Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Good Is Mirage 2000  
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7732 times:

This topic is to hear other members opinion about MIRAGE 2000 "future" FAB fighter.
I think that MIRAGE 2000 is a bad choice for FAB old design ,unproved concept,lack of manouverability etc.
So my opinion is that MIRAGE 2000 BRshould be compared with MIRAGE III/5 & saab viggen with new avionics .
While Steman think that:I know that the M.200= is an old design, as old as the F-16, F/A-18 and MiG-29. But this doesn't mean that its capacity are lower than those of its competitor.
So what do other members think?
P.S.
Don't forgath mirage 2000Br vs f-16c &mig-29SMT
Stefano f-18 isn't a offer anymore.


29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1391 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

Hey Fireblade,
good idea to start a new topic.
I know the F-18 isn't in the short list for the Brazilian fighter programme but it was just to bring an example of fighter belonging to the same generation of the Mirage 2000.

What do you mean when you say that the M.2000 is an unproved concept? Dassault's delta fighters are among the most widely used in the world and they have been so for decades. Remember they're successes in Israel and Pakistan.

What I can say is that the M.2000 showed a lower growing capability than the F-16 (think to the early F-16 and the current F-16C-60!). But my overall opinion doesn't change: the Mirage 2000 is a very good fighter in the same category of the others.


User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7594 times:

Hi

I have to disagree with Fireblade that the Mirage 2000 is unproven and that it lacks manouverability. The Mirage 2000 has flown many combat missions both during Dessert Strom and during oparations over ex Yugoslavia, so it has been tested in combat.
As for manouverability I have seen the Mirage 2000 many times at airshows and it can turn as good as any other figther in my opinion.
It is true that the Mirage 2000 is an old design, but so a pretty much every other fighter in service today. What is important is what is under the skin. Most modern combat aircrafts can go around mach 2, pull 7-9 g's and so on. The different between a 3rd generation fighter and a 4th generation fighter is its ability to carry out different missions at the same time, that is Swing-role instead of multi-role. The first operational 4th generations fighter, the JAS-39 Gripen, differes not in airframe performance (speed, range ect.) but in the onboard electronics like data-link.
As far as I know the version offered to FAB is the Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2/-9 version, and after reading a bit about it in magazines and on Dassaults homepage (I know the is not totaly un-biased) I think that it sounds like a pretty good plane. It has state-of-the-art electronics and can carry a lot of weapons, both air-to-air and air-to-ground.

If you match the Mirage 2000 against the F-16C (I hate to compare to similar jets to say which is the best - it all depends on the situation - but here we go any way  Smile/happy/getting dizzy) I would think the F-16C would have the upper hand in close air-air combat. At long range nowadays it is pretty much a question about how sees how first and fires a long-range AAM. The air-ground capabilities of both aircrafts are as far as I know pretty good, the F-16 might have a slight advantage because of JDAM bombs but I think they are pretty equal.

To sum up this all-to-long-thread (once I get started I tend to keep going - sorry) I think that the Mirage 2000-5 Mk. 2 is a pretty good aircraft that the Frence can be proud of (no I'm not Frence or a Dassault employee  Smile/happy/getting dizzy)

Regards
Søren Augustesen
-- Any spelling errors in the above text is made on purpose to reduce readability.......


User currently offlineGregoire From France, joined Sep 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7603 times:

first comparing the 2000 with the III/5 is like comparing the MiG29 with the MiG21 there are about a 20 years gap betwen both plane the 2000 start in the 80 and have since been improved. the -5, -9 and other new version are modern plane based on a old design as well as the F16c block 60 is a new plane with a new avionic based on a old design (about the same age) now the 2000 -5 is one of the most modern fighter available with a radar following system modern air to air (mica roughtly equivalent to aim 120 in term of capacity) and air to ground (LGB cruise missile (scalp, storm shadow) ASM (exocet) ...) in a way and for the flanker supporter I will say that there ios as much difference betwen a 2001 mirage 2000 BR and a 1982 mirage 2000c than betwen a Su27 (enter in service in the early 80's) and a Su27m (or Su37 or whatever is tis name now)
about unproven well It have flown air to ground mission over kosovo and bosnia launching alaser guided munition. as well as air to air mission into the gulf, bosnia, kosovo. for an unproven plane it must be nottice that greece (I will come back latter to greece) that was using the first version have last year signed a contract for the -9 the same with quatar and the UAE. Taiwan (one of the country that is in front line) have baught some for air to air mission mainly to counter the modern chinesse plane (J10 and J11) and is still relying on the 2000 for its air to air mission.

