Mirage 2000 digest: read this if you aren't clear on what it is/does!

If the Mirage 2000C RDI could use the missiles.

 

That is the question, and unless you can show it could, then this argument becomes a little redundant.

The Starfighter example isn't a good one, that was just a matter of choice in Canadian service. The model they flew wasn't unique to Canada, and therefore, the module would be justified in including AIM9 missiles.

In the case of the mirage M2000C that will be available to us, it saw service only in France, and although similar export versions exist that did use ARMAT, there isn't any evidence at all that ours was capable of deploying them, and in reality, it never has. That is the difference.

Actually I'm glad it's the slightly older M2000C RDI variant, it places the Mirage as an underdog to the big modern powerhouse fighters. It's so much more rewarding to splash an F-15 with the Mig-21bis than something on par with it and i'm looking forward to a similar feeling with the Mirage. Using less capable aircraft forces you to rely on your wits and skill rather than the sheer brute capability of the machine to dominate. I can see people using very similar tactics as those developed for the Mig-21 to engage the top tier fighters.

Right, but please (and this is not intended specifically to you Zomba), stop comparing Mirage 2000 with MiG-21 !

MiG-21 is a 2nd gen. jet fighter, Mirage 2000 is 4th gen.

It's like comparing F-100 with F-15!

To clarify:

Gen: 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 4.5

US: F-86 > F-104 > F-5 > F-16 > F/A-18E/F

RU: MiG-15 > MiG-21 > MiG-23 > MiG-29 > Su-35

FR: Mystere IV > Mirage III > Mirage F1 > Mirage 2000 > Rafale

You would find different definitions and classifications, but the above is the most commonly used.

Then I agree that fighting the F-15 in the M2000 will be a challenge, but this is due to the F-15 being more capable (bigger aircraft, bigger radar, bigger engines, more fuel, more missiles).

Besides this, they are the same generation. It's just that the M2000 has been designed as a counterpart to the smaller / less capable F-16.

The counterpart to the F-15 would have been the Mirage 4000, but France did not buy it. Too big for a little-big nation...

Right, but please (and this is not intended specifically to you Zomba), stop comparing Mirage 2000 with MiG-21 !

 

MiG-21 is a 2nd gen. jet fighter, Mirage 2000 is 4th gen.

It's like comparing F-100 with F-15!

 

To clarify:

 

Gen: 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 4.5

US: F-86 > F-104 > F-5 > F-16 > F/A-18E/F

RU: MiG-15 > MiG-21 > MiG-23 > MiG-29 > Su-35

FR: Mystere IV > Mirage III > Mirage F1 > Mirage 2000 > Rafale

 

You would find different definitions and classifications, but the above is the most commonly used.

 

Then I agree that fighting the F-15 in the M2000 will be a challenge, but this is due to the F-15 being more capable (bigger aircraft, bigger radar, more fuel, more missiles).

Besides this, they are the same generation. It's just that the M2000 has been designed as a counterpart to the smaller / less capable F-16.

The counterpart to the F-15 would have been the Mirage 4000, but France did not buy it. Too big for a little-big nation...

I don't think the F-15 was the kind of threat the Mirage was intended to counter. I think it was more designed as a guardian against Russian bombers entering the French airspace. Its main opponent would then have been the Su-27 which is similar in terms of capacity I think (according to what is modelled in DCS)

That is the question, and unless you can show it could, then this argument becomes a little redundant.

 

The Starfighter example isn't a good one, that was just a matter of choice in Canadian service. The model they flew wasn't unique to Canada, and therefore, the module would be justified in including AIM9 missiles.

 

In the case of the mirage M2000C that will be available to us, it saw service only in France, and although similar export versions exist that did use ARMAT, there isn't any evidence at all that ours was capable of deploying them, and in reality, it never has. That is the difference.

This is what wiki has to say (which i know is not always a good source of information):

The ARMAT was operational since 1984. It was used as main, if not exclusive anti-radar weapon by French aviation, employed by SEPECAT Jaguars against Libyans during Operation Epervier.

Wrong. The French Air Force used the AS37 Martel. This was the one and only missile shot by Jaguar's during the anti-radar raid over Lybia.

