Tankdriver..yes indeed there was a project for a navalised Mirage F1.
I seem to recall it being designated the Mirage F1M or F1 Marine.
It was originally touted to replace the original Etendard, but later it was realised it could also replace the F8 in the interceptor role.
Again, I speak from memory so mught be incorrect, but I think it was to be powered by the M53 to provide better thrust IIRC.
At the time, I think they settled on the Super Etendard for reasons of economy/budget. I personally think this was a missed opportunity to replace 2 airframes with one.
A mockup, or partial mockup at least was displayed.
It’s a bit late here now, so I’ll try and dig up the info tomorrow.

Again, just an addenda, as the edit function seems crippled..
The F1M53 had increased fuel capacity, slightly enlarged engine air intakes, and a strengthened undercarriage. The nose was subtly reprofiled to enable a retractable inflight refuelling probe.
I guess it was these mods, as well as the slightly lengthened fuselage, that made up the 500-600kg empty weight increase.

tankdriver67
On the engine side, was any thought given to the Spey? Any attempt to obtain some clandestinely? Only reason I ask is that they were used by 24 Squadron’s Buccaneers.

That is an interesting point that I had considered before.
I do wonder though how feasible it would have been. The main issue would have been sourcing those additional engines. Even if that was possible, I am unsure whether civilian Speys could have been leveraged into a spare parts capacity.
What has been stated is that the SAAF was interested in the M53, which in a funny sort of way, would have brought the Mirage F1 full circle back to the Mirage F1M53 which first flew on 22nd December 1974. It had quite blistering flight performance.
I suspect it would have been difficult though to get that through sanctions.
Whilst the additional ATAR 9K50’s for the Cheetah C programme did come from from France, via Israel, there was a strong element of deniability that could be attached to that as SA was already a user.
The same apparently was due for the Snecma M88, that would have been rerouted through Yugoslavia as it was to be used on the Novi Avion.
I suspect that the M88, whilst more modern than the 9K50, would not have offered any advantages in thrust.
I suspect the M53 was first choice, especially as it had previously been fitted into a modified Mirage F1 airframe.

Mig-31bm, having witnessed your efforts at derailing various Russian threads over the last while, your ad hominen attack, off topic and unwanted here, is very unwelcome.
Your post has added ZERO to the thread or its actual subject. It has been an interesting ON TOPIC discussion until your unwanted off topic post, and it really should on another day be reported as a blatant attempt at derailing.
Mods, can we please keep an eye on this please?

Interestingly, the SAAF approached that with two solutions.
One was a new “mini pylon” that housed chaff and flares, situated inboard on each wing between the fuselage and existing inner wing weapons pylon.
Also, a rather elegant solution was replacing the existing rear ventral fins with a slightly wider new design that housed the chaff and flares.
This was part of the Radar and Infrared Misleading System or RIMS.
This ensured that no weapons pylon was taken up by that capability.

A few pics of these can be found kicking around on the web after a google search.

I assume the motive side closely followed the Carver’s engine choices.
There was an upgraded ATAR 9K50 with internal changes, including single crystal blades and different C ombustion chamber etc, that was to yield a +10% performance increase.
There were reports of the Snecma M53 and M88 being looked at.
And then obviously the RD33 based SMR-95 that was actually fitted to and flown in a Mirage F-1 And Cheetah.

On the topic of the Super Mirage F-1 as being developed by Atlas, the gentleman involved with the project stated he was on the avionics side of the project.
Their brief was basically to ensure that the Cheetah C and Super Mirage F-1 share complete commonality in avionics/cockpit etc.
He was aware of the other sides that other teams were working on.
He basically described the project as follows:
The nose and cockpit were basically the same as the Cheetah C. I assume this includes the canopy.
An in-flight refuelling probe was to be installed. Not the same as the Mirage F-1AZ. I assume the same as Cheetah C?
The tail vertical stabilizer/fin was different, having an enlarged fairing at its base similar to an F-16.
There were other refinements/changes he didn’t elaborate on.

This was to follow the Cheetah C programme.
The Mirage III’s were withdrawn fir upgrading to Cheetah E standard. The Cheetah C was following. Once the C was in service, it would allow the F1 to be withdrawn to be upgraded.
The F-1 therefore might even have had an engine replacement before the Cheetah C.
All of this would have been followed and eventually replaced by Carver.
Some (but not all) of this initial F-1 work was later leveraged into the Spanish Mirage F-1 cockpit upgrade.

Great post LEG.

Indeed, the SAAF went first into expanded ECM (internal, podded, and Boeing 707) and expanded weapons envelopes – R-Darter BVRAAM and developed and expanded V3 helmet guided missile (Kukri was an export designation)……but there was a great move toward proper stand-off strike weaponry. .quite a slew of them in fact.