F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2004, 00:12
by CheckSix
This one has been posted already: http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm
and gives the Mirage a slight advantage in almost every respect.

Any other infos / combat exercises?

I just read in a EADS journal, that their MICA AAMs are reported to be deadly, especially the IR variant, because you wont't have any indication being attacked.

F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2005, 03:08
by Wildcat
Well, the figures are not REALLY false, but they are clearly biased:
The mirage 2000 is a very slick (and beautiful, to me) fighter, primarily designed for scramble interception against MiG-25s, and it is true that a Mirage 2000 can (logically) fly faster and higher than a Viper.

Nevertheless, the Mirage 2000 is fairly less powerful than the Viper, so that this advantage in speed and acceleration is negated as soon as you try to fit a decent bomb load on the Mirage 2000.

It is also true that the instantaneous turn rate of the Mirage 2000 is slightly better, but the sustained turn rate of the Viper is better, which is probably better in a dogfight, all in all. Dassault doesn't seem to talk about that too much...

Then, the consumption grid is nearly a lie: the Mirage 2000 really burns less fuel than a Viper, but the Viper can carry more fuel and its engine produces greater thrust (its thrust/consumption ratio is better), so that the Viper actually has a better range and a better combat time than the Mirage 2000.

The air-to-ground mission grid is even worse: with eight Mk-82 bombs and two tanks, a Mirage 2000 can only carry two short-range IR missiles to protect itself, whereas a Viper with eight bombs and one tank can carry four AMRAAMs. If you want the Mirage 2000 to be loaded with four MICAs as well, only four Mk-82 bombs can be loaded then... and, as it is explained under the grid, if you try to load bigger bombs than Mk-82s on the Mirage 2000, it can no longer carry the two big wing tanks, and its range becomes pretty shorter than the range of a similarly-equipped Viper.

To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight. However, in air-to-ground missions the Viper is clearly better, as it can carry a much heavier load on a longer range. I really love the Mirage 2000, but it was designed as a small interceptor, not a multirole fighter.

RE: F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2005, 04:07
by ACSheva
I agree with the above statement.
The 16 is probably more superior in many critical ways to the French creation.

Shev

RE: F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2005, 02:14
by Cylon
Sandbagged in a Mirage 2k during Maple Flag in 2002. We got our asses kicked by a Viper... Hows that ?

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2005, 15:15
by CheckSix
Some greeks said, it is superiour to F-16 in dogfight, they must know it, they operate them both.

F-16 has a better thrust weight ratio, but loses more speed in tight turns due its higher wingloading, they said. Surely F-16 is a bit compromised at high altitude, matches agains MiG-29 showed the same.

I can't find the link, I'll post it later.


In Air to ground the F-16 might be more advanced. But how would that be in a high-threat scenario, wher you can't patrol at 20k with 300kts?

F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2005, 19:51
by Wildcat
CheckSix said:
In Air to ground the F-16 might be more advanced. But how would that be in a high-threat scenario, wher you can't patrol at 20k with 300kts?

Actually, only the Mirage 2000N and the Mirage 2000D possess a terrain-following-capable radar, but these are two-seat mud-moving versions, with little AA ability (they can only fire Magic II infrared missiles). They are supposed to protect themselves by speed, very low flying and ECM.
On the contrary, the multirole versions, i.e. Mirage 2000C, Mirage 2000E (same for export) Mirage 2000-5 and 2000-9 have no TFR (or something comparable to the LANTIRN system), so that I cannot figure out why a AA-capable Mirage 2000 would be at advantage over a Viper in a high threat scenario.

RE: F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 04:11
by Pat1
Considering they are sales rivals, its surprising that Greece, Egypt, Taiwan and UAE operate them both. Does anybody have any insight on this matter?

RE: F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 04:22
by ACSheva
Pat 1

Maybe its to keep good political ties with both nations US-FRN. Just like the Germans bought our F4,and Soviet 29. Maybe also for training, since those fighters may see each other in combat someday.

Shev

RE: F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 04:59
by Pat1
Did the Germans buy MiG-29s after the cold war? I thought the were inherited from the former East German airforce.

I can see Taiwan trying to get as many planes as possible, and as a diplomatic measure towards China, both the US and France might have limited their sales. Perserving the balance of powers could also be the case of Egypt and Greece?

About UAE, is each emirate in charge of their own defence? It could be that one Emirate prefers one over the other...

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 10:03
by CheckSix
MiG-29 came from the former East Germany. Despite the Phantom, it was not upgraded. (German F-4F now have APG-65 and AIM-120)

The Eastern-German were new aircraft from 1988, but represented the export standard. (any "fancy" equipment was removed)

West German F-4F were also derated before upgrade: no AIM-7 capability (on paper).

There was a discussion to enlarge/upgrade the MiG-29 fleet. This was unthinkable because of the EF. So only minor changes were made for NATO QRA requirements. Last year they've been handed over to poland to serve until their F-16 arrive.

Back to Mirage 2000: If you look at the Dassault webpage, you'll find all that fancy A-G-stuff. basically you may order Mirage 2k with Rafale avionics.

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 11:47
by Wildcat
Ah, you naïve! :wink:

Yes, keeping political ties might be a part of an explanation about why some countries decide to buy Mirage 2000s whereas the Viper is at least as good and significantly cheaper.

However, the main reason why French fighters are bought is that we have never refused to sell long-range AA missiles and state-of-the-art armament (I prefer not commenting this kind of politics...).

Examples:
  • Taiwan bought Mirage 2000-5s because we sold MICAs when Americans refused to sell AMRAAMs to them.
  • Egypt bought Mirage 2000s in the 80s to get Super 530 missiles (quite similar in capacity to Sparrows). Notice that Egyptians only bought a small number of Mirage 2000s, and it appears that they bought Mirage 2000s mainly to force the United States to sell Vipers to them.
  • UAE did not hide that they chose to buy further Mirage 2000s and modernize their old ones to 2000-9 standard in order to be sure they would always get active-radar long-range missiles (i.e. MICAs in case they would not have been able to get AMRAAMs), and because Mirage 2000s were sold with Storm Shadow cruise missiles.
Maybe armament is not as much an argument about Greece, but when they ordered Mirage 2000s they had just been accepted in the European Union. I think buying Mirage 2000s was a way to get closer to France at the time. (Exocet missiles may have been part of the explanation too, though)

I stop the list there but if you look at the names of countries that bought the Mirage 2000, you will see that, except Greece maybe, they all bought Mirage 2000s because they could not get Vipers at all or wanted to force the United States to sell modern armament later on.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 13:44
by CheckSix
Maybe it is a bit naive too to assume F-16 has been chosen due it's suppreme capabilities only. :oops:

Compare an eighties style F-16C with a M2000 or a MiG-29, I can't find much differences in A2A capabilities, but -16 is unable to fire BVRAAMs.
Same with A2G, here the 29 is a bit off.

Comparing the airframes only, every rival has it's shortcomings:
  • MiG-29: range
  • Mirage2k:engine is weak and thirsty
  • F-16: high wingloading

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 18:32
by Wildcat
If you want to compare the Viper and the Mirage 2000, it seems that you have to consider the F-16C rather than the F-16A: the first delivery of a Mirage 2000 to a foreign country occured in 1985 (to India) whereas the first delivery of a F-16C occured in 1986 (to South Korea). Therefore, I do not deem that the BVRAAM capacity was an advantage of the Mirage 2000.
About A2G missions, I have never meant that the F-16 had a better avionics (actually, the Mirage 2000 avionics is more comprehensive) or a really better armament, I just wanted to set that the Viper simply possesses a better-suited airframe, i.e. longer range and heavier payload.

Then, I do not think that most airforces preferred the Viper because it was merely BETTER, but primarily because it was CHEAPER. IF France could sell Mirage 2000 the price of a Viper, I guess that many more countries would have bought Mirage 2000s.

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 22:20
by Pat1
Thanks Wildcat and CheckSix

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 22:26
by ACSheva
Hey what about me bro?

:oops:

Shev

Re: F-16 vs Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2005, 10:09
by Pumpkin
Wildcat wrote:Actually, only the Mirage 2000N and the Mirage 2000D possess a terrain-following-capable radar, but these are two-seat mud-moving versions, with little AA ability (they can only fire Magic II infrared missiles). They are supposed to protect themselves by speed, very low flying and ECM.
On the contrary, the multirole versions, i.e. Mirage 2000C, Mirage 2000E (same for export) Mirage 2000-5 and 2000-9 have no TFR (or something comparable to the LANTIRN system), so that I cannot figure out why a AA-capable Mirage 2000 would be at advantage over a Viper in a high threat scenario.


hi Wildcat, the Mirage TF capable is new to me. Do the mentioned Thales(Thomson-CSF) Antilope 5 and 50, have both FCR + TFR features in one radar?