The ARMAT was developed from the AS37 Martel in 1984. The missile stayed in service until 1999. The french airforce does not have any antiradar missiles in the inventory after that.

 

The ARMAT is also called the AS37 by the way. AS37 ARMAT is the improved version of the AS37 Martel.

EXPORT version. As far as I understand, seekers were rather downgraded compared to the Martel.

And as an export version, the ARMAT has never been in the French inventories. Hence it has never been mounted on a Mirage 2000C RDI, except for Paris Air Show static display.

Wrong. The French Air Force used the AS37 Martel. This was the one and only missile shot by Jaguar's during the anti-radar raid over Lybia.

 

EXPORT version. As far as I understand, seekers were rather downgraded compared to the Martel.

 

And as an export version, the ARMAT has never been in the French inventories. Hence it has never been mounted on a Mirage 2000C RDI, except for Paris Air Show static display.

An enhanced variant of the AS 37, designated the Armat (Anti Radiation MArTel), was developed in the early eighties, and deployed with the French Air Force in 1984, subsequently exported to Egypt, Kuwait and Iraq. The missile was reputedly used during the Iran-Iraq war to destroy Iranian radar sites, fired from the Mirage F.1 .

The Armat shares its basic airframe and propulsion with the AS 37 Martel. The Armat is a heavyweight among ARMs, weighting in at 1200 lb / round, with a 331 lb high explosive warhead, and with a fuselage length of 13.5 ft and diameter of 15.7 in. The large airframe accommodates a Hotchkiss-Brandt/SNPE Basile solid propellant boost stage with a 2.4 second burn, and an SNPE Cassandre solid propellant sustainer with a 22 second burn. The missile has a quoted range for a high altitude launch of about 50 NM.

Compared with the AS 37, the Armat has a significantly improved passive homing seeker designed in the early eighties by Dassault Electronique. The microprocessor based seeker will home on to a programmed emitter, be it a radar or a jammer, and uses inertial midcourse guidance.

With its high launch weight, heavyweight warhead and long range, the Armat is primarily an offensive strategic ARM designed to destroy Early Warning and Ground Control Intercept radars. This is where it differs fundamentally from the HARM and the ALARM, which are built to also perform as defensive ARMs carried as part of a mixed weapon load. As the missile is 50% heavier than the HARM, and twice the weight of the ALARM, it is unlikely to compete successfully against these newer missiles.

http://www.ausairpower.net/alarm-armat.html

ARMAT was a private development using an improved, wideband ESD seeker. The French government and Air Force weren`t quite worried about exporting MArtel/ARMAT and the export missile, while having the wideband receiver, seems to have had degraded capabilities.

French missiles were upgraded in the late 1980s using the ARMAT technology to a wideband homing head. With the retirement of the Mirage IIIE, Jaguar became the sole platform. Jaguar EW equipment was quite poor, so Martel missions required a lot of work as shown during its sole use in combat by the AdA against Lybia.

It was retired in the late 1990s due to age, costs and suspected reliability.

I don't think the F-15 was the kind of threat the Mirage was intended to counter. I think it was more designed as a guardian against Russian bombers entering the French airspace. Its main opponent would then have been the Su-27 which is similar in terms of capacity I think (according to what is modelled in DCS)

"Its" main opponent, you mean the F-15, not the M2000?

Indeed the F-15 and Su-27 are equivalent, capability wise.

In the smaller category, F-16 / MiG-29 / M2000 can be considered as counterparts.

"Its" main opponent, you mean the F-15, not the M2000?

Indeed the F-15 and Su-27 are equivalent, capability wise.

 

In the smaller category, F-16 / MiG-29 / M2000 can be considered as counterparts.

No, I meant the 2000 would have been an opponent to the Su-27. By the way I don't think you can say the Su-27 and the F-15 are equal, at least in DCS. But this last point as already been enough discussed in this forum.

My point is that to be fair you should compare the 2000 with the Su-27 not with the F-15. Because back in the 80's an offensive from the east would have been composed of bombers escorted by Su-27 not by F-15.

