher service ceilings. Add rolling take offs (thanks to fly-by-wire), possibly even ski jump takeoffs, and we’ll all be wondering why it took so long to build such hybrids!

Not that they’ll be much better than the Tracker… just a lot more flexible.

I never understood why the Jaguar is remembered so fondly, on both sides of the Channel.

The Adour engines were a liability early on and required expensive upgrades to produce the required thrust. As a result, early Jaguars spent much of their time in afterburner, negating the fuel consumption advantage over the supposedly “thirsty” Atar (proven during joint test flights between the Jaguar M and Etendard IV).

Sure, this thrust problem was eventually fixed, but a pair of Adours still cost 30% more than a single Atar, and 90% more in maintenance costs. Not quite the “affordable” image that most people have of the Jaguar.

Not to mention that the thrust problem still remained at altitude, that the Jaguar couldn’t as many Gs, and the lack of radar. So the Jaguar only made sense in a dual fleet Air Force, alongside a fighter type. A rather costly luxury for most countries.

You could plop most of the Jaguar avionics in a Mirage F1, and end up with a far more flexible multirole platform. As eventually transpired.

Sorry, but the JF17 and A-50 are just toy aircraft IMHO.

It’s all well and good to have fancy ‘new’ engines and track-while-scan radars, but a multi-role-combat aircraft those do not make. What matters is fuel capacity, payload, transonic and supersonic performance, navigation systems (for strike accuracy), ECM, ruggedness, etc.

At least that’s true for Air Forces that face threats from external neighbors. If all you want is a day-only light attack aircraft or to defend against subsonic intruders, then yes both the JF-16 and FA-50 can do the job.

In terms of affordability, the Mirage F1 may even be cheaper to buy and operate. It all depends on how much of an avionics upgrade and airframe life extension the user asks for… And how much free spares are thrown in. The FA50 is rather expensive, $30 million flyaway for the trainer version. The JF-17 is affordable upfront but is going to come with maintenance headaches (short time between overhaul and short overall lifespan, both for the engine and airframe). And the avionics aren’t great.

I think that’s because F-4 vs F1 is a bit of a mismatch.

For most air forces, the Mirage F1 wins hands down, as a low cost used replacement for Mirage IIIs, Mig-21s, Su-22s, F-5s etc. Only a few air forces can afford the F-4, and all of these can afford a new build F-16 or better.

As for Iraq, maybe they should have bought F1s… but now’s too late. They’re rebuilding from scratch and probably have no more than a handful of Saddam-era personnel with experience on ANY aircraft, let alone F1s. All of these would have to be in their late 40s and won’t touched a high performance aircraft in 20 years.

A Tale of Two Engines…

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

Levsha, I’m not going to get into a turbojet vs. turbofan debate. Simply comparing the F100 vs. Atar 9K…

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

Surely a block 52 F-16 would run rings around any updated F-1 anyway. F-16 has almost twice the amount of thrust, for starters. Maneuverability, acceleration, climb rate, payload, range, are better on an F-16, are they not?

Yes… and no. 😉

The F-16 is clearly the better choice as a MULTIROLE air superiority and close air support fighter. Comparing their performance charts, it climbs ~50% faster, accelerates twice as fast, and has a sustained turn advantage of at least 5 degrees/second. In the close air support role, it burns 15 to 25% less fuel at low speeds (Mach 0.5-0.85), hence its legendary long legs. And all those pylons are very handy for air-to-ground stores.

(Numbers above obviously will vary somewhat by block and by speed/altitude)

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.

Why? Well, remember the F100’s thrust and fuel burn advantage? This comes straight out of its turbofan design. The slower you go, the more bypass air contributes to thrust, and the more efficient your engine. But, this advantage diminishes as speed increases, and vanishes entirely somewhere around Mach 0.95-1.05. At that point, the Atar’s and F100’s dry thrust and fuel consumption curves crossover: not only is the Atar producing MORE dry thrust (than the F100-PW-200), it’s also burning less fuel for each pound of thrust created.

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.

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.

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. But give it a more run-of-the-mill defensive CAP or loitering CAS mission, and you’ll regret not sending an F-16!

High-up and supersonic the F-1 still outperforms a block 52 F-16 by its better propulsion-system. When practical pay-load and range is no issue the F-16 is better by some margin. To stay serious a F-16 does outperform a F-1mod but does not outclass it depending on pilot and tactical situation.

Ah, we agree! 😉

The Mirage F1 has some pretty stellar high altitude/high mach performance:
– Supercruise at mach 1.15 / 35,000ft
– Mach 0.9 to mach 2.2 in only 2.8 minutes
– At 56,000 ft, the F1 is still accelerating past Mach 2 (i.e. excess thrust), while the F-16A will be rapidly decelerating below mach 1.6 (and the F-16C probably can’t even reach that altitude due to higher wing loading)

So… the Mirage F1 design choices (turbojet, shock cones, high L/D ratio) are well suited for the interceptor role… and could hold some nasty surprises in BVR!

F-16 is obviously the superior dogfighter below ~35,000ft, thanks to its higher thrust/weight and FCS. An experienced Mirage F1 pilot might still get a fleeting edge by pushing the F1 to its AoA limit (25-30 degrees), because the F-16 is hard limited to 25 degrees AoA. But that would require some luck & skill.

..and Maroc bolstered the ranks with new F-16s and no further second-hand F-1s.

Well… one could also argue that despite being in the market for a new type, nonetheless Morocco decided that the Mirage F1 was still worth investing in… 😉