Thanks,

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2005, 13:51
by Wildcat
Absolutely :D , the Antilope 5 and Antilope 50 possess six different modes (I translate from French):
Terrain Following (suivi de terrain), the radar sees up to 7 nm in front of the plane, allowing a 600kt speed at 200ft
Ground Mapping (cartographie), enables two submodes: VISUSOL gives a 160° (+/- 80°) map with 1/250,000 or 1/1,000,000 scales, while RESOL enables to magnify a part of the map from 2 to 50 times
Terrain Following + Ground Mapping (mode entrelacé)
Ground Target Ranging (télémétrie), effective range 8nm
Air-to-air (air-air), range 16nm, 160° wide sweeping, BoreSight and Slew submodes possible
Air-to-sea (air-surface), comparable to Ground Mapping

The ranges and resolutions I gave are the offical ones for the Antilope 5 released by the Armée de l'Air in a 1992 book. Notice that the avionics of the Mirage 2000D and 2000N are constantly improved, so that the actual figures may be better now.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2005, 18:06
by Pumpkin
Thanks Wildcat! The info is not very readily available on the net. :?

out,

Re: RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2005, 06:49
by Pat1
ACSheva wrote:Hey what about me bro?

:oops:

Shev

¡¡THANKS Shev!!, sorry I missed you :oops:.

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2005, 13:12
by Wildcat
Here are two picture to help understand what I wrote about the Mirage 2000 loading. See: the Mirage 2000 has only three hardpoints under which to carry heavy stores (whereas the Viper has four), i.e. two under the wings and one central. The two wing hardpoints usually carrying tanks for air-to-ground missions, that only leaves the central hardpoint to carry a heavy armament. The other four belly hardpoints can only carry one MICA each (2000-5 and 2000-9 only) or one Mk-82 class bomb, and the two outer wing pylons usually carry IR missiles. Actually, the Mirage 2000D and 2000N are most commonly fitted with the two 2000l wing tanks and two IR missile pylons, whatever the mission.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2005, 23:37
by Pumpkin
Wildcat cool pic! Care to ID the white, TGP looking pod on the starboard pylon?

Thanks,

PS: I have a same question about French's TGP in this thread. Appreciate if you can shed some light.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 01:41
by Fantasma337
Wildcat wrote:Greece, but when they ordered Mirage 2000s they had just been accepted in the European Union. I think buying Mirage 2000s was a way to get closer to France at the time. (Exocet missiles may have been part of the explanation too, though).


The reasons that Greece bought the Mirage 2000 were many, mainly political but also operational...

HAF (PA) was very impressed with the Mirage F.1CG, (as were the THK pilots that were intercepted by it), the Reagan administration was not very warm towards the socialist goverment of Greece and amidst the cold war there were fears of an unofficial embargo that would ground the HAF main assets, especially in a crisis with Turkey... And also intercepting THK F-16s with an unknown to them fighter was a big factor... Certainly it was an expensive but worth while choice... All in all the M2K has proven its value and with the MICA armed M2K-5 Mk.IIs entering service by the end of the year the mistake of not ordering more M2ks will be set right...

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 11:31
by Wildcat
Nice information, Fantasma337! :D If you know more about Greek Mirage 2000, fell free to post it.
Pumpkin, the pod carried by the Mirage 2000 is a PDLCT (or a PDLCT-S, I can't be sure). PDLCT means pod de désignation à Contrôle Thermique, that-is-to-say Thermal Targeting Pod. As far as I know, this pod, which was the successor of the ATLIS II, wass only fitted on Mirage 2000. It is on sale for export but it seems that it is only used by the Armée de l'air on Mirage 2000D and Mirage 2000N. Anyway, Thales now rather tries to sell the more modern Damoclès pod.

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 11:43
by Wildcat
Here are other pictures of Mirage 2000N with PDLCT pods:

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 12:44
by CheckSix
M2k loadout has been broadly discussed, but what is a combat payload of F-16. Mostly their A2G weapons are 2 small bombs or 2 harms.

If these numbers are correct:
http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

Dassault has done their job extremely well. Look at the acceleration tables!
Despite its weaker engine, M2k accelerates significantly faster than F-16.

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 18:47
by Pumpkin
Thanks for the responses, Wildcat.

sorry Fantasma337, if I may ask, why the purchase of 52+ but not more Mirage then?

CheckSix wrote:M2k loadout has been broadly discussed, but what is a combat payload of F-16. Mostly their A2G weapons are 2 small bombs or 2 harms.


2 small bombs... :shock: ? {EDIT} GBU-15, Spice..etc


IDFAF F-16A/B with 2x GBU-15 EO guided bombs, and an AXQ-14 Data Link pod [USAF photo]

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 10:27
by Fantasma337
The reason is mainly political but that does not mean the B 52+ is not an exceptional system... The main drawback of teh Greek defence procurement is that there is lack of long term planning and that means the fighter purchases are random and subject to financial (FMS) and political factors... There were plans for more M2Ks that never materialised until 1999-2000 when the -5MkIIs were ordered...

HAF photos, including F-16s and M2Ks can be seen here:

http://hafcphotos.cs.net/

Mirage2000H was used successfully at very high altitudes.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 20:41
by bull
The mild winter in Jammu and Kashmir during 1998 enabled Pakistani Army Regulars and Mercenaries to infiltrate, and set up camps on the Indian Side of the Line of Control (L-O-C). The build of forces, unknown to Indian Authorities at the time was to have a major impact on the Indian Air Force (IAF) the following year as it fought to dislodge the enemy.

The battle was to take place over some of the highest terrain in the world, where aircraft and weapons were limited in their effectiveness. Conventional targets like airfields, command and control centre and convoys did not exist. Instead the IAF were to be confronted with tents and fortified bunkers, the single biggest structure being a hangar capable of taking a helicopter. The advance along the LOC was eventually to penetrate up to 10 kms in some areas along a line 200 kms long. All the ridges in the area were off shoots of K2 (8611 metres); the world’s second tallest mountain or Nanga Parbat (8126 metres); both located on the Pakistan side. Because of the climatic conditions and wind directions, a large number of features are shear cliffs on the Indian Side with gradual gradients on the other. Heights varied along the line, with a low of 2700 metres at Kargil, going up to 3400 metres in Dras and Tiger Hill being at 5000 metres. The area had no habitation and was covered in snow for most of the year. Strategically the area could not be used as a launch pad for a major offensive, its sole importance being the heights and the threat to National Highway 1A.

The IAF were limited in what they could use at such a demanding altitude. Attack helicopters were initially preferred with Mil-17’s being employed. However due to the abundance of man portable SAM’s, such as the Stingers, their effective operation was not possible due to the hostile flying environment. Therefore the IAF decided after experience that high altitude bombing by fighter aircraft and in particular the Mirage 2000, was the best option
To fully understand the role played by the Mirage 2000 during ‘Operation Vijay’ and the sterling work performed by pilots and support staff; we need to go back in time. The IAF ordered 42 single seat and 7 dual seat Mirage 2000 aircraft, that were delivered starting in 1985. Two squadrons, numbers 1 ‘Tigers’ and 7 ‘Battleaxes’, at Gwalior, operate the fleet. For 14 years they have been highly regarded in the IAF, being a stable weapons platform and having a good safety record. The Kargil Conflict was to push that high esteem to even greater heights
The Mirage 2000 were supplied with Thomson-CSF Laser Designator Pod, known as ‘ATLIS’ which was capable of delivery of Matra 1000 kg LGBs, which were purpose built for destruction of reinforced targets. These weapons were highly capable but were very expensive. It was decided to augment their capability by adding the 1000 lb bomb coupled with Paveway II laser-guided bomb kit. The IAF had ordered a number of these, but they had been supplied with an incorrect part. Because of the nuclear test performed by India, they were on the embargo list and were unable to get the correct parts sent as replacements. Consequently IAF technicians had to remanufacture this part in order to make the Paveway serviceable for use on the Mirage.

Another event was to take place during May that was to have a major impact on the work going on at Gwalior. On the 9th May, Pakistani Shelling along the Line of Control intensified and appeared to be more accurate in it’s spread. This began to threaten the strategically important National Highway 1A, which ran from Srinagar to Leh, and which was only open from May until October because of the weather. It became apparent that artillery spotters were entrenched along the peaks on the Indian Side of the L-O-C. Initially the Indian Army suffered badly due to the terrain and having to attack well dug in defenders up the high peaks. The Army Chief on the 26th formally requested IAF Support after losses had started racking up to un-acceptable levels.

The IAF had up until that time only flown photo-recon missions. This had resulted in a Canberra from 106 squadron being hit by a Stinger Missile on the 21st whilst over Batalik. Luckily the aircraft was able to make a safe recovery to Srinagar and PR missions were subsequently flown at higher altitude by Mig25RBT’s from 102 squadron.

Following the commitment of combat resources by the IAF, initial operations involved low level air strikes in the Tololing Sector using Mil-17’s and fighters, such as the MiG-21, 23 and 27. Strikes using these jet fighters were to continue throughout the duration of the war. During these operations two fighters were lost on the 27th May and one Mil 17 was lost on the 28th. The loss of the Mil 17 and its four crew proved to be a turning point in IAF thinking. The aircraft was on standby for an attack mission to Tololing and did not have adequate self-protection in the form of chaff and flares. However a helicopter with protection aborted its mission and as a result 4 crew were killed when the Mil-17 was attacked by 3 Stingers. Immediately the IAF decided to re-assess the situation. Of the attack helicopters only the Mil-17 could operate at this altitude, the Mil-35 could not. However the environment was awash with man portable SAM’s and deemed too hostile to commit further helicopter resources. Planners at IAF HQ began to re-think their offensive strategy. They thought about committing the Mirage 2000 to the conflict to augment the other jet fighters. This aircraft could operate at this altitude with no problem, but it had no high altitude attack capability.