Now back to greece every year greece old a fighter competiton and the result are that at high and medium alltitude the 2000 always beat the f16 at low alltitude it is the falcon that is the best (air international a few month ago)


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 7567 times:

As previously stated, the Mirage 2000 has really closed the gap in recent years with avionics and weapons.
Designed for a French Air Force interceptor requirement, it's a sturdy, versatile aircraft.
Excellent for BVR combat, and a well-flown one is dangerous in any kind or air to air fight.
A pretty mean strike aircraft too, especially the 2000D version.


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 7563 times:

Stefano i hope that you don't mind that i started this topic i mean i don't want to fell this like a dogfight between us just i really want to hear other members opinion.I really respect you but reason you aren't in my respected users list its because i don't read many of your posts in the threads i'm interested for.

User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 7566 times:

Ok guys hear is my opinion.
Mirage is a old concept for the 21 century.
Just watch the wings Dasasult use delta wings which gives high landoff speed lack of manouverability[guys against f-16 & mig-29 &gripen & su-30 don't compare with some X plane]and it's pretty bad in making trannsonic manouvres.If you don't believe me i remember that rafale you canard configuration because of this reasons.
The Mirage 2000 has flown many combat missions both during Dessert Strom and during oparations over ex Yugoslavia, so it has been tested in combat.
Soren sending 2000 aircraft against 80 [16mig-29 60 mig-21]doesn't mean a lot to me .Proves are in the fair combat .
I read many articles about nato air campagne and in all of them f-16 was choosen for the best fallowed by f-15 .Also while you're watching mirage 2000 moves compare it su-30mk http://www.brazd.ru mig-29 or f-16C manouvres.
If you watch carefull you'll see that there's a big dofference between them.
I think that has chance against f-16 C and maybe a little one against mig-19smt while gripen and su-30 outperfomed it by many categories.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 7565 times:

"The first operational 4th generations fighter, the JAS-39 Gripen,"

Here we go again... The first 4th generation fighter was either the F-14 or the F-15, and they became operational in the early 70's. Also:

"The different between a 3rd generation fighter and a 4th generation fighter is its ability to carry out different missions at the same time, that is Swing-role instead of multi-role"

Nope. Let's look at the F-14 and the F-15 again. Those two are hardly what you would call "multi-role". 4th generation fighters were different from 3rd generation fighters in the fact that they incorportate many different systems, some of which were first used on 3rd generation fighters, but not in combination with other advanced systems.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 19 hours ago) and read 7567 times:

and after reading a bit about it in magazines and on Dassaults homepage (I know the is not totaly un-biased) I think that it sounds like a pretty good plane.
Soren
rule No one don't believe one source especially the manufacturer you must usk many people and read many articles else you'll get something like rafale is -4g capable what is totally BS.{rafale glimits are +9/-3 maximum -3.2g]


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1391 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

Hey Fireblade,
I think you did a good thing in starting this topic and actually I don't look at respected users lists.
Different opinions are useful to learn more things so don't worry for that.

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 7564 times:

Guys, in Brazilian forums and mail lists it’s been some HEAVY rumors. Most are conflicting. Some say the Mirage already won, some say it’s not on the FX anymore. Frankly, this is a national preferred subject (among aviation freaks like us ). I was talking just to Jean Pierre (ex- French Air Force pilot, and a Dassault employee here in Brazil now). He (of course) praises the Mirage, and said the Mirage will come with the same onboard computer of the Rafale, improved avionics over the Mirage 2000_5 Mk2 and, most importantly, total software freedom. This the Swedens and the Russians are offering too. Add the AMRAAM nonsense, kiss the F-16 good buy, my friend!

By the way, the Mirage is no longer supported by our politicians, nor will be the fighter be built in Brazil. Quite a few chances for a week, huh???