Right, but please (and this is not intended specifically to you Zomba), stop comparing Mirage 2000 with MiG-21 !

 

MiG-21 is a 2nd gen. jet fighter, Mirage 2000 is 4th gen.

It's like comparing F-100 with F-15!

 

To clarify:

 

Gen: 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 4.5

US: F-86 > F-104 > F-5 > F-16 > F/A-18E/F

RU: MiG-15 > MiG-21 > MiG-23 > MiG-29 > Su-35

FR: Mystere IV > Mirage III > Mirage F1 > Mirage 2000 > Rafale

 

You would find different definitions and classifications, but the above is the most commonly used.

 

I think you might have made the unfortunate mistake in thinking I care.

As a small aside, the Mig-21bis is a third generation fighter and was deployed in the '70s. Just a teeny bit different from it's 1950's variety, but lets not get drowned in details.

Yes but it is a modernization of an older airframe, with limitations (e.g. radar antenna size).

Anyway a MiG-21bis is a match for a Mirage F1, or a modernized variant of the older Mirage III.

Not for a more modern/efficient Mirage 2000. That was Moos' point.

No, I meant the 2000 would have been an opponent to the Su-27. By the way I don't think you can say the Su-27 and the F-15 are equal, at least in DCS. But this last point as already been enough discussed in this forum.

Your feeling of F-15 superiority over Su-27 in DCS comes from the fact that DCS multiplayer confrontations are stereotyped: 95% of BVR face-to-face with no original tactics.

In this context, only Fox 3 vs. Fox 1 makes the difference, because casual Su-27 pilots do not have the skills and tactics to properly engage F-15 with this disadvantage.

IRL, with well trained Su-27 pilots flying their aircraft to its strengths, the F-15 would have a hard time.

Open a book and you will see that indeed the F-15 and Su-27 WERE designed as counterparts.

Then of course the F-15 got regular upgrades over the 80's and 90's (including Fox 3 capability), which the Su-27 lacked, due to the political and economic situation in USSR / Russia during this period.

You end up in the 2000's with a more capable F-15, to which Russia's answer is the Su-35 (basically a Su-27 with upgraded avionics and Fox 3).

But this does change the fact that they are aircraft of the same category, in terms of overall capability.

Fox 3 is a detail, though an important one.

My point is that to be fair you should compare the 2000 with the Su-27 not with the F-15. Because back in the 80's an offensive from the east would have been composed of bombers escorted by Su-27 not by F-15.

We are not speaking the same language here:

I'm talking about aircraft capabilities, you answer with historic context of employment.

If you want to go down this road, a Russian offensive in the 80's would have also involved MiG-29 as a frontline fighter. And the French opponent to that threat would have been... Mirage 2000, because that's all we got!

So which is M2000's counterpart, Su-27 or MiG-29?

To know it you need to think capability:

Airframe size, radar size, engine power, fuel quantity, payload, etc.

Open the DCS editor and put an F-15 / F-16 / Su-27 / MiG-29 / M2000 side-by-side on the tarmac, fully loaded.

Just look at the size difference and you will clearly see the two different categories:

F-16 / MiG-29 / M2000 = light fighters

F-15 / Su-27 = heavy fighters

If you want a French equivalent to the latter it would rather be the Rafale, though still lighter and more next-gen, so not a perfect match...

I think you might have made the unfortunate mistake in thinking I care.

 

As a small aside, the Mig-21bis is a third generation fighter and was deployed in the '70s. Just a teeny bit different from it's 1950's variety, but lets not get drowned in details.

I'll pretend I didn't see the sarcasm and make a factual answer:

If you want a French match to the MiG-21bis, it is the Mirage IIIE.

Both are modernized variants from the 70's - just as Azrayen said.

Again, if you're too lazy to google it, the answer is in DCS: take a look at the MiG-21bis cockpit and compare it with the M2000C (vids and pics) => clearly not the same era in cockpit design!

Where did I say anything about matching? Where did you get that from? Also that wasn't sarcasm.