On the 30th May, IAF HQ decided to commit the aircraft, which had already moved to forward operating location in their air defence role, to the offensive. Now the work of the back room staff and pilots was to intensify greatly. The status as of early June was that aircraft, pilots and technicians were spread around at Western Air Command bases and Gwalior. The Mirage 2000 aircraft itself had always been regarded as an air defence fighter with a limited ground attack capability. Consequently it lacked certain resources such as bombs, hardpoint pylons, tooling, testers and ground crew experience in such matters. A big push was instigated at Gwalior to get the platform prepared. By the 12th June, the IAF Personnel had ironed out most of the faults.

Enough equipment was found to make twelve aircraft at any given time, capable of delivering bombs. However bombs were not readily available to suit, so a search was made of the IAF Inventory. Vintage 250kg bombs from the 1970’s that were made in Spain for the HAL Ajeet aircraft and had been in storage were found and made available. A one off trial was carried out from Jaisalmer over the Porkoran Range on the 1st June and was deemed to be successful. They were immediately rushed into service with the Mirages of 7 Squadron. Initial missions were flown using dumb bombs only. Each aircraft would be configured with 12 bombs, 1 ventral fuel tank and 2 ‘MAGIC-2’ Air to Air Missiles. The mission would depart and meet up with fighter escorts from 1 Squadron, and then fly into the Indian Side of Jammu and Kashmir, with Mig29’s operating as top cover. The attacks took place initially on Point 5140 near Tololing in the Dras Sector and 4 strikes took place over 3 days. The Indian Army re-took this position on the 20th June after fighting in tandem with continuous IAF Strikes.

Notable amongst 7 Squadrons approximate 200 plus attack missions were the airstrikes on Muntho Dhalo, Tiger Hill and Point 4388 in the Drass Sector. On the 16th June, the major enemy supply depot at Muntho Dhalo in the Batalik Sector was sighted by a Mirage on the LDP. The following day this was hit and destroyed by aircraft from 7 Squadron using dumb bombs. This camp was the major re-supply base in the Batalik Sector and this devastating attack left over 100 dead and 50 structures destroyed.

On June 24th, the Enemy Battalion HQ on Tiger Hill top was hit by two Mirage 2000 employing the ‘PAVEWAY’ Laser Guided Bomb (LGB). This was the first operational use on an LGB by the IAF. In another mission on the same day Mirages stuck the same target using dumb bombs. This strike proved to be particularly effective causing severe damage to the enemy. It also gave Indian Army Troops watching from nearby a tremendous morale boost. This mission was witnessed by ACM Tipnis, then officer commanding IAF, who was flying backseat in a another Mirage 2000TH. An IAF spokesperson said at a press conference on the 25th that, ‘ New weapons delivery techniques had been developed by Western Air Command, that had proved very accurate and had caused considerable damage to the enemy positions. They had been effective in achieving the desired results.’ Attacks continued on Tiger Hill, which was heavily defended with man portable Stinger Missiles for several days, during the day and night. After continuous air attacks, the Indian Army recaptured Tiger Hill on the 4th July after an 11-hour night battle.

On the 4th July a strike with dumb bombs was made for the first time on gun positions and a supply camp at Point 4388 in the Dras Sector. These attacks proved to be highly successful and culminated in a serious degradation of the enemy supply chain. The series of attacks on Point 4388 was an excellent example of how lethal airstrikes combined with good recon detected the enemy plans to shift to alternative supply routes, which were then attacked strangling their supply arteries. Follow up attacks were made by Mirages on the 6th July, four aircraft dropping twenty four dumb bombs and on the 10th July, three aircraft dropping fifteen dumb bombs. These attacks broke the enemy resistance and because of the high casualty rate amongst officers, seriously degraded their command and control leading to the overrunning of their position by the Indian Army. In fact by the 9th July the Indian Army had recaptured 99% of the Batalik Sector and 90% of the Dras Sector.

A typical bombing mission would involve 4 Mirages from 7 Squadron loaded with dumb bombs leaving a base in Punjab together with a two seat Mirage loaded with a LGB and Laser Designating pod. This 5 ship would rendezvous with 3 aircraft of 1 Squadron carrying Beyond Visual Range Weapons (Super 530D), operating out of another base. This rendezvous point would change on a mission to mission basis and once joined up, one escort aircraft would return. Once over Jammu and Kashmir they would be joined by Mig29’s giving top cover. These only had 20-minute duration in the area and would usually be supplemented by another pair. Over the target the Mirages with the dumb bombs would visually acquire the target and drop their bombs. The two seater, which would be filming the whole affair from behind, would only use the LGB if required to do so. Only 9 LGB’s were dropped during the whole war, 8 by the Mirage fleet and one by a Jaguar. Normal procedure employed during the dumb bomb attacks was for the aircraft to commence a dive at about 30,000 feet and designate the target at 15 kms distance. At 8 kms distance anything from 6 to 12 bombs would be despatched towards the target. Procedure for a LGB attack would differ in that the target would be acquired at 20 kms distance, designation would occur at 15 kms with release of the weapon at 8.5 kms. The LGB would travel towards the target and the Mirage would turn away still illuminating the target and at point of impact it would be 6 kms away.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 22:03
by Pumpkin
Fantasma337 wrote:The reason is mainly political but that does not mean the B 52+ is not an exceptional system... The main drawback of teh Greek defence procurement is that there is lack of long term planning and that means the fighter purchases are random and subject to financial (FMS) and political factors... There were plans for more M2Ks that never materialised until 1999-2000 when the -5MkIIs were ordered...

HAF photos, including F-16s and M2Ks can be seen here:

http://hafcphotos.cs.net/



Thanks again Fantasma337, the photos are cool.!

It is truly a pity if desired platform was shot down by political ground.

I guess it is not a just statement to make, (again due to politcial factors), but among the Viper operators who also operate the Mirage (UAEAF, ROCAF, HAF), I'm seeing the Viper as their main fighting force and Mirage as the complement. Please correct me if the statement is wrong.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 00:59
by ACSheva
One thing I dont get is why the rear view on the Mirages is so poor. Does any body know the reason for that type of design?

Shev

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 07:56
by pilot71
One remark regarding the Greek Mirage 2000s. During the first order of 40 Mirage 2000 EG/BG the reception of HAF was stopped due to RDM problems (1989).

When the problems where solved (partially?? Who knows..) the aircrafts where accepted by HAF. Now the acceptance of the 15 new Mirage 2000-5 MK2 has been postponed due to ICMS EW problems.

On the contrary, the delivery of F-16s (3 orders 1989, 1997, 2004) was done without problems. I guess this is one of the reasons why HAF prefers F-16 more than Mirage 2000.

In any case we are looking forward for the first dissimilar (BVR+dogfight) engagements over Aegean between F-16 block52+ vs Mirage 2000-5 MK2 by the end of 2005...

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 12:04
by Wildcat
ACSheva wrote:
One thing I dont get is why the rear view on the Mirages is so poor. Does any body know the reason for that type of design?

First, the rear view on the Mirage 2000 is not "so poor". True, there is nothing like the view a Viper pilot can get. Nonetheless, the back of the Mirage 2000 is quite thin, so that the rear view is not as much hampered as you may imagine (remember that, on any aircraft, you cannot look through the pilot seat...). I will try to find pics of rear view on Mirage 2000 as soon as I can to show that.
And what about not having a bubble canopy like the Viper? Because of aerodynamics: the Mirage 2000 was built like an arrow. A bubble canopy would have reduced the maximum speed of the Mirage 2000.

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2005, 04:41
by Fantasma337
Pilot 71 ( Antwnh?) as you will remember teh designation EGM stands for Modified, after the clutter problems in look down mode of te RDM were adressed... Even the AdlA did not accept the RDM and the last software glitches of the -5 Mk.II's hopefully will be gone soon... The reluctance of the HAF to accept a system that meets less than 100% of te specificationbs is a result of the EG paradigm and this was demonstrated in teh PI2000 AUP program as well... 8 days ago the first upgraded EGM --> -5 Mk.II made its first flight in Tanagra, so things are moving well...

F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2005, 12:35
by Wildcat
About the RDM: Actually, the Armée de l'Air should never have used RDM radars on its Mirage 2000, but the intended radar, i.e. the RDI, encountered development delaying. Therefore the Armée de l'Air had no choice and its first Mirage 2000C were equipped with RDM instead of RDI, even if it was not a satisfying solution. Notice that, at the time (I'm not sure it changed, though), our RDM Mirage 2000 could only fire Super 530F and not Super 530D, contrary to the export models, because the proper illuminator was not fitted.

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2005, 13:35
by pilot71
Fantasma 337, thanks for the info about the progress of upgraded M2000s. Taking under consideration that the Greek M2000-5 MK2 will not be equiped with Topsight, I do not believe that will have any chance against F-16 block52+ or Turkish CCIP F-16s (after two years) in dogfight.. JHMCS with IRIS-T or AIM9X make the diffirence..

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 02:48
by Fantasma337
In wvr combat yes, in bvr no since the MICA/ER :cheers: is the new factor in the equation... :crazypilot:

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 02:55
by kacman
Nice picture! The SPC of the Mirage is really awesome. It spoof any BVR be it active or semi-active till the point of merge. There was this big x cross on the HUD prevented the missile from being launched. But 9x, ASRAAM, Python 5, Iris-t and latest archer may solved the SPJ issue, since they can be considered an BVR as well (max theoretical range 15-25 nm against hot aspect target).

