Dassault's philosophy behind the M-2000Cs armament?

This stemmed from another thread I was talking in, but it is something I was wondering.

Was there any particular reasoning behind the decision to give the M-2000C only two Magics and 530Ds? I know the 2000 was originally designed as an interceptor which wouldn't have needed a large load out, but with the M-2000C being a later version and having such an advanced A2A radar, I wonder why the decision to give it a more comparable load out to it's contemporaries was not made? Was the thinking at the time that you just wouldn't need that many missiles? It seems odd the 2000C can carry so many bombs yet so few A2A missiles.

I have googled around but not found much, so I wanted to here the Devs or other educated opinions if anyone knew something regarding the decisions.

You are looking at this wrong. There are other Mirages 2000 which have more wing pylons and can carry more Air to Air ordnance. They just have different designations. (They are not the C version)

It should be also considered that it is always safer to send more planes with less weapons into a mission especially with SARH missiles.

I guess that not an appealing idea for online multiplayer games where a lot of people just want to play an ARH bomber.

Nothing has changed, 2 Su-27S still beat lonely F-15 quite safely, the same should be good for the Mirage vs. SU-27

I wonder why the decision to give it a more comparable load out to it's contemporaries was not made?

 

Compared to its contemporaries it was rather equal. The F-16 carried the following:

6x short range heat seeking missiles. No long range radar guided missiles.

The MIG-29 carried:

2x BVR radar guided missiles, 4x short range heat seeking missiles. Or 6x short range missiles. If we go a generation back to the Mirage F1 and MIG-23 the payload is roughly similar.

As technology progressed they got upgraded. The F-16 can now carry BVR weapons, up to 6 air to air missiles total. This is less than the 8 the Mirage 2000-5 or 5 MK2/9 can carry.

Was the Sparrow added to the F-16 later than the M2000?

I don't believe that the Mirage 2000C is a later version, like you say. The variants aren't named A, B, C, D, etc. like American aircraft. Granted we don't have the very first Mirage 2000C version, we have the S-5 with RDI. But it's still a fairly early Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000-5 is the one with an A-A loadout more comparable with the F-15C and Su-27S

~snip

Nothing has changed, 2 Su-27S still beat lonely F-15 quite safely, the same should be good for the Mirage vs. SU-27

I think that the difference in capability between the Mirage 2000 and Su-27S/F-15C is quite a bit larger than it is between the Su-27S and F-15C.

One other thing to consider, I don't think the M2000C as an interceptor was ever designed to go against multiple opponents. The mission of an interceptor is usually, intercept target, kill target, RTB. If there are multiple targets, launch multiple interceptors.

The main killing weapon would be the SUper530D which was apparently quite efficient when flying high and fast. You have one, and a second one as backup. Failing that you have the two close range missiles as backups and for self defense.

Any more missiles on an interceptor frame and you run the risk of having too much drag to catch fast flying targets.

I hope that the campaign that Razbam (eventually) provides takes that into account, and doesn't have you flying unrealistic scenarios where you go up against hordes of fighters, and flying CAP into wings of F15s, Su27s etc....

Compared to its contemporaries it was rather equal. The F-16 carried the following:

 

6x short range heat seeking missiles. No long range radar guided missiles.

 

The MIG-29 carried:

 

2x BVR radar guided missiles, 4x short range heat seeking missiles. Or 6x short range missiles. If we go a generation back to the Mirage F1 and MIG-23 the payload is roughly similar.

 

As technology progressed they got upgraded. The F-16 can now carry BVR weapons, up to 6 air to air missiles total. This is less than the 8 the Mirage 2000-5 or 5 MK2/9 can carry.

Interesting point. I guess the Mirage had less of a gap when compared to those contemporaries.

I don't believe that the Mirage 2000C is a later version, like you say. The variants aren't named A, B, C, D, etc. like American aircraft. Granted we don't have the very first Mirage 2000C version, we have the S-5 with RDI. But it's still a fairly early Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000-5 is the one with an A-A loadout more comparable with the F-15C and Su-27S

 

 

 

I think that the difference in capability between the Mirage 2000 and Su-27S/F-15C is quite a bit larger than it is between the Su-27S and F-15C.

Agreed. 1 27 can win against 1 F-15C if used correctly, in fact I would argue the SU-27 has a couple advantages that can be taken into account.

One other thing to consider, I don't think the M2000C as an interceptor was ever designed to go against multiple opponents. The mission of an interceptor is usually, intercept target, kill target, RTB. If there are multiple targets, launch multiple interceptors.

I think that's it... The Mirage 2000-C was developped in close cooperation with the Armée de l'Air (French AF), so, was designed for precise missions within specifical tactical contexts. And for example, the Mirage 2000 is, as far as i know, the only aircraft that have a dedicated "Police Mode"... Typical french thinking... https://youtu.be/LBgJxfDPbrw?t=2s

After one or two SARH missiles fired, you will be likely at the merge.