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 7551 times:

By the way, the Mirage is no longer supported by our politicians, nor will be the fighter be built in Brazil. Quite a few chances for a week, huh???

Oh if that's true than i think that your experts will choose su-30 .And gripen would be nice not so good as su but you know VTOL


User currently offlineVisage From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

You're words about french fighters are often wrong .
If our armament was so bad why do we[france] are 2th arm supplier in the world selling armament for 8 billions $
every year.
But you and your friend jwenting doesn't understand that .
Sophie
p.s.your jokes ain't funny
p.s.2 i hate you


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

If our armament was so bad why do we[france] are 2th arm supplier in the world selling armament for 8 billions $
every year.
Actually france sells 4 biillions worth armament every year making her 3th After us 14billions and russia 7Billions.
I love you too.  Love Sofi
Slobodan
p.s.What the word Visage mean?


User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

Just a precision about the Rafale:
according a book of the World Air Power Journal, the Rafale's limits are:
+9/-3,6G

The WAPJ is one of the world's references in aviation datas, so i think we can trust them.

About the EF2000, they evaluated its limits to +9/-3G.


User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

Flanker is too expensive to operate (by FAB standards). I think Gripen is the Best option.

User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7549 times:

"Flanker is too expensive to operate (by FAB standards). I think Gripen is the Best option."

Gripen is a great but it's a light weight a/c that mean lack in strategic missions,recognainse and interceotion so you could only use it for air superiority ,air defence and strike but only in the area .
I mean that FAB need a/c with great range .Also saab irst & hms isn't ready ,correct me if i'm wrong.And no TVC but you get VTOL capabilities so i think that you need a combination of this two a/c gripen for missions in the neighburhood and su for strategic one .Brazil has big area.



User currently offlineVisage From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7544 times:

What the word Visage mean?
Luck at the dictionary waterblade  Acting devilish


User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7540 times:

IRST and HMS are on final testing phase, and are going to be fully operational on South African Gripens. Brazilian Gripens could do with even more neat features. It’s a long way to 2005.

Also, Saab is believed to be creating a special long range Gripen, designed for our needs, using the 2-seat cell (equipped with extra fuel and the 27mm cannon that the 2-seat version lacks). This is not confirmed information.

Su-30´s are nice, but with that price to maintain and fly it we would and up with a capable, long range fighter... grounded!


User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7537 times:

Hello all

Just to make a few replys to some of the comments to my post.

Fireblade:
You wrote that the Mirage 2000 was unproven - yet you agree that it has flown combat mission many times. You say that sending 2000 aircrafts against 80 (I supose you are talking about the Kosova bombings) makes an unfair comparrison. Then when have the F-16 be in a "fair" fight?? Every time the F-16 have been used, the air force(s) using them have wastly out-numbered the enemy, Coalition in the Gulf war and during Kosova, the Israiles have flown them against old russian MiG so thats not fair fights either - but does that mean the F-16 is unproven??

LY744:

You write that the first 4th generation aircrafts were the F-14 and F-15.

Quote from Saabs homepage (I know you dont trust manufactor homepages but here it is):
"Gripen, the world's first in-service fourth-generation swing-role fighter,"

I know that you guys dont trust manufactor homepages, but SAAB has nothing to gain by promoting its aircrafts as the first 4th generation fighter if it wasn't true. Note also the use of the term "Swing-role".
Air Forces Monthly test flew the Gripen a while ago, and they had a good article about it (I cant remember what issue it was - I'll find out till tomorrow).

Quote from www.fas.org:
"The JAS 39 Gripen is......a fourth generation, multi-role combat aircraft."

The F-14 and F-15 are 3rd generation aircrafts.

Regards
Søren Augustesen
-- Any spelling errors in the above text is made on purpose to reduce readability.......


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7527 times:

a) The F-15 and the F-14 are 4th generation fighters
b) Even if they weren't, the JAS-39 would still not be the first 4th generation fighter (F-16 - 1978, MiG-29 - 1982, etc.)

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7538 times:

I also agree that the F-14D, F-15 C and F-16 C all are 4th generation aircraft.

Su-30Mk, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon are all know to be 4+...