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 03:55
by ACSheva
Nahhhh man,

the back view on the Mirage is still pretty crappy for a pretty new jet. Its almost like a Mig 27 type thing. The pilot gotta have a hard time, when some guy is parked on his 6.


:cheers:

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2005, 16:37
by ApolloFS
The -5 is an exceptional aircraft in every way, and in the hands of the right customer, it can play havoc with Vipers. In the case of the ROCAF, their electronic suites, RDY radar and BVR capability will be very well employed against PLAAF J-10s/J-11s.

In the case of the HAF and especially its pilots, I believe that the TuAF Block 30/40/50 fleet amred with mostly AIM-120As and Bs, and very few of them at that, will have a very hard time against the Dassault squadrons.

In the case of equally skilled HAF M2000-5 Vs F-16C Blk 52+ pilots, I think we'd be in for a very close match. The -5s would operate better at higher alts and optimize their RDY and probably superior ICMS2K suites to full effect against the 52+s long-stick AIM-120C5s. In short, the BVR arena is likely to be won by the -5s, due to kinematic advantages, more powerful EW systems, better AA radar and shorter ranged, but more lethal AA missiles. This would definately not be a consinstent thing though-the +52 will very much hold its own in BVR as well.

Approaching the merge, the JHMCS/IRIS-T combination should kill anything that flies. Period.

Generally, maneuvering wise, the M2Ks operate better at high altitude and have a sharper and faster instantenous turn rate which can be exploited for a quick shot. Mirage-2000Cs have definately made of that + the Mica's off boresight capability to good effect.

I think the latest offerings from both Dassault + Lockheed are very equally matched, each with its own strong points.

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2005, 18:01
by lamoey
Read an article in the magazine "Illustrated Aircraft" from March 2005 where a HAF MIRA 330 squadron commander states the following:

"I'm very satisfied with the F-16 - in fact, I love it. In particular I love the Block 30."

He also states about the Mirage 2000 used mainly for Air to Air:

"It's an effective fighter, which the f-16 can't beat in a dogfight."

He ends by saying:

"The F-16 is much better multi-roll combat jet... it really is the complete package..."

To me this captures it in a nutshell.

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2005, 21:55
by cobrachen
Pumpkin wrote:I guess it is not a just statement to make, (again due to politcial factors), but among the Viper operators who also operate the Mirage (UAEAF, ROCAF, HAF), I'm seeing the Viper as their main fighting force and Mirage as the complement. Please correct me if the statement is wrong.

cheers,


In ROCAF, Mirage 2000 took over the missions F-104 used to do: high altitude/high speed intercept and they are deployed at the airfield closet to China on the Taiwan island. Also, ROCAF only purchased A2A and E-Int equipments for Mirage 2000. So it's pure A2A aircraft for ROCAF for sure.

F-16 is also the first line and more versatile to ROCAF, especially A2G and Reconn missions.

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2005, 08:16
by Pumpkin
cobrachen wrote:In ROCAF, Mirage 2000 took over the missions F-104 used to do: high altitude/high speed intercept and they are deployed at the airfield closet to China on the Taiwan island. Also, ROCAF only purchased A2A and E-Int equipments for Mirage 2000. So it's pure A2A aircraft for ROCAF for sure.

F-16 is also the first line and more versatile to ROCAF, especially A2G and Reconn missions.


Thanks for the info, cobrachen (a Chinese nick, I gather? :wink: ),

I guess another reason why the ROCAF Mirage 2000 are taking the front-line, interceptor role is because they were equipped with MICA much earlier when the F-16 were only carrying the AIM-7. And Mirage would have already achieved FOC with the MICA when the AIM-120 arrived.

cheers,

PS : May I ask, what is the E-Int equipment, you have mentioned?

Re: RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2005, 07:12
by duplex
pilot71 wrote:Fantasma 337, thanks for the info about the progress of upgraded M2000s. Taking under consideration that the Greek M2000-5 MK2 will not be equiped with Topsight, I do not believe that will have any chance against F-16 block52+ or Turkish CCIP F-16s (after two years) in dogfight.. JHMCS with IRIS-T or AIM9X make the diffirence..



Turks and Greeks are engaged in competitive dogfights over the aegean sea since more than 10 years....I know since I am from Turkey that the Greeks are deploying more and more F-16 's to intercept the Turkish F-16's and no more M2000. The Turkish fighting falcons have been outperforming the Greek M2000's all the time..

Re: RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2005, 21:35
by blain2
duplex wrote:
pilot71 wrote:Fantasma 337, thanks for the info about the progress of upgraded M2000s. Taking under consideration that the Greek M2000-5 MK2 will not be equiped with Topsight, I do not believe that will have any chance against F-16 block52+ or Turkish CCIP F-16s (after two years) in dogfight.. JHMCS with IRIS-T or AIM9X make the diffirence..



Turks and Greeks are engaged in competitive dogfights over the aegean sea since more than 10 years....I know since I am from Turkey that the Greeks are deploying more and more F-16 's to intercept the Turkish F-16's and no more M2000. The Turkish fighting falcons have been outperforming the Greek M2000's all the time..


I think since the Turks have set up their ACMI range, their skills have improved considerably on the F-16s and that may have something to do with the fact that they are able to exploit the vipers' capability maybe more than what the Greeks have been able to do with their M2Ks. Not sure what the Greeks are upto?...although I must admit that from a standpoint of hardware, the Greeks have some really good stuff on hand.

RE: Re: RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2005, 07:50
by Predator
The -5 is a very capable aircraft and will be in action with HAF very soon. Furthermore, the problems with them are going to be past! I'm sure that Turks will find a very good and ''dangerous'' component in Aegean! Be sure!

RE: Re: RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2005, 08:45
by Jeff
Predator, while I understand your patriotic enthusiasm, please refrain from political statements.

RE: Re: RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2005, 12:53
by Predator
While you say that you understand my patriotic enthousiasm, there is no reason to tell me this, my friend! I'm here because off my love for F-16 not to cause ''national'' problems between Turkey and Greece! :)

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2005, 22:56
by Fantasma337
Hey Lamoey, do you have a link or can provide a scan maybe by pm? TIA!

Predator, this is for you! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2005, 22:23
by Northax
What happens when the F-16 has the same payload as the Mirage though? Compare the thrust-to-weight ratio then? To be fair. You can compare two jets, but maybe one is used more for one role (A2A), and the other jet is used for another (A2G). Now, what if both jets carried the same amount of bombs, which would be better? Is what should looked into.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2005, 19:17
by kovamaniac
As far as the M2000 vs F-16 comparison is concerned, I should add something totally practical which comes from daily usage of both types in HAF. What I want to say is generally that when a HAF M2000 wants to engage a Viper, it leads the Viper at low altitude where the M2000 connot be beaten in any way.I haven't seen yet any aircraft-apart from Su-27 family,which is, for me, the best aircraft ever built-that can achieve "Kill Hour" on a M2000 below 6-7,000 ft no matter the aspect between them. Ok? I have nothing else to add,as Fantasma337 -ask him about F-4E, I think no one else knows more about this aircraft- and the other Greek friends covered me and gave you a very clear picture about the M2000.

PS: I should mention that this is not a thread talking about HAF and TuAF or Greeks' and Turks' politics.

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2006, 19:06
by duplex
Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?


<<To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. >>

This true.

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

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.
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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2006, 12:10
by toan
To Mr.Duplex:

According to your experience, is the scenario of MIRAGE2000-5 MKII versus F-16 C/D BLOCK52 quite different from the scenario of MIRAGE2000-5 MKII versus F-16 C/D BLOCK30/40, since the T/W ratio and thrust of C/D BLOCK 52 should be much more than C/D BLOCK 30/40????

Does the HAF still prepare to introduce Eurofighter or not???

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2006, 13:12
by boff180
thats not known toan; they recently turned down the option for more F-16s... they originally cancelled there order for 90 typhoons citing the cost of running the olympics and ordered 30 f-16 with 10 options....

Now they have turned down the 10 options and are going to announce next month a new fighter competition for 60 aircraft... the Typhoon is the favourite with Rafale running a close second at the moment.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2006, 06:41
by duplex
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... urpg-1.cms

HAF seems not to be the only one who prefers M2000 over Viper.IMO Rafale will win over Typhoon in Greece..The Greeks have traditionally excellent relations with French and Dassault is desperate to find an export market for Rafale and may offer very very favorable terms..

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2006, 02:41
by MILITIS
My dad actually fought some Jordani M2000 both times they bled off airspeed extremely fast wich ultimatly cost them the fight. The Mirage is a good head on fighter but in a furball it has difficulty.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 00:32
by Corous
duplex wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1455855,curpg-1.cms

HAF seems not to be the only one who prefers M2000 over Viper.IMO Rafale will win over Typhoon in Greece..The Greeks have traditionally excellent relations with French and Dassault is desperate to find an export market for Rafale and may offer very very favorable terms..


very very favorable terms, eh? i want 0 down, 0% APR, no payment til 2020. :D

Back to the topic, the Mirage2000 can carry 6 BVRAAMs + 2 WVRAAMs IIRC. So it's a draw in an engagement with a Viper, assuming that the MICA is comparable to the AMRAAM.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 06:54
by boff180
The MICA is comparable, however current French radars compared to other European and US radars are quite... well... PANTS!

