F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

[ricnunes]

I think if anything, the Mirage 2000 had RSS, FBW while the F-15 and F-14 did not.

Yes, but on the other side the F-14 and F-15 had better radar, better missiles and specially the F-15 better overall performance.
Having FBW by itself doesn't mean that it's a better aircraft.
Also when I mention "better aircraft", I'm saying this in overall terms or if you prefer "on average" and not better in all or every regard (I thought that this was already implied but I hope this clears things up).

Regarding the F-16 vs Mirage 2000 there's also another advantage for the F-16:
- While a single F-16 variant was equally as capable in Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground roles with the Mirage 2000 you basically needed two variants to perform both roles with better effectiveness, the Mirage-2000C for Air-to-Air roles and the Mirage-2000D for Air-to-Ground roles (this again back in and since the 1980's and up to the 1990's).

[F-16ADF]

Ricnunes,

Sorry, my bad. I didn't see the term "better overall". I just meant to imply in that one aspect (FBW, RSS) that the -2000 had it and the F-15, F-14 did not. But you are right, they (F-14,-15) carried a much superior radar (for 1980's). And could carry 8 AAMs out of the box.

[monkeypilot]

That comment from monkeypilot is so preposterous that I simply refused to reply.

You do not have to believe me and no, F-16 you will never see that kind of comment written on a website or a journal. Those are off comments, take it or live it (i do not care frankly).
The link i gave you is just to give explanations. Interestingly, it was written by a UK pilot, aka neutral.
One should not forget that maybe F-15/14 radar were better than M2k's (not sure RDY) , but they also had a HUGE radar signature...

So in the end we're still on your assumption that F-Teens were superior to M2000.
Conitradicted by a UK pilot on Mirage 2000 RDI.

Did you fly dissimilar air combat training (DACT) flights on the Mirage 2000? If so, against which types and what did you learn from each type?

“An interesting question – I must have flown against the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Tornado F3, F-8 Crusader and the F-104 Starfighter in combat. The older generation didn’t stand a chance, but the F-16 block 50 was very good.

I am wondering why you did not quote the first sentence of the paragraph? He says ONLY F-16 block 50 was very good, all the others did not stand a chance. Which is quite logical considering the timeline. Back to topic?

[basher54321]

I am wondering why you did not quote the first sentence of the paragraph? He says ONLY F-16 block 50 was very good, all the others did not stand a chance. Which is quite logical considering the timeline. Back to topic?

The older generation out of that lot consists of the F-104 and F-8 only I'm afraid.

In the context of 1v1 DACT Mid 80s Block 30 and later Block 40 are similar performers so would have been the same result and all F-16s had a significant excess thrust advantage (especially obvious during a turn) - thus it was entirely down to the pilot to try and utilise the M2000Cs characteristics such as a tighter slow speed turn. Being sub 30 degrees limited (enforced) like the F-16 of course against the FA-18 the pilot may need to use different tactics.


It is probably unfair to try and compare the M2000C to the F-14/15 in an interceptor role - the M4000 was cancelled and thus the M2000 was a compromise that had to try and meet these requirements.

Like the M2000 the F-16 also has a much smaller RCS and with AMRAAM by accounts could stand toe to toe with Phoenix armed F-14s but this doesnt make it a better interceptor platform.

[monkeypilot]

I am wondering why you did not quote the first sentence of the paragraph? He says ONLY F-16 block 50 was very good, all the others did not stand a chance. Which is quite logical considering the timeline. Back to topic?

The older generation out of that lot consists of the F-104 and F-8 only I'm afraid.

In the context of 1v1 DACT Mid 80s Block 30 and later Block 40 are similar performers so would have been the same result and all F-16s had a significant excess thrust advantage (especially obvious during a turn) - thus it was entirely down to the pilot to try and utilise the M2000Cs characteristics such as a tighter slow speed turn. Being sub 30 degrees limited (enforced) like the F-16 of course against the FA-18 the pilot may need to use different tactics.


It is probably unfair to try and compare the M2000C to the F-14/15 in an interceptor role - the M4000 was cancelled and thus the M2000 was a compromise that had to try and meet these requirements.