5th?? the ones reaching service are F-22 and F-35


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7530 times:

Soren
As i said my statement that mirage 2000 is unproven concept is wrong?
I mean it is proven concept but for 20century .
So mirage 2000 is old concept and even when it was new one it wasn't best of its class f-15,f-16,mig-29 and su-27 were far better.
So putting mirage 2000 in 3th milenium has no sence to me when for the same money you could buy far better concept.So called 4++ a/c such su-37
And about kosovo bombing as i already say i read many analysis and if all of them f-16 was proclamed as best fallowed by f-15.
And one more time don't trust manufacturer web pages.
Or you'll always get BS informations.
Slobodan


User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7523 times:


LY744:
Well after checking one of my books: "The pictorial History of Fighter Aircrafts" written by Bill Yenne, this book has the following definitions of figther generations:
1st generation: Planes like F9F Panther, F-80 Shooting Star, de Havilland Vampire
2nd generation: Planes like F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Startfighter, MiG-21
3rd generation: Planes like F-15, F-16, F-14 MiG-29, Viggen, Mirage 2000

If any one could provide me with a website that has the F-15 and F-14 as 4th generation fighter I would like to have the address.

In Air Forces Monthly March 2000 issue Dan Griffiths (a former RAF pilot and test pilot) test flew the Gripen in Sweden, here are some of the things he wrote in the article:
"So what do you get for your money when you buy a Gripen? You get a fourth-generation aircraft, data-link....."
"Indeed, aircrafts such asa the Super Hornet and Typhoon will be the first aircrafts outside Sweden to have a capability to come anywhere near that of the Gripen." (Speaking about data-link features)
"The Gripens weapon systems had all the elements to warrent fourth-generation status."

I will therefore still claim that planes like the F-15/-14/-16 are 3th genereation fighters (some of the upgraded versions could be called 3th+).
But I guess it comes down to ones definitions of fighter generations, and I dont think we can agree on that one.

Regards
Søren Augustesen
-- Any spelling errors in the above text is made on purpose to reduce readability.......



User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7510 times:

I don't know who this Bill Yenne guy is, but he's got some problems! Maybe in his own little world the F-16 and the MiG-29 are not 4th generation fighters...  Yeah sure

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
25 Post contains images Soren-a : Well I'm not going to comment on Mr. Yenne's mental state But again, any web pages that has the F-14/-15/-16 as a 4th generation fighter would be appr
26 Post contains links LY744 : Here you go: "After World War II four generations of fighters have appeared: I generation-early in the 1950s, such as MiG-15 and F-86; II generation-l
27 Post contains links Fireblade : Soren i don't know where do you get that info but they sucks man.f-14 ,f-15,f-16,f-18 ,su-27,mig-29 etc are 4th gen a/c so SAAB is late for about 20 y
28 Post contains images FlyHigh@Tom : There is only one thing which remains CONSTANT in the military forum...the bickering over classification of fighters regarding their generation. Guys
29 Soren-a : Fireblade: Nice site with lots of info, but after scanning through the sections about the F-14/-15 and -16 I could find no reference to them being 4th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Good Is Mirage 2000
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mirage 2000 - A Good Aircraft posted Tue Nov 16 2004 10:09:17 by HAWK21M
How Capable Is The North Korean Military? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 11:01:50 by CHRISBA777ER
IAF Zeroing On Mirage 2000 posted Sat Dec 3 2005 05:01:09 by Aseem
How Capable Is Tornado In A "knife Fight"? posted Thu Nov 24 2005 17:09:24 by CHRISBA777ER
F-16 For Pakistan, Mirage 2000 For India... posted Tue Mar 29 2005 23:46:54 by Bsergonomics
Mirage 2000 Crash-lands At Mauritius' Airshow posted Tue Feb 1 2005 12:27:22 by AirOrange
How This Is Possible - Two F16s Up And Down posted Sun Nov 28 2004 14:50:24 by Saleem
How Loud Is It Inside Of A Fighter/bomber? posted Thu Jul 3 2003 06:54:45 by Klm744
How New Is Diego Garcia? posted Thu Mar 21 2002 00:27:05 by Timz
How Good Was Avro Arrow posted Fri Sep 7 2001 12:31:56 by Fireblade

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format