Andy

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 10:03
by RoAF
MILITIS wrote:
My dad actually fought some Jordani M2000 both times they bled off airspeed extremely fast wich ultimatly cost them the fight. The Mirage is a good head on fighter but in a furball it has difficulty.

Maybe he fought them in a computer game. Jordan NEVER HAD ANY Mirage 2000, only some Mirage F1, a totally different bird.

Corous wrote:
Back to the topic, the Mirage2000 can carry 6 BVRAAMs + 2 WVRAAMs IIRC. So it's a draw in an engagement with a Viper, assuming that the MICA is comparable to the AMRAAM.

Not quite exact. The M 2000 can carry max. 4 MICA (usually RF version) under the fuselage, 2 Magic II or MICA IR on the outer wing pylons ant 3 fuel tanks (inboards and centerline).

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 16:00
by boff180
inboards can also carry super530 alongside mica.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 16:08
by RoAF
inboards can also carry super530 alongside mica.

Yes, it can be done (technically). But it's not practical for a combat configuration. If you launch all 4 Micas first, wait for the result, by the time you merge (if you merge) you've got two draggy and useless missiles for WWR combat. On the other hand, if you fire the Super 530 first you have to guide them all the way and if they miss you won't have enough time to set up a Mica shot.

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 20:02
by Corous
RoAF wrote:Not quite exact. The M 2000 can carry max. 4 MICA (usually RF version) under the fuselage, 2 Magic II or MICA IR on the outer wing pylons ant 3 fuel tanks (inboards and centerline).


I IDed the missile in this picture as MICAs but I could be wrong...

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 20:06
by RoAF
That's the Super 530. For Mica see this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0362563/L/
Mica has the same shape as the Super 530, but it's much thinner.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2007, 18:46
by velos35
In numbers the two fighters seem to be equal.The mirage has a slight advantage in instanteneous turn rate,slighlty smaller turn radius,corner velocity and a better nose authority at low airspeeds.If the fight stays high altitude/slow the M2k has the advantage.M2k pilots seek for one circle fight to take advantage of theis small radius in a high aspect encounter to get a quick shot.The viper has a much better radar, better acceleration,sustained turn rate,better rate of climb and at low altitude it is very hard to deal with (the aircraft seems to be out of control due to AB thrust power).The magic missile is superior to the Aim-9l/m.In a high aspect fight the viper must maintain the airspeed high (300knots) and search for the two circle fight.In BVR the F16 is suprior n many ways (radar,Aim-120,rate of climb/acceleration)

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2007, 15:31
by tod
this is a mirage 2000 vs F16 video from the HAF.

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/en52/1456/

enjoy!

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2007, 15:40
by tod
in the bvr arena i must disagree with you velos. the result of the first encounter between f16 and the dash five was stunning. 40 victories for only one loss for the m2k-5 with mica.

this a pdf relating about this event. it is quite clear about the rdy and mica combination superiority.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2007, 17:27
by velos35
Not doubt about that Tod.Thanks fot the pdf (i wish i could read it!!,my french are not so good).I was talking for the M-2k with semi active missiles M-2000E not the -5 which is much better,thanks!

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2007, 00:32
by Cad
the mica is a good missile but it`s not realy~ fire and forget~ because just like AMRAAM u are firing against a position in wich the computer predicts that a fighter would be by the time the seeker goes active ( infrared or active radar ). if the target pulls a tight turn before the seeker goes active the missile would have a hard time finding the target...
without datalink between the missiles and the firing aircraft long range shots are risky.

You are left with 2 choices :
1. keep tracking the targes(all four..) just like THE sparrow for the IR verSION OF MICA
2. launch the missiles in seeker range.(very dangerous task since by now the target has allredy fired)

There are some advantages also:
1. the target does not know that a missiles is incoming until very late.
2. if the target has fired a missile against you the sound of mica going active on his radar warrning sistem would make him defensive and lose the lock he has on your aircraft.( very efective against SPARROW: and Amraam during the AIM-120 inertial flight )
3. a Mica with infrared seeker fired behind a target would not trigger his RWS so if the pilot does not see the missile, his dead.

That pdf sounds more like popular science to me ...

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2007, 22:12
by Orkun
These are Mirages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DykVRKOk2BY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyqq7lMyTnI

... as usually locked by F-16s over the Aegean sea

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2007, 09:46
by Pilotasso
Thats a curious article. It mentions how the MICA is superior to the super 530 because one mirage can shoot 6 target but they forget that one F-16 MLU (the article mentions other types with no BVR capability as well) has 6 on 6 AMRAAM capability as well. And the AMRAAM has more range than the MICA.

What I do believe is that the french pilots were better trained/smarter at BVR tactics. Exercises usualy are scripted and have different ROEs than real combat. All F-16 debriefs and accounts I had ever whitnessed were about WVR BFM missions with Mig-21/23 and 29's in mind. I keep telling every time I have a chance to speak with anyone in the AF that one has BVR today, and BVR lets you get a better chance of having the uper hand by the time of the merge (tacticaly speaking, not just by inflicted casualties) and today you should expect Mig-35's and Su-30's as oponents and not some Mig-21 with heaters.

F-16 operators in europe to my judgement are training with early 90's dogfighting doctrines in mind.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2007, 18:00
by Cad
Orkun wrote:How you didn't see Mirage funnel?

I'm sorry my English is bad.


During the first clip the Turkish pilot it`s trying to get the mirage in the gun-sight (funnel).

The distance between the funnel lines is aprox 15 m so a closer target should stay in the upper part of the funnel and a distant target in the lower part of the funnel.

The mirage was in the HUD but not in the funnel (upper or lower)
at the and of the clip the mirage is passing trough the funnel but only for 0.2sec or so ( not enough for a secure shoot)

Maybe you can translate the second clip cause it`s in Turkish and I did not understand it....

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2007, 21:43
by art8492
orkun,

No greek mirage 2000 was shot down by an F-16. it was an older mirage F1.

Conversely a Turkish F-16 piloted by an israeli pilot was shot down by a mirage 2000.

A nice video where many turkish F-16s are locked by Greek Mirage 2000 (this one is much more obvious): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpmwjdcGCG0

There is a greek mirage 2000 pilot called duplex who wrote on this thread page 4. this is what he wrote when responding to someone. Basically M2k is a better dogfigther and superority aircraft but inferior multirole aircraft.

Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?

<<To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful. >>

This true.

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

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.
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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2007, 00:53
by Cad
I guess any pilot would say that his jet is best but as for the multi-role issue: block 30 and 40 Falcons did not use AFM-84 Harpoon missiles.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2007, 19:53
by art8492
I am sure there are some great turkish pilots like in every airforces, but your comments prove that you lack some maturity. I suspect that you are still young, but try to discuss in a constructive way. there is no need to be agressive.

Saying that turkish's (or any other countries') pilots are the best in the world is nonsens. Perhaps they scored well in red flag once or two, but every country have there own share of good scores in international exercises. It just prove that turkish pilots are well trained, but not "the best".

a greek will tell that they own turkish and the turkish the other story. Stupid.
I noticed on many board that turkish can be very nationalistic...Maybe because this is a proud people? :wink:

I stick to duplex point of view which is very balanced, and very good when you know that greek air force operate both types of aircraft.

About the mirage who crashed into the agean it was a mirage f1. (I read an article about this event). An f16 was shot down by a mirage 2000. (perhaps you can remind me the year of the two events, I don't remember it??)

ps: I am not greek

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2007, 10:28
by Pilotasso
This cold war between greece and turkey is a disgrace. Everytime I see these kind of comments makes me wish they could see how silly this is. Even more when both countries were better off spending all those billions in their development rather than for oversized airforces.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2007, 18:20
by Cad
Pilotasso wrote:This cold war between Greece and turkey is a disgrace. Everytime I see these kind of comments makes me wish they could see how silly this is. Even more when both countries were better off spending all those billions in their development rather than for over-sized airforces.


When you say oversize you should consider that during cold war turkey should defend against URSS, SIRIA, IRAK, IRAN, NOT MENTIONING GREECE AT ALL.

As for greece, bulgaria might have been a treath during the 80 but most of her airbases are located close to the Aegeen.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2007, 18:57
by nomad
And to post a reply about the topic subject from the aspect of Greece...

Both F-16 and M2000 were bought by Greece in the middle 80 's. It was an absolutely strange decision if you think of the small number of aircrafts (40+40)

But the there is an explanation about that. At the 70 's Greek air force had a great advantage at the territory due to the different type of aircraft: F-4 (long range-BVR) A7 (great bomber) Mirage F1 (superior in dogfights). That is the way that HAF believed that had to move in the new 3 gen aircrafts. Both aircrafts would operate together. Each one has advantage and disadvantage in some areas. So why not putting them work together... the combination was great.

But things didn t get absolutely that way and the reason was only one: The STUPID FRENCH MARKETING.

When there was a chance of extra plane orders the French did anything possible to loose a future order -Greece want to upgrade the mirage? Ok if you want to upgrade them pay the upgrade as much as you paid for the whole aircraft (a rumor said that their first price was between 30 to 35 mill.)
- You want to buy new M2000-5. Pay 10-20% more than an F-16

Pretty obvious why Greece put a direct order for the Eurofighter and skipped a comparison with the Rafale.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2007, 20:19
by Cad
Hmm...

