Moos_tachu

+1 :thumbup: Performed beyond expectations in Libya. Thanks to its great stand-off range, it could be fired far before crossing the coast line.

What was your attitude (hot-hot same level?) and distance to the Mirages when they fired their missiles? That first info would give a clue to know whether it is a problem with the AI firing too early or the missile degrading too much. Then I guess you would have to report in the DCS World forum (not Razbam's).

Any facts of yours to illustrate this bold statement, or you were just trying to embarrass yourself in public? :music_whistling:

Yep, as I said in another post ;) But the 4000 never saw service, unfortunately... PS : Rafale is light compared to F-15 / Su-27, not to others.

Sorry I don't agree with you. Based on NATO doctrine in recent conflicts, the first wave of long range strikes will destroy a LARGE portion of the SAM network. SAM mobility is on paper. In real life you can't move all your SAM's every day, one of the factors being that the more you move, the more you are visible, and the more chances you have to get killed. Don't forget that a conflict zone is watched 24/7 by satellites and drones. Any military unit moving away from its camouflaged position will get detected within hours. And an S-400 regiment moving on a road is VERY detectable. That's intel job, and it proved very efficient in recent conflicts. And that's also radar denial, because remaining SAM units will know that if they move or turn their radar on, they have a significant chance to get detected and killed. For example in the 2011 Libyan war, the Tomahawk strikes of the first 48 hours destroyed a vast majority of enemy radar capacities. After that, the conflict zone was overflown 24/7 by Predators and other surveillance assets. The SA-6 and SA-8 units that survived the first hours (and they were many) did not dare going radar on more than a few minutes from time to time, and they were suppressed one by one when they tried to move. Most of them were killed by LGB's, not by ARM, for a very good reason: when you detect a radar, by the time you send a SEAD strike the chances are high that it will be turned off, and your ARM's will be useless. Your chances to destroy it are far better with LGB's. I read reports from the French warships that ensured surveillance missions by the Libyan coast. Interestingly, they were able to detect every enemy radar being turned on. And every time the enemy insisted, it got destroyed... sometimes by air launched LGB's, sometimes by the ships themselves. Wild Weasel is fun, they did a great job in Vietnam, but now they are history. Too risky. The capability will remain, but only to deal with a small portion of the SAM threat.

Sweet... :music_whistling: I'm sure everybody here can see who's posting constructive messages with verified information, and who's just trolling...

Mirage 2000D data is classified......

In modern days, SEAD relies more on intel (sat + reco) and long range strikes, than on risking aircraft over SAM territory. This was NATO doctrine in all recent conflicts: massive Tomahawk strikes to suppress enemy radar capacities before any aircraft enter the airspace. In this context, airborne SEAD capability is no longer a critical asset, and only a couple of countries retain it, with a limited number of units. Moreover, a modern fighter such as the Rafale can perform SEAD missions very efficiently without a specialized ARM. Its EW integrated suite can localize a radar threat very precisely (if not known before take-off, which is 99% cases) and guide stand-off weapons to it (AASM, SCALP...) By the way, the Rafale EW suite can also guide a Mica to an A/A threat that is painting it with radar, without turning on its own radar... surprise! :D

Looks great :thumbup: Do you plan to make a skin for each French Squadron operating the M2000C (not so many, and only the reg. number and squadron sign on the tail change)?

:music_whistling:

lol, ok Agent Mulder :D Seriously, from a developer's standpoint, would you base your work on proof of existence, or non-proof of non-existence? +1 :thumbup: The latter just want to believe :D

Mirage 2000C is not meant for AG combat, you have the D version for that. Comparison with F-15 is very appropriate in this instance. 2000D is just as close to 2000C as F-15E is to F-15C, i.e. totally different airframe and weapons system.

Israel had Mirage III...... Not only a different version, but a totally different aircraft...

I could speak French at the age of 3, so it must not be that hard :D :D

M2000 slats are not manual, they are automatically operated by the FBW system to optimize handling depending on flight parameters. So whenever they are deployed, it's for the best. And above 15000 ft is also where the 2000 is at its best...

Very limited impact on turn rate compared to slats, relaxed stability and FBW... and Mirage 2000 has them all. Again, in dogfight M2000 is very close to F-16. That should give an idea.

Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen also have delta wing. For sure all these aircraft are known for being very bad in dogfight...... uuuh, wait :music_whistling:

Nearly everything has already been said on the question... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147597

Cool. Being popular on internet forums feels like being rich at Monopoly...

Realistic A/G mission profile (French Air Force style) would be high-altitude penetration over SAM-free territory (manpads and AAA only), to drop 1 or 2 GBU's on a target designated by JTAC or buddy lasing (M2000D or other). With fuel tanks and A/A refueling on your way in and out. Typical from recent and on-going operations in Africa. In specific contexts, M2000C would perform low-altitude CAS over lightly-defended enemy forces: "show of force", guns and (remotely) unguided bombs. Deep penetration strike over possible SAM threat is the mission of multirole and A/G specialized aircraft (Rafale and M2000D), using GBU / AASM / SCALP. Typical from the 2011 Lybian war (Operation "Harmattan"); not a single A/G mission performed by M2000C or -5. Runway strike would be handled by Rafale / M2000D with SCALP. Or in the 1980's, by Jaguar with BAP-100. But of course DCS is a videogame, which has the great advantage of making all fictional scenarios possible :)

To clarify, the message this was answering to has been deleted. Next time I'll quote, to avoid looking like I'm being aggressive for nothing...

Is the software industry so new to people that so many in this forum don't seem to understand that RELEASE comes after BETA? You're buying a beta guys, it's written black on white. If you don't want it because you're such a 5-star customer who doesn't deserve to be annoyed with bugs, then wait xx months and buy the final product, it will be the same price! The beauty of it is that before ED introduced this "open beta" policy, you could hear everyone whining and crying to get a taste of the product before it was finished. This community will never be happy, because it simply doesn't want to...

Agreed, I was being picky on purpose ;)

Rocket physics say that long / low acceleration burst and short / high acceleration burst might result in equivalent range ;)

Actually it is the engine fan which reflects a lot of radar energy. And in the M2000, the fan is "hidden" inside the center fuselage, with the air inlets shifted to the sides. From what I could read on the question, for RCS the M2000 is not as good as the Rafale (which benefits from stealth-optimised shapes and paint and other stuff...) But compared to other 4th gen. fighters it is quite good, probably even better than average thanks to its small size and very clean airframe.