Actually I'm glad it's the slightly older M2000C RDI variant, it places the Mirage as an underdog to the big modern powerhouse fighters. It's so much more rewarding to splash an F-15 with the Mig-21bis than something on par with it and i'm looking forward to a similar feeling with the Mirage. Using less capable aircraft forces you to rely on your wits and skill rather than the sheer brute capability of the machine to dominate. I can see people using very similar tactics as those developed for the Mig-21 to engage the top tier fighters.

Right, but please (and this is not intended specifically to you Zomba), stop comparing Mirage 2000 with MiG-21 !

And then you took it personally...

Again, where did I say they were matched? "If you want a French match to the MiG-21bis, it is the Mirage IIIE."

I just find it interesting that you feel compelled to tell people what they can and cannot say, that's all.

Never mind. Indeed it is your right to be wrong.

Your feeling of F-15 superiority over Su-27 in DCS comes from the fact that DCS multiplayer confrontations are stereotyped: 95% of BVR face-to-face with no original tactics.

In this context, only Fox 3 vs. Fox 1 makes the difference, because casual Su-27 pilots do not have the skills and tactics to properly engage F-15 with this disadvantage.

IRL, with well trained Su-27 pilots flying their aircraft to its strengths, the F-15 would have a hard time.

 

Open a book and you will see that indeed the F-15 and Su-27 WERE designed as counterparts.

Then of course the F-15 got regular upgrades over the 80's and 90's (including Fox 3 capability), which the Su-27 lacked, due to the political and economic situation in USSR / Russia during this period.

You end up in the 2000's with a more capable F-15, to which Russia's answer is the Su-35 (basically a Su-27 with upgraded avionics and Fox 3).

 

But this does change the fact that they are aircraft of the same category, in terms of overall capability.

Fox 3 is a detail, though an important one.

 

 

 

We are not speaking the same language here:

I'm talking about aircraft capabilities, you answer with historic context of employment.

If you want to go down this road, a Russian offensive in the 80's would have also involved MiG-29 as a frontline fighter. And the French opponent to that threat would have been... Mirage 2000, because that's all we got!

So which is M2000's counterpart, Su-27 or MiG-29?

 

To know it you need to think capability:

Airframe size, radar size, engine power, fuel quantity, payload, etc.

 

Open the DCS editor and put an F-15 / F-16 / Su-27 / MiG-29 / M2000 side-by-side on the tarmac, fully loaded.

Just look at the size difference and you will clearly see the two different categories:

 

F-16 / MiG-29 / M2000 = light fighters

F-15 / Su-27 = heavy fighters

 

If you want a French equivalent to the latter it would rather be the Rafale, though still lighter and more next-gen, so not a perfect match...

I am not arguing the fact that the 2000 is a light fighter whereas the F-15 and the Su-27 are heavy fighter. Those are facts not to be debated.

My whole idea with my initial comment was just to say that comparing in terms of capabilities two planes that were not supposed to be in opposite side was less interesting than comparing it to what would have been its logical opponent. And I was using the 27 because my understanding of the MiG-29 was that it was designed as a defensive fighter so not really supposed to enter enemy airspace.

I just wanted to orient the debate on a comparison that seemed more interesting to me than the one with the F-15.

Could you fellers perhaps take this discussion to another topic, and stop derailing the current one.

... which purpose is to clarify the M2000 capabilities :)

This discussion is certainly not more off-topic than the countless posts asking for MICA / Exocet / ARMAT implementation in each and every thread of this forum section :D

will it have ARMAT?

Oh!, sorry!!..

Prowler

RAZBAM

will it have ARMAT?

Oh!, sorry!!..

 

Prowler

RAZBAM

Touché ;-)

will it have ARMAT?

Oh!, sorry!!..

 

Prowler

RAZBAM

:megalol: lol

does this model have movable leading edge slats?

does this model have movable leading edge slats?

Yes and they automatically move by the aerodynamic rules set for the aircraft.

 

Yes and they automatically move by the aerodynamic rules set for the aircraft.

Are they already implemented-animated? 'Cause they seem always extended: maybe with EFM?

Bye

Phant

Are they already implemented-animated? 'Cause they seem always extended: maybe with EFM?

 

Bye

Phant

They were implemented and animated from day 1.