The Greece mirage-2000 was ordered in 1985...in service probably by 1988
block 30 f-16 were ordered in 1987 and delivered between 1988-1989
let's count them as cold war legacy and don't go much in details...
turkey receives his first F-16 block_30 in 1987 and the last in 1990.
by the end of the cold war era Greece has 80 modern jets and turkey 44 witch were build in turkey...

By 1990 URSS AND BULGARIA are no longer a treat to TURKEY but iran, irak, siria are ...obvious 44 jets is not enough for such a big country.
another 117 jets are build between 1990-19995 ( golf war 1 just happens to be in that time frame)

Egypt received a similar number during the same period to replace his soviet air-fleet.
:beer:

With the block 50 you REALLY start going overbord.....but what the hell : Saudi Arabia, Kuweit and the Emirates are paying the bill :cheers:
Greece is ordering block 50 of there own and it`s Paying for them ...
uncle Sam is very happy to deliver these jets ( 1 month before the schedule) but it`s very clear by now what these jets are for...

I would not go over the following orders (numbers are similar for both sides) attrition could play role here but I doubt it .

For the block 50 jets, I have to agree with Pilotasso, they are not really needed...

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2007, 23:11
by avon1944
I saw the video of "Dogfight HAF Mirage vs. TuAF F-16". Among the You Tube videos there was one, "Super Dogfight 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5bA60Ys ... ed&search=

What was the aircraft shot down by the F-15D or E (the video was taken from the WSO position) and what was this video from a movie?

Adrian

RE: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2007, 00:35
by Cad
Well it was the mig-28 of course...

If you watch carefully you could see mav in that inverted super bug giving Ice the birdie.... and are those fishy mirage fighters flown by Israeli pilots below the radar coverage. It's operation opera 2 only bigger and much lower.... :poke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyqlbg_e ... ed&search=
this is dogfight between a Mirage F-1 and an F-5 Tiger :shock:

nuclear fighter bombers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2007, 17:52
by Cad
Does nuclear capability counts for the multi-role issue?

RE: nuclear fighter bombers

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2007, 06:55
by Lieven
:: Please stay on topic guys. This is not a TuAF vs HAF thread. Orkun has been banned and I've cleaned out above posts. ::

RE: nuclear fighter bombers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2007, 19:55
by Cad
Mirage-2000-5 is getting the Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display / sighting system. Considering the instantaneous turn rate of the Mirage this system together with MICA IR is expanding the jet ability to fire at high-of boresight angles.

RE: nuclear fighter bombers

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2007, 21:48
by a1rao
Not to go off topic, but had a question about the Super-530D. Can the missile be integrated with Phazatron's super Kopyo radar? Also, what modifications are needed to a older baseline Mirage-2000C to allow it to fire the IR version of the Mica.

RE: nuclear fighter bombers

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2007, 12:18
by Cad
Yes but why? Software and wirring.

RE: nuclear fighter bombers

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2007, 21:36
by a1rao
Only because I have heard that the 530D's CWS seeker makes it harder to integrate with other radars. The Indian AF integrated 530Ds on their Fulcrums. I am guessing that the Kopyo radar, which is installed on upgraded Mig-21s, can also be formatted in a similar fashion?

"Software and wirring."

So no major changes to the actual radar itself? For example, an early RDM radar-

Re:

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2017, 18:00
by boilermaker
ACSheva wrote:One thing I dont get is why the rear view on the Mirages is so poor. Does any body know the reason for that type of design?

Shev



Interceptors with aggresive mindset are not geared towards defense but offense. The Mig 29 and F35 are also that way

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 13:09
by basher54321
Mirage 2000 pilot interview: Cutting it in the ‘Electric Cakeslice’

I wanted the French Exchange because it was based in Provence and the Mirage is a unique airframe :beer:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2 ... cakeslice/

Includes a few comparisons.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2017, 08:58
by boilermaker
In this article the US Pilot flying against m2000 is not impressed

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-ma ... 1796811256

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 06:04
by jedit
basher54321 wrote:Mirage 2000 pilot interview: Cutting it in the ‘Electric Cakeslice’

I wanted the French Exchange because it was based in Provence and the Mirage is a unique airframe :beer:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2 ... cakeslice/

Includes a few comparisons.


A new interview of a Mirage 2000 pilot from India has popped up on the same site and this pilot is not a Viper fan.

https://hushkit.net/2019/09/25/flying-f ... 000-pilot/

IAF pilot says F16 is underpowered (first they said on mission load and then just casually said its underpowered) and Mirage 2000 can beat it any day. He also said Mig 21 can beat Viper in an instantaneous turn, I wonder how that would happen and comparing F16 to Su30 and Mirage 2000 would be unfair on F16 as its an older design (that essentially has no chance of winning?). I would appreciate any F16 experts/pilot comments on this.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 06:55
by vm
jedit wrote:
basher54321 wrote:Mirage 2000 pilot interview: Cutting it in the ‘Electric Cakeslice’

I wanted the French Exchange because it was based in Provence and the Mirage is a unique airframe :beer:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2 ... cakeslice/

Includes a few comparisons.


A new interview of a Mirage 2000 pilot from India has popped up on the same site and this pilot is not a Viper fan.

https://hushkit.net/2019/09/25/flying-f ... 000-pilot/

IAF pilot says F16 is underpowered (first they said on mission load and then just casually said its underpowered) and Mirage 2000 can beat it any day. He also said Mig 21 can beat Viper in an instantaneous turn, I wonder how that would happen and comparing F16 to Su30 and Mirage 2000 would be unfair on F16 as its an older design (that essentially has no chance of winning?). I would appreciate any F16 experts/pilot comments on this.

Nice. Sneaky Pakistani trying to get a reaction from the f16 community. Let's see whether he succeeds.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 08:25
by garrya
jedit wrote:A new interview of a Mirage 2000 pilot from India has popped up on the same site and this pilot is not a Viper fan.
https://hushkit.net/2019/09/25/flying-f ... 000-pilot/
IAF pilot says F16 is underpowered (first they said on mission load and then just casually said its underpowered) and Mirage 2000 can beat it any day. He also said Mig 21 can beat Viper in an instantaneous turn, I wonder how that would happen and comparing F16 to Su30 and Mirage 2000 would be unfair on F16 as its an older design (that essentially has no chance of winning?). I would appreciate any F16 experts/pilot comments on this.

Let check the flight manual data since test data can't lie:
Mig-21 at 15k ft:
ITR = 17 degrees/second
STR = 9.7 degrees/second
Mig-21 at 15k feet.jpg


F-16A at 15k ft
ITR = 20 degrees/second
STR = 14.2 degrees/second
F-16A at 15k feet.jpg


Mirage 2000 at 15k ft
ITR = 23.9 degrees/second
STR = 12.5 degrees/second
Mirage 2000 at 15k feet.jpg


F-5E at 15k ft
ITR = 17.8 degrees/second
STR = 10 degrees/second
F-5E at 15k feet.png


Mig-21 can't even match the instantaneous and sustain turn rate of F-5E, its kinematic won't even get remotely close to F-16 and Mirage 2000.
ITR from best to worst: Mirage 2000 > F-16 > F-5 > Mig-21
STR from best to worst: F-16 > Mirage 2000 > F-5 > Mig-21

According to the German manual, at sea level Mig-21 can barely sustain more than 7.2G even with the secondary emergency reheat whereas F-16 can sustain 9G from sea level till about 5000 ft. TBH, it is undeniable that F-16 is a better fighter.
German Mig-21bis.jpg

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 09:09
by garrya
jedit wrote:comparing F16 to Su30 and Mirage 2000 would be unfair on F16 as its an older design (that essentially has no chance of winning?). I would appreciate any F16 experts/pilot comments on this.

It depends, which F-16 and Su-30 version we are talking about. Are we comparing F-16A/B or F-16E/F with Su-30? and what Su-30 version? Su-30S or Su-30MKI? Because they all have different radars, engine and jamming system that can affect the result.
Nevertheless, because KS-172 and K-100 never went into service, F-16 has longer range missile than anything currently carried by Su-30.
There are some charts from Mig-29 manual and declassified documents:
R-27P launch envelope:
R-27P.png


R-27ER launch envelope:
R-27ER.png


RVV-AE (R-77) launch envelope:
RVV-AE@.jpeg

RVV-AE.png


AIM-120 A/B launch envelope:
AIM-120A.png


Overlap the launch envelope of AIM-120A/B and R-77 for easier comparison:
overlap envelope.png


AIM-120 A/B launch envelope is equal to R-27ER and significantly greater than R-77 and R-27P, but R-27 is a SARH weapon thus with equal range whoever launched AIM-120 has a significant advantage. We haven't brought up AIM-120C-5 and AIM-120D yet.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 10:48
by vm
jedit wrote:
basher54321 wrote:Mirage 2000 pilot interview: Cutting it in the ‘Electric Cakeslice’

I wanted the French Exchange because it was based in Provence and the Mirage is a unique airframe :beer:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2 ... cakeslice/

Includes a few comparisons.