Like the M2000 the F-16 also has a much smaller RCS and with AMRAAM by accounts could stand toe to toe with Phoenix armed F-14s but this doesnt make it a better interceptor platform.

Agree tbh. The idea was to dismiss the extreme over simplicity of this sentence

Are you trying to dispute that the F-15/F-16 were more advanced than the Mirage 2000?

[F-16ADF]

I've posted comments by a RNAF pilot who also flew in the Mirage 2000. So like I said, pilot skill will play a large part.


But if one wants to look at this more acutely. If you put a Mirage 2000 EM diagram up against a F-16 Block 15 EM diagram, aside from ITR, the Mirage is outperformed. (Or even against The Block 15 at 23,768lbs EM). And it gets worse when you compare it to the Block 30 (and the 30 EM is better than the Block 50 EM). Adding 3,600lbs of thrust to a weight of barely 24,000lbs will just make every metric significantly increase.





Some excerpts from Black's interview:


Is it easy to fly?

“Yes and no. It’s easy to fly once you get the hang of it but the delta wing takes a unique approach to flying – it’s not like a conventional wing. It generates huge amounts of lift but also an enormous amount of drag – great for a ‘Bat Turn’ but you always end low on energy afterwards."



What is the hardest thing about flying the Mirage 2000- any quirks?

“As mentioned, the delta wing could catch you out, it would give you 9G+ performance but at a penalty; flying in the circuit could be a challenge, turning finals required quite a lot of pulling on the stick -which loaded the wing up as the drag built. Once you rolled wings level it was imperative to take the power off or you would accelerate quickly.”




How would you compare the aircraft to an F-16?

“I’d say the F-16 has the edge – whilst the M2000 evolved from the RDM – RDi to RDY versions they were pretty small upgrades in terms of airframe performance – The latest Block F16s are a world apart from the original F-16As. Part of the Mirage 2000’s problem was the arrival of Rafale, which pretty much stopped any further development.”




What was the most challenging fighter you faced while flying the Mirage?

“Probably the F-15C as AMRAAM was just coming into service which totally outclassed us – They had amazing SA and the way they operated was impressive.”



It sounds like from a BVR scenario, the F-15 (at that time (guessing early 1990's before the 2000-5)), larger RCS or not) was superior.

The F-14's radar was great over water, and left much to be desired over land.-

[basher54321]

Yes the Ian Black M2000C was the older S4/5 version and so would have been at a disadvantage only having R530D SAHM type missiles compared to the Active Radar Missiles on the F-15.

The 2000-5 upgrade was pretty good and upped the avionics and added up to 6 Active Radar MICA missiles - over the 2 radar the C had.

[viper12]

One should not forget that maybe F-15/14 radar were better than M2k's (not sure RDY) , but they also had a HUGE radar signature...

Except you should run a few numbers first to be able to say that.

The F-15's radar should have a diameter roughly 1.9 times the Mirage 2000's one : viewtopic.php?t=8867

Plug that into the radar equation, with the gain proportional to the dish's surface area and assuming Pt and Pmax remain constant (big if for Pt as you've got a much bigger radar on the F-15, which is also known for having a lot of room for electronics), and the detection range is multiplied by 1.9. To offset that, the Mirage 2000 would need to have an RCS 1.9^4 = 13 times lower than the F-15's, and we're talking RCS of combat loaded aircraft, which honestly shouldn't be as great of a difference.

Not to mention this old Flightglobal article : https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 00550.html

If the RDM has a maximum detection range of 60nm against an RCS of 5m^s, imagine what a radar with around 1.9 times the diameter can do...

[monkeypilot]

If the RDM

As you say. RDM. nor RDY neither RDI. (also dubbed "radar de merde" or "tefal" (untranslatable joke about frying pans covered with Teflon, that heat but do not hook, hook a nd lock being the same word for a radar lock in french).

I did not say that 2000 was superior to F-15 before RDY/mica combo. (And tbh, f-15 with Epawss and 120 C/D regain superiority in BVR), i'm just disputing the "fact" that F-15/16 were more advanced. It definitely depends on versions, engines, radars, defensive suites etc. But the difference was not that huge....

