F-16.net

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 4 Status: Offline

Does the f-16 beat the mirage d or n variants? Why has it not been tasked with a similar role?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Isn't the 2000N the nuke variant? I suppose that one wouldn't be compared to due to the fact that France doesn't have any big nuke carriers. Since the US does, the F-16 would probably have better things to do.

The 2000D version is a conventional strike variant- a two seater. Being less experienced than a lot of people here(especially the ones that work on or fly the F-16), I can only go by the hard known info mostly. I think the F-16 would be better suited as it is more advanced avionics wise to handle more types of precision and smart type weapons as well as a better payload if I'm not mistaken. The powerplant for F-16s gives it a better edge as far as thrust and thrust to weight ratio, and it seems that Mirage 2000Ds might need more modifications to handle better weaponry for air to ground work(I have read that other exported ones have). As far as numbers go, only a few dozen 2000D/Ns exist- The Fighting Falcons still are built with most being able to more than adequately fulfill the role of multi role strike. In fact, only about 700+ Mirage 2000 types were even built before production stopped last year, while the Falcon is at 4,200+ and counting I read around here somewhere.

I always thought the Mirage 2000 was cool(love having 2 x 30mm cannon Twisted Evil

), but the history and numbers speak for the F-16 I think.

Yeah, when a plane is a top seller of its era it must have done something right. What, only F-4 (the most capable warplane of its eram and upgradable to modern avionics standards) and MiG-21 (cheap, upgradeable) have out sold the F-16 as far as Jet Fighters are concerned?

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

f-16 vs 2000d 2000n Mirage