A new interview of a Mirage 2000 pilot from India has popped up on the same site and this pilot is not a Viper fan.

https://hushkit.net/2019/09/25/flying-f ... 000-pilot/

IAF pilot says F16 is underpowered (first they said on mission load and then just casually said its underpowered) and Mirage 2000 can beat it any day. He also said Mig 21 can beat Viper in an instantaneous turn, I wonder how that would happen and comparing F16 to Su30 and Mirage 2000 would be unfair on F16 as its an older design (that essentially has no chance of winning?). I would appreciate any F16 experts/pilot comments on this.

Cherry picking. No one reading the interview would conclude that he said that mig21 is a better plane than the f16. His emphasis was on the mirage 2000 which he said is a better plane than the f16.
Which is borne out by the fact that when the m2k was in the air, in kargil and recently, the f16s were quicj to leave the theatre.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 11:37
by basher54321
jedit wrote:
A new interview of a Mirage 2000 pilot from India has popped up on the same site and this pilot is not a Viper fan.

IAF pilot says F16 is underpowered (first they said on mission load and then just casually said its underpowered) and Mirage 2000 can beat it any day. He also said Mig 21 can beat Viper in an instantaneous turn, I wonder how that would happen and comparing F16 to Su30 and Mirage 2000 would be unfair on F16 as its an older design (that essentially has no chance of winning?). I would appreciate any F16 experts/pilot comments on this.





I really wouldn't worry to much about it - because we can deduce the Indian intelligence community are not completely inept - the mostly ludicrous comments about the F-16 from that pilot are probably for the benefit of people who know very little about aircraft - or even those that have issues counting to 6:

The F-16 was designed in the 70s to counter MiGs. Two to four within visual range missiles and one external fuel tank and that’s it.


Just add it to the pile of things to laugh at and move on.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 14:11
by garrya
vm wrote:Cherry picking. No one reading the interview would conclude that he said that mig21 is a better plane than the f16. His emphasis was on the mirage 2000 which he said is a better plane than the f16.
Which is borne out by the fact that when the m2k was in the air, in kargil and recently, the f16s were quicj to leave the theatre.

TBH, Mirage is only better than F-16 in ITR, nothing more

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 14:46
by f-16adf
All of those jets are pretty good, so pilot skill and the guy who makes fewer mistakes will win.

However, if anyone remembers that old article: "Beauty and the Beast, Mirage-2000H vs MiG-29B" the Indian pilot interviewed said (pilot skill aside) the Mig-29 was the better dog-fighter.

It should also be noted in the interview with Captain Christian "Louis" van Gestel, he said the Mirage 2000 once at 9G (if the pilot attempts to stay there) in essence will "fall out of the sky".

http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article24.html
Christian: "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. The MiG has power and turns very well. It is an ergonomical drama inside the cockpit, it will not roll and it lacks fuel."


Just look at that posted chart: having a 9G ITR is great but, but losing energy at such high rates of -1900 to -2000Ps is not. The plane will decelerate far too quickly. That is why you can only hold it for an instant, i.e. called instantaneous turn rate for a reason-


Finally, US Naval aviator Paco Chierici in his Aircrew Interview (comments start at the 10:25 mark) said that even in the F-14 Tomcat (if he could withstand its first turn) he could beat the Mirage 2000. So that is saying alot.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYzIEm2tyZA

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 15:42
by vilters
The Mirage 2000 initially is a 9G airframe but bleeds energy so fast that it is only possible for a blink of an eye. The power available can not overcome the induced drag.

Mig-29 is easy, follow the smoke plume to find it.
Ergonomics make the thing hard to fight.
You can pull pretty hard, but roll is to cry for.
And after a few turns in AB, the airfied better be below you.

All in all, the F-16 wins all the time, on versatility, sustainability, energy management, and ergonomics.

Any F-16 pilot that survives the first turn, can out-fuel and out-fight both of them.

What would/could be a happy mariage is a Mirage 2000 with a PW-100 (or above) motor.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2019, 22:11
by jedit
garrya wrote:Let check the flight manual data since test data can't lie:
Mig-21 at 15k ft:
ITR = 17 degrees/second
STR = 9.7 degrees/second

F-16A at 15k ft
ITR = 20 degrees/second
STR = 14.2 degrees/second

Mirage 2000 at 15k ft
ITR = 23.9 degrees/second
STR = 12.5 degrees/second

F-5E at 15k ft
ITR = 17.8 degrees/second
STR = 10 degrees/second

Mig-21 can't even match the instantaneous and sustain turn rate of F-5E, its kinematic won't even get remotely close to F-16 and Mirage 2000.
ITR from best to worst: Mirage 2000 > F-16 > F-5 > Mig-21
STR from best to worst: F-16 > Mirage 2000 > F-5 > Mig-21

According to the German manual, at sea level Mig-21 can barely sustain more than 7.2G even with the secondary emergency reheat whereas F-16 can sustain 9G from sea level till about 5000 ft. TBH, it is undeniable that F-16 is a better fighter.


This is all helpful and amazingly detailed. Thank you.

garrya wrote:It depends, which F-16 and Su-30 version we are talking about. Are we comparing F-16A/B or F-16E/F with Su-30? and what Su-30 version? Su-30S or Su-30MKI? Because they all have different radars, engine and jamming system that can affect the result.
Nevertheless, because KS-172 and K-100 never went into service, F-16 has longer range missile than anything currently carried by Su-30.
There are some charts from Mig-29 manual and declassified documents:
R-27P launch envelope:
R-27ER launch envelope:

RVV-AE (R-77) launch envelope:

AIM-120 A/B launch envelope:

Overlap the launch envelope of AIM-120A/B and R-77 for easier comparison:

AIM-120 A/B launch envelope is equal to R-27ER and significantly greater than R-77 and R-27P, but R-27 is a SARH weapon thus with equal range whoever launched AIM-120 has a significant advantage. We haven't brought up AIM-120C-5 and AIM-120D yet.


Fairly certain IAF pilots always mean PAF F16s the latest of which are block 50/52, while older ones are Block 15 MLUd. PAF operates AIM-120C-5 which is what India complained about when PAF used them against Su30MKIs while shooting down IAF Mig21. IAF Chief BS Dhanoa in what was his farewell meeting with media complained PAF used AIM 120s at DMax largely confirming Su30MKI was rendered inert while their pilots continue to claim Su30 is better than the adversary Vipers.

vilters wrote:The Mirage 2000 initially is a 9G airframe but bleeds energy so fast that it is only possible for a blink of an eye. The power available can not overcome the induced drag.


Makes sense

All in all, the F-16 wins all the time, on versatility, sustainability, energy management, and ergonomics.
Any F-16 pilot that survives the first turn, can out-fuel and out-fight both of them.
What would/could be a happy mariage is a Mirage 2000 with a PW-100 (or above) motor.


Maybe some day in a DCS fantasy version! :)

vm wrote:Cherry picking. No one reading the interview would conclude that he said that mig21 is a better plane than the f16. His emphasis was on the mirage 2000 which he said is a better plane than the f16.
Which is borne out by the fact that when the m2k was in the air, in kargil and recently, the f16s were quicj to leave the theatre.


Discussing the intriguing info about ITR of Mig21 that was claimed to be superior to F16, which has been rendered inaccurate in the extremely detailed post above that you might have read. I am sure the IAF pilot meant Vipers operated by PAF of which latest are Block 50/52 (he couldn't be comparing it with the weakest of the enemy but the strongest if he's a pro). I will quote this below from the interview and leave it for readers to decide whether Block 50/52 on PW engines is under powered compared to Mirage 2000/Su30MKI and whether R77 enjoys better range than AIM120C (a claim Indian analysts have themselves rejected since 27th Feb)

But I can say this, head to head, Su-30 or Mirage 2000 are greatly superior to the Viper, and the reason is very simple, both are later designs than the Viper. They are not underpowered like the Viper and have better weapon range and radar range.”

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 00:27
by vm
I would rate the mirage2000 as the best fighter in the subcontinent, especially after the upgrades.
The recent skirmish also borne that out as the m2ks were used to bomb the terrorist camps deep in the Pakistani state(not Pakistan occupied kashmir), unchallenged . Even after 35 years of induction, the frames and the electronic package are a complete package and were also used to bomb the Pakistani army posts in kargil in 1999, with the f16s not daring to take to the air, as accepted by their then air chief.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 04:00
by garrya
vm wrote:I would rate the mirage2000 as the best fighter in the subcontinent, especially after the upgrades

Are you talking about this upgrade below?TBH, I don't think it offers anything particularly special that make Pakistan F-16 obsolete
The upgrade will bring India’s Mirages to the full Mirage 2000v5 Mk 2 standard external link, including a new RDY-3 radar with greater air-air and air-ground capability, a new night vision compatible all-digital cockpit, and improved electronic warfare systems. These will be tied into a joint tactical information data link system (JTIDS, usually Link 16 compatible but not always), plus helmet-mounted sights for wide-angle heat-seeking missiles. As part of the upgrade, the aircraft will also be equipped with MBDA’s Mica family of medium range missiles.

