Mirage 2000 vs F-16C Block 52

froe · by **froe** » 28 Jul 2009, 15:49

What would win in BVR and in a knife fight.

StolichnayaStrafer · by **StolichnayaStrafer** » 29 Jul 2009, 22:52

There are several threads pertaining to this subject in this section already. In fact, there is a very big one on the 2nd page here.

Friendly word of advice for a newcomer- look for threads on the subject matter you are interested about. You will most likely find what you are looking for, this site has TONS of info and discussions about EVERYTHING related!

:wink:

callsignthumper · by **callsignthumper** » 07 Nov 2009, 18:03

I believe that this question has been answered in "iron eagle". :nono:

StolichnayaStrafer · by **StolichnayaStrafer** » 08 Nov 2009, 00:31

Are you serious???! :shock:

First of all neither plane was in that "movie". It had F-16A and B models which somebody more learned from this Forum could tell you what blocks they came from. The "MiGs" were Kfir C1(?) fighters that are copies of earlier Mirage aircraft.

Second of all, it was a MOVIE- most of the aircraft shots were models.

Lastly, newcomers should not dig up old threads just to post stuff. Better to ask honest questions and make somewhat rational observations, lest you get a bad reputation on the Forum.

Remember- you only get one chance to make a first impression, you can not turn back the page...

Welcome to the Forum! :wink:

duplex · by **duplex** » 11 Aug 2010, 19:49

Mirage 2000 -5 would only win in high altitudes thanks to delta wings. .In low altitudes and low speed engagements the more powerful Viper would kick butts.
The Viper is a much better overall fighter ..Thats the reason why it still sells well while Mirage shut down its production line years ago.

exec · by **exec** » 12 Aug 2010, 10:26

Mirage 2000 has better ITR, but at a cost of quickly bleeding out of energy.
F-16 has much better STR, and does not bleed energy so fast.
F-16 has far superior T/W ratio (much better acceleration and climb).
I won’t compare avionics…
My money is on the F-16.

duplex · by **duplex** » 15 Aug 2010, 19:35

I won’t compare avionics…
My money is on the F-16.[/quote]

Block 60 avionics would certainly be superior to that of Mirage 2000-5 but I cant say the same for Block 52.. Mirage 2000 has excellent avionics its the first fighter in the history with digital fly by wire .. One on one, my money is on the F-16 as well if the Viper gets the Mirage to low altitudes ..In supersonic confrontations in high altitudes the Mirage 2000 with MICA would be very very dangerous..

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 16 Aug 2010, 09:24

duplex wrote:Mirage 2000 has excellent avionics its the first fighter in the history with digital fly by wire ..

LOL, i've just got to ask why on earth would any opponent of the M2000 fear it simply because it was the first fighter to have digital fly by wire controls?
:wink:

duplex · by **duplex** » 16 Aug 2010, 17:47

shep1978 wrote:
duplex wrote:Mirage 2000 has excellent avionics its the first fighter in the history with digital fly by wire ..

LOL, i've just got to ask why on earth would any opponent of the M 2000 fear it simply because it was the first fighter to have digital fly by wire controls?

Nobody said that any opponent should fear it simply because of this..

duplex · by **duplex** » 17 Aug 2010, 18:06

froe wrote:What would win in BVR and in a knife fight.

A coversation with a former Hellenic Air Force pilot in WAFF

Q:the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful.

A: This true.

Q : With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight

A: This is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).

I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.

The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).

A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.

As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage.

Q: Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?

Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.

HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.

The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 20 Aug 2010, 09:13

duplex wrote:
Nobody said that any opponent should fear it simply because of this..

You missed my point, which was that it (M2000 being first with digital FBW) is irrelevent to the discussion of M200 vs F-16.

The F-16 was the first with and analogue FBW (wasn't it?) but nobody would bring that fact into an F-16 vs XYZ debate because it means nothing.

Anyway enough FBW stuff! What a Dutch F-16 pilot said about the 2000 , it's not alot but you may find it interesting:

"The only operational jet I ever flew is the F-16. I had backseat rides in a MiG-29 and Mirage 2000. The Mirage has more AOA available but falls out of the sky after he puts this big delta wing into the wind."

Full interview here: http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article24.html

exec · by **exec** » 20 Aug 2010, 09:54

And this is exactly what EM diagrams say. Mirage 2000 has higher ITR but the combination of delta wing and low T/W ratio causes very quick energy bleeding. So if the Mirage won’t make it in the first seconds of the combat (first turn)… game over.

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 20 Aug 2010, 10:42

Yeah its pretty interesting and straightforward. I did wonder how the Rafale which to my (untrained) eyes is similar to the M2000 compares, do you think it suffers from the same shortcomings or is it different / improved enough to remove that problem the 2000 suffers from?

exec · by **exec** » 20 Aug 2010, 14:06

shep1978 wrote:Yeah its pretty interesting and straightforward. I did wonder how the Rafale which to my (untrained) eyes is similar to the M2000 compares, do you think it suffers from the same shortcomings or is it different / improved enough to remove that problem the 2000 suffers from?

Rafale is much, much better than the Mirage 2000. It has much higher T/W ratio and has forward control surfaces. Canards create vortexes that help to sustain high AoA without losing lift and reduce drag at high AoA. Better T/W is means that Rafale shouldn’t have poor STR like the Mirage 2000 had. I’m pretty sure that Rafale is considerably better dogfighter than the F-16.