French Mirage F-1 video

[BlackHawk]

I do not know if it was already posted before, but enjoy the video p-)





IMPORTANT REMARK:
I received information that this video is not authorized by the Armée de l'Air and the French Ministry of Defense. Therefore I removed it

[Herrmannek]

Wonderfull woot

[Pille1234]

btw what's the name of the band & song? Sounds good! :D

[HELEX]

Offspring - The Kids Aren't Alright

[CannibalSquirel]

Brutal.

Thanks a lot!!

[MolliG]

Nice! :D

[BlackHawk]

http://www.tiger-link.com/RM2003/EBFS-03-178.jpg

;)

[tooms]

Offspring - The Kids Aren't Alright

They have a good taste. woot

[usa320]

F-1's are trash.

Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.

[Herrmannek]

F-1's are trash.

Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.

So what?

BTW: Flying in trash 4 metres above ground demands very good skills...

[Uncle Chô]

F-1's are trash.

Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.
rofl rofl

I think you forgot to mention : "France sucks, America rules"
Nice arguments, we learned a lot woot

[Shrap]

Awesome ! Living this experience would give me a lot of adrenaline... :P

[n.ignomo]

Old plane, what can I say, any plane is superior to a country who doesn't have any.

[Fenna]

F-1's are trash.

Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.

LOL, and don't forget "Surrender Monkeys" :bash:

[-Max2-]

F-1's are trash.

Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.

Mirage F1s have served in the Air Force of over ten countries, so i dont think its a trash... :|

And the F1 scored some "kills" around the world: 2 Angolan MiG-21s in the 80s (shootdown by South African F1s), 2 Peruvian Su-22 Fitters in 1995 (shootdown by Ecuadorian F1s) and Iraqi F1s have shootdown a least one Iranian F-14A Tomcat during the Iran-Iraq war... (among others)

[BARAK]

Sorry, but i have to post this...

http://www.airventure.de/voltigevictor_engl.htm

[BARAK]

One more video: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/voltigevictor/film.htm

[CannibalSquirel]

F-1's are trash.

Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.

What hell does that have to do with this?

It´s a great video. And some hell of a pilots!

[Uncle Chô]

F-1's are trash.
Slow, ****ty avionics, ****ty weapons load.
What hell does that have to do with this?

It´s a great video. And some hell of a pilots!
Another great example of "USA320" knowledge.

He regularly gives lessons to dozen of Army Chiefs of Staff wordlwide (ie how the Pentagon should handle the situation in Iraq, how to choose the F-22 over the F-35 etc etc). It usually ends with : " Nuke them all " or something like that.

Just ignore.

rofl

[usa320]

I never said to nuke anyone, anywhere, ever.

Dont take my words out of context or put words in my mouth. I wont stand for it.

Ive been studying aviation for years. Believe me, the French still flying the F-1 would be comparable to the US still flying the F-4 Phantom.

In its time it was good, but it is now obsolete with new planes like the Mirage 2000, and the Rafael entering service.

And the only reason so many third world countries fly them is because they are cheap, just as cheap as comparable soviet aircraft (Su-22's and MiG-23's) but more capable.

Its top speed is Mach 2.2 at altitude, the same as the mirage 2000. But its max range is 870 miles, as compared to 1,155 miles in the Mirage 2000. It only has 5 weapons stations and can only carry a total of 8,000lbs of armament. This is notably less weight than the Mirage 2000 can lug, but considering its all iron bombs, rockets and TV guided missiles from the 1970's, it needs more stations and more weapons in order to be efficient and effective. The mirage 2000D on the other hand can carry very advanced air to ground weapons. Thus reducing the need to carry more low tech dumb bombs.

I wont even bother to compare it to the F-4 or the Harrier, which filled the same role with the US and Britain as the F-1 filled for france.

Compared to similar aircraft of its time, the Mirage just doesnt measure up. It lacks technology that a decent strike aircraft needs... laser guidance, TV, FLIR, ect. At the time this plane was being made, 1966, the US was perfecting the original model of the GBU-12 and was putting it to use in vietnam. Seeing this development the smart thing to do would to have been adding this technology to the Mirage which was in development. But france never did, until like 10 years later when they added AS.30 missiles to the usable weapons for this plane, and even that was added in a rather crude fashion.

Bottom line, for a small air force needing a cheap light attack aircraft for interdiction or recon, the F-1C is decent. But for anyone else, the Mirage 2000, The MiG-27, even early model F-16's and F-18's are far better.

[Damian]

[quote="Uncle Chô
I think you forgot to mention : "France sucks, America rules"
[/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Uncle Chô]

I never said to nuke anyone, anywhere, ever.

Sorry, my mistake. Only " Bomb those ****ing bastards "

Dont take my words out of context or put words in my mouth. I wont stand for it.

Ive been studying aviation for years.

Ouch...

Believe me, the French still flying the F-1 would be comparable to the US still flying the F-4 Phantom.

This is a positive point. Stands correct. But ever heard of Germany, Greece and Turkey just to name a few in Europe?

In its time it was good, but it is now obsolete with new planes like the Mirage 2000, and the Rafael entering service.

Obsolete ? Sorry, no, still a potent ground warrior for low intensity conflict. Not the same class of aircraft, not the same purpose.