[viper12]

I did not say that 2000 was superior to F-15 before RDY/mica combo. (And tbh, f-15 with Epawss and 120 C/D regain superiority in BVR), i'm just disputing the "fact" that F-15/16 were more advanced. It definitely depends on versions, engines, radars, defensive suites etc. But the difference was not that huge....

Compare with :

One should not forget that maybe F-15/14 radar were better than M2k's (not sure RDY) , but they also had a HUGE radar signature...

Then learn to be unambiguous and stop the insinuations. And if you want to play the game "I got the upgrade, so it makes me better", the AN/APG-63 got the (V)1 upgrade in the '90s too, while the AIM-120 got an upgrade with the AIM-120B in '94, quickly followed by the AIM-120C in '96 : https://www.military.com/equipment/aim- ... ir-missile

Not to mention you're still constrained by having a very small radar compared to the AN/APG-63, which would need some technological marvels to compensate the likely lower transmitted power and gain.

[F-16ADF]

F4u7,

I have read that posting before. We have Black's statement, RNAF pilot's statement, and the Hellenic pilot's statement. Not to mention a couple of the pilots on this forum who have fought it. I'm not at all saying the -2000 is bad WVR; I like Dassault jets, always have (mainly Mirage F1, IV, Rafale). But it seems there are more pilots saying the F-16 tends to have the edge than the Mirage. I have spoken to ex active AF (current ANG) who fought all of these 4th gen jets (not Rafale or EF). And they usually tend to say the F/A-18C was the toughest opponent in ACM.

According to Black's statement after the "bat turn" if the 2000 doesn't kill you, he will be out of energy. Nothing against the HAF pilot (I myself have relatives on Crete). But at Ps=0, the Block 15 has a better STR and smaller radius from .3-1 IMN. And a better T/W ratio, namely with the Block 30. If you have a good -2000 pilot that can use his ITR and marginal AOA advantage for victory: then good for him.




Granted it's the internet, and there is always conflicting material. I've read statements about the Mig-29 from Bulgarian sources (a Fulcrum pilot) that tend to contradict what some GAF pilots have said about it. So who is right, I don't know.

[f4u7_corsair]

Yes, I am not disputing the fact that the 2000 kinematics offer advantages that are very situational, I was mostly reacting to the fact that many people throw very definitive assertion on X or Y aircraft without looking at its specifities and what they could imply.

The 2000 is usually a lesser known aircraft compared to its occidental counterparts, and is often see through a very americanocentric scope, in which it indeed may not shine, disregarding its tailored design for French usage and specificities. I particularly deplore Ricnunes' assessement of the 2000 that is rather poor.

---
Also, sorry for the upcoming confusion - seeing that my previous post didn't go through before it was approved (didn't know it needed to be), I posted a similar one with a second account, 'CorsairII'. This second post will pop anytime soon, so sorry about that, I'll ask the first one to be deleted.

[F-16ADF]

No problem, I understand.


The Mirage 2000 is a very good airplane.

I actually would like to see a book on Mirage F1 combat units (mainly from Iraqi AF sources, not Iranian) published one day. I always thought it was underrated.

[f4u7_corsair]

are you specifically looking for Iran/Irak & F1EQ material?

[ricnunes]

I particularly deplore Ricnunes' assessement of the 2000 that is rather poor.

I guess that I could also say that I "deplore" your comprehension skills since I never said that the Mirage 2000 was "rather poor". What I said and stand by what I said was that the F-15, F-16 and by the way the F/A-18 are were and are more advanced than the Mirage 2000 - and I could fill line after line and pages backing this up!

By the way, you (and Monkeypilot) seem to be claiming that the Mirage 2000 was "better than it looks" or something along those lines but the funny thing is that for example Brazil bought a few Mirage 2000s which operated only from 2006 until 2013 when they were retired. It seems that Brazil preferred and prefers an updated F-5 to a Mirage 2000, not a very good testimony to the Mirage 2000 if you will - Now the reasons for this are of course opened to debate.