MBDA was probably unamused by India Defence’s December 2006 description of its wares as “an advanced medium-range missile that is the French counterpart to the more capable American AMRAAM missile [link added]”. MICA would actually replace both the radar-guided Super 350 MRAAM and Magic-II short-range infrared missiles on Indian Mirages, offering better performance and range. While the MICA-RF does have mediocre range compared to the AIM-120C AMRAAM, or even the Russian R-77 used by the IAF’s SU-30MKIs, it’s unique in offering a MICA-IR heat-seeking IR version for a potent medium range ‘no warning’ targeting option. French pilots who used the MICA-IR over Libya report that its sensor alone is a useful input to their systems, and its passive seeker with lock-on after launch means that it can be fired from beyond visual range at enemy aircraft, without creating any warning from the opposing fighter’s radar warning receivers. India will join France, Egypt, Greece, Taiwan and the UAE as operators of the Mirage 2000/MICA combo.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/in ... ext-02891/


The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of up to 36 F-16C/D Block 50/52 external link aircraft – a buy of 18 jets, with an option for another 18. The planes would be equipped with the APG-68(V)9 radars, which are the most modern F-16 radar except for the UAE’s F-16E/F Block 60 “Desert Falcons” and their AN/APG-80 AESA. The engine contract was less certain. Pakistan’s existing F-16s use the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, but the new planes involved a competition between Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-229 external link or General Electric’s F110-GE-129 external link Increased Performance Engines (IPEs).

The total value, if all options are exercised, was estimated as high as $3 billion, which is in line with Pentagon releases that eventually peg the negotiated cost of 12 F-16Cs, 6 F-16Ds, and ancillary equipment at $1.4 billion. Pratt & Whitney kept their customer, and supplied the new jets with their F100-PW-229 EEP engine, making them all F-16 Block 52s. The package for Pakistan’s new F-16s included:

7 spare F100-PW-229 EEP or F110-GE-129 IPE engines (F100-PW-229 EEP selected)
7 spare APG-68(V)9 radar sets external link
36 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
36 AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS radios with HAVE QUICK I/II
36 Conformal Fuel Tanks (pairs) that fit along the aircraft’s sides to give them extra range
36 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals; see tactical uses of MIDS-LVT Link 16 systems
36 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems
36 APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe Systems
36 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites: ALQ-211 AIDEW without Digital Radio Frequency Memory (picked); or AN/ALQ-184 Electronic Counter Measures pod without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-131 Electronic Counter Measures pod without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-187 Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suites without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-178 Self-Protection Electronic Warfare Suites without DRFM.
1 Unit Level Trainer
Associated support equipment, software development/integration, modification kits, capability to employ a wide variety of munitions, spares and repair parts, flight test instrumentation, publications and technical documentation, CONUS-personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related requirements to ensure full program supportability.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/51 ... 16s-02396/

vm wrote:were also used to bomb the Pakistani army posts in kargil in 1999, with the f16s not daring to take to the air, as accepted by their then air chief.

I am skeptical that an air chief would say something like that.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 19:31
by f-16adf
I am not attempting to take sides over the India v Pakistan conflict. However, I do recall reading the then Air Marshal saying something along those lines. But it should be remembered that at that time (1999) India's Mirage 2000H and Mig-29 aircraft both had medium range AAM capability (the R-27 and Matra Super 530) The Block 15 F-16A's used by Pakistan only had short range Aim-9's (and Pakistan was under an arms embargo since the early 1990's over its nuclear program: remember those NSAWC F-16 Block 15's currently used as aggressors were originally meant for Pakistan). So the Pakistani jets would have been at a great disadvantage at BVR since lacking a medium range missile.


After 9/11 they received Block 52's, which are a far more capable aircraft than Block 15's. Block 15's were generally meant to drop 6 500lbs dumb bombs and then fight their way back out of Eastern Europe with Aim-9's-- back in the early/mid 1980's-- if the Cold War ever went hot. The only Block 15's at that time with medium range Sparrow or AMRAAM capability were those operated by our ANG, i.e. the F-16ADF model; or the upgraded European MLU.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 21:43
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote: However, I do recall reading the then Air Marshal saying something along those lines.



We need context with some kind of statement on what he actually said in that case because the way it has been put so far kind of makes out there was some kind of cowardice involved - or perhaps the pilots Union held a strike on Pay 8)

South African Mirages, North Vietnamese and Mid East MiGs, Iranian F-5Es and PAF F-16s have all been engaged in combat Versus BVR capable jets sometimes in overwhelming conditions, All had to get on with it and try to find ways round it. Same as all US F-16s in any mid 1980s CW scenario (MLU mod was mid 90s) would have had to.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2019, 22:27
by f-16adf
Basher, I'll try and find it (may or may not still be in my possession). Yes, the MLU was mid 1990's (the F-16ADF basically 1989 onward).

By the late 1990's with the embargo, I don't know just how many Pakistani F-16's would have been operational. That could also have been a factor. Regardless, the original Block 1,5,10,15 A models did have their minor drawbacks (yet superb close in dog-fighters--par excellence) as all jets do. Not having a radar missile was one of them. That could have been just one of the factors here in this discussion.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 17:15
by swiss
garrya wrote:
vm wrote:I would rate the mirage2000 as the best fighter in the subcontinent, especially after the upgrades

Are you talking about this upgrade below?TBH, I don't think it offers anything particularly special that make Pakistan F-16 obsolete
The upgrade will bring India’s Mirages to the full Mirage 2000v5 Mk 2 standard external link, including a new RDY-3 radar with greater air-air and air-ground capability, a new night vision compatible all-digital cockpit, and improved electronic warfare systems. These will be tied into a joint tactical information data link system (JTIDS, usually Link 16 compatible but not always), plus helmet-mounted sights for wide-angle heat-seeking missiles. As part of the upgrade, the aircraft will also be equipped with MBDA’s Mica family of medium range missiles.

MBDA was probably unamused by India Defence’s December 2006 description of its wares as “an advanced medium-range missile that is the French counterpart to the more capable American AMRAAM missile [link added]”. MICA would actually replace both the radar-guided Super 350 MRAAM and Magic-II short-range infrared missiles on Indian Mirages, offering better performance and range. While the MICA-RF does have mediocre range compared to the AIM-120C AMRAAM, or even the Russian R-77 used by the IAF’s SU-30MKIs, it’s unique in offering a MICA-IR heat-seeking IR version for a potent medium range ‘no warning’ targeting option. French pilots who used the MICA-IR over Libya report that its sensor alone is a useful input to their systems, and its passive seeker with lock-on after launch means that it can be fired from beyond visual range at enemy aircraft, without creating any warning from the opposing fighter’s radar warning receivers. India will join France, Egypt, Greece, Taiwan and the UAE as operators of the Mirage 2000/MICA combo.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/in ... ext-02891/


The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of up to 36 F-16C/D Block 50/52 external link aircraft – a buy of 18 jets, with an option for another 18. The planes would be equipped with the APG-68(V)9 radars, which are the most modern F-16 radar except for the UAE’s F-16E/F Block 60 “Desert Falcons” and their AN/APG-80 AESA. The engine contract was less certain. Pakistan’s existing F-16s use the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, but the new planes involved a competition between Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-229 external link or General Electric’s F110-GE-129 external link Increased Performance Engines (IPEs).

The total value, if all options are exercised, was estimated as high as $3 billion, which is in line with Pentagon releases that eventually peg the negotiated cost of 12 F-16Cs, 6 F-16Ds, and ancillary equipment at $1.4 billion. Pratt & Whitney kept their customer, and supplied the new jets with their F100-PW-229 EEP engine, making them all F-16 Block 52s. The package for Pakistan’s new F-16s included:

7 spare F100-PW-229 EEP or F110-GE-129 IPE engines (F100-PW-229 EEP selected)
7 spare APG-68(V)9 radar sets external link
36 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
36 AN/ARC-238 SINCGARS radios with HAVE QUICK I/II
36 Conformal Fuel Tanks (pairs) that fit along the aircraft’s sides to give them extra range
36 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals; see tactical uses of MIDS-LVT Link 16 systems
36 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems
36 APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe Systems
36 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites: ALQ-211 AIDEW without Digital Radio Frequency Memory (picked); or AN/ALQ-184 Electronic Counter Measures pod without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-131 Electronic Counter Measures pod without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-187 Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suites without DRFM; or AN/ALQ-178 Self-Protection Electronic Warfare Suites without DRFM.
1 Unit Level Trainer
Associated support equipment, software development/integration, modification kits, capability to employ a wide variety of munitions, spares and repair parts, flight test instrumentation, publications and technical documentation, CONUS-personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related requirements to ensure full program supportability.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/51 ... 16s-02396/

vm wrote:were also used to bomb the Pakistani army posts in kargil in 1999, with the f16s not daring to take to the air, as accepted by their then air chief.

I am skeptical that an air chief would say something like that.


I would say the F-16 Bl 50+ and the Mirage 2000 Mk2 are roughly on the same Level. Although the RDY Radar seems to have more range as the APG-68v9.

Code: Select all
While the MICA-RF does have mediocre range compared to the AIM-120C AMRAAM, or even the Russian R-77 used by the IAF’s SU-30MKIs,


This seems clearly wrong. According to the manufacturers the Mica has nearly the doubled range of the R-77.

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 06:34
by FlightDreamz
Any Digital Combat Simulator World fans? Try this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Z13F1BtV4

Re: F-16 versus Mirage 2000

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 17:27
by basher54321
Been a few years - I think that is the mission where you are taught to be a considerate flight leader by using your wingmen as expendable decoys!

That early 1990s Mirage had a few similarities to an F-16A if that implementation is anything to go by.