And the only reason so many third world countries fly them is because they are cheap, just as cheap as comparable soviet aircraft (Su-22's and MiG-23's) but more capable.

I think the Spaniards will appreciate your comments about "3rd world countries." :D Cheap ? French products were (are) very expensive (you could say overpriced) to buy. Cheaper to operate because they need less ground crews for maintenance than Russian or US similar products.

Its top speed is Mach 2.2 at altitude, the same as the mirage 2000.

Manufacturers B/S advertising arguments for the general public. This is almost useless in operational use.

But its max range is 870 miles, as compared to 1,155 miles in the Mirage 2000. It only has 5 weapons stations and can only carry a total of 8,000lbs of armament. This is notably less weight than the Mirage 2000 can lug, but considering its all iron bombs, rockets and TV guided missiles from the 1970's, (??) it needs more stations and more weapons in order to be efficient and effective. The mirage 2000D on the other hand can carry very advanced air to ground weapons. Thus reducing the need to carry more low tech dumb bombs.

Update your books and catalogs. FYI, the versions still in use with the French Air Force are designed for

- ground attack with freefall bombs, laser range finder.

- dedicated tactical recce with up to date captors (ie SLAR pods)

I wont even bother to compare it to the F-4 or the Harrier, which filled the same role with the US and Britain as the F-1 filled for france.

Correct for the Phantom. The F-1 was much more versatile than a Harrier (VTOL excluded of course)

Compared to similar aircraft of its time, the Mirage just doesnt measure up. It lacks technology that a decent strike aircraft needs... laser guidance, TV, FLIR, ect. At the time this plane was being made, 1966, the US was perfecting the original model of the GBU-12 and was putting it to use in vietnam.

Laser bombs strikes in Vietnam started during the Line Backer II operations in 1971/72. The F-4 used 2,000 lbs bombs on super high value targets like the bridges near Hanoï, only the few B-57G used GB-12 (500 lbs).

Seeing this development the smart thing to do would to have been adding this technology to the Mirage which was in development. But france never did, until like 10 years later when they added AS.30 missiles to the usable weapons for this plane,

AS-30 went to the Jaguar and later o the 2000D, never to the Mirage F-1

and even that was added in a rather crude fashion.

How come? Telle us more! :D

Bottom line, for a small air force needing a cheap light attack aircraft for interdiction or recon, the F-1C is decent. But for anyone else, the Mirage 2000, The MiG-27, even early model F-16's and F-18's are far better.

True. The Phantom was superior to the Panther. The Viper to the Phantom. The F-22 to the F-16 etc rofl

[RuSoKaR]

AWESOME!! woot

next year I am taking French ;)

[Red]

I never said to nuke anyone, anywhere, ever.

Dont take my words out of context or put words in my mouth. I wont stand for it.

Ive been studying aviation for years. Believe me, the French still flying the F-1 would be comparable to the US still flying the F-4 Phantom.

In its time it was good, but it is now obsolete with new planes like the Mirage 2000, and the Rafael entering service.

And the only reason so many third world countries fly them is because they are cheap, just as cheap as comparable soviet aircraft (Su-22's and MiG-23's) but more capable.

Its top speed is Mach 2.2 at altitude, the same as the mirage 2000. But its max range is 870 miles, as compared to 1,155 miles in the Mirage 2000. It only has 5 weapons stations and can only carry a total of 8,000lbs of armament. This is notably less weight than the Mirage 2000 can lug, but considering its all iron bombs, rockets and TV guided missiles from the 1970's, it needs more stations and more weapons in order to be efficient and effective. The mirage 2000D on the other hand can carry very advanced air to ground weapons. Thus reducing the need to carry more low tech dumb bombs.

I wont even bother to compare it to the F-4 or the Harrier, which filled the same role with the US and Britain as the F-1 filled for france.

Compared to similar aircraft of its time, the Mirage just doesnt measure up. It lacks technology that a decent strike aircraft needs... laser guidance, TV, FLIR, ect. At the time this plane was being made, 1966, the US was perfecting the original model of the GBU-12 and was putting it to use in vietnam. Seeing this development the smart thing to do would to have been adding this technology to the Mirage which was in development. But france never did, until like 10 years later when they added AS.30 missiles to the usable weapons for this plane, and even that was added in a rather crude fashion.

Bottom line, for a small air force needing a cheap light attack aircraft for interdiction or recon, the F-1C is decent. But for anyone else, the Mirage 2000, The MiG-27, even early model F-16's and F-18's are far better.
Sorry but i have to disagree with you on this one,the F-1 may be old but it is one hell of an aircraft,i have seen them being used by the pilots from my country and i have to say these babies are still capable of getting the job done.BTW,Excellent video,all my co-workers had fun watching this video.Those pilots have got to be crazy pulling off stunts like that

[Uninen]

How is Mirage F1 "SLOW"? rofl

Its even more "Missile with man in it" than F-104..

Also not to mention the "tuned up F1 proto" with MiG-29s Engine.. well version of it.. RD-93 i think..

Naah, it was SMR-95 whats based on RD-33D..

[2RHPZ]

Iraqis one

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/iraf_mirage_f1eq.jpg