Shoot a Magic and disengage.

Looks like on MP servers people want to kill more than to survive. So they end up "Winchester", flying low altitude, at low speed and get killed by a lone MiG 21...

 

Nothing has changed, 2 Su-27S still beat lonely F-15 quite safely, the same should be good for the Mirage vs. SU-27

Wanna bet?

I think technology is one answer, maybe they didn't have missiles that could be safely launched from the belly pylons (because of exhaust gas that would feed directly into the engine) as the SARH they had (i.e. 530D was rather big, and launched from the rail).

The Mica can drop from the rail and ignite shortly after, which makes it safe for belly pylons launch.

(I'm putting some "maybe's" here because I didn't find the source of that so I'm not 100% sure).

I think technology is one answer, maybe they didn't have missiles that could be safely launched from the belly pylons (because of exhaust gas that would feed directly into the engine) as the SARH they had (i.e. 530D was rather big, and launched from the rail).

The Mica can drop from the rail and ignite shortly after, which makes it safe for belly pylons launch.

(I'm putting some "maybe's" here because I didn't find the source of that so I'm not 100% sure).

This is good educated guess. You're probably right. And this is also why we don't have Magic on front fuselage pylons.

It's also a matter of budget I believe.

This is good educated guess. You're probably right. And this is also why we don't have Magic on front fuselage pylons.

Still, I'm not really positive (I remember having read that somewhere but I really can't find where).

On this picture the mica is awfully close to the drop tank, I don't know if it's a real setup or not.

Maybe

(1) missile is ejected forward before ignition (using a small solid booster?)

(2) it can drop without risks for the drop tank

(3) it is fired forward and my idea is BS

(4) interception doesn't need more missiles (as other ppl said)

(5) older missiles were just too big to be fitted there

Mirage 2000-5F went for CAP missions over Libya with full set up: 6 Mica + 3 fuel tanks.

Fuselage Mica are ejected. Fuselage pylons are slightly pointing outward.

Super 530D and Magic are rail launched.

On this picture the mica is awfully close to the drop tank.

Fuselage Mica are ejected. Fuselage pylons are slightly pointing outward.

Also, I was wrong since when looking from the front the missiles are actually sitting further from the fuel tank than I initially thought :thumbup:

Mirage 2000-5F went for CAP missions over Libya with full set up: 6 Mica + 3 fuel tanks.

~Snip.

Yes, but that's the Mirage 2000-5 with MICA capability. The capability and role of the Mirage 2000 evolved with the 2000-5. It doubles the amount of A-A missiles able to be carried, and it carries ones that are far more capable of engaging fighter aircraft. Our version is a little more restricted in terms of capability.

Yes, but <snip>

This post was only to illustrate the discussion about the belly pylons and carrying mica with fuel tanks, you know.

Was the Sparrow added to the F-16 later than the M2000?

Only special US home defence F-16 has ever been equiped with the AIM-7 Sparrow.

Early F-16A's only had guns and AIM-9 Sidewinders.

Later F-16C and AM got the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Was the Sparrow added to the F-16 later than the M2000?

Only special US home defence F-16 has ever been equiped with the AIM-7 Sparrow.

 

Early F-16A's only had guns and AIM-9 Sidewinders.

Later F-16C and AM got the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

True, but any F-16A Blk15 is AIM-7 capable. And to answer the original question, the Blk 15 came off the line in 1982, so it predates the M-2000C RDI.

I don't believe that the Mirage 2000C is a later version, like you say. The variants aren't named A, B, C, D, etc. like American aircraft. Granted we don't have the very first Mirage 2000C version, we have the S-5 with RDI. But it's still a fairly early Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000-5 is the one with an A-A loadout more comparable with the F-15C and Su-27S

 

 

 

I think that the difference in capability between the Mirage 2000 and Su-27S/F-15C is quite a bit larger than it is between the Su-27S and F-15C.

Keep in mind the Mirage 4000 was to be a counterpart to the larger class of fighters. Of course it never went into production; only the 2000 did.

After one or two SARH missiles fired, you will be likely at the merge.

 

Shoot a Magic and disengage.

 

Looks like on MP servers people want to kill more than to survive. So they end up "Winchester", flying low altitude, at low speed and get killed by a lone MiG 21...

Do you actually fly on MP? I am guessing no. You seem to have a strong opinion against PVP in many of your posts but it strikes me that it is something you seem to have little experience with...

My primary concern, as well as that of all the guys I regularly fly with is to get back alive, kills or not.

So you are saying fire the BVR, a single magic then run leaving the target still in the fight? You realize you are not only breaking contact which now puts you in a bad position, but also giving the enemy your six so using your remaining Magic II will require you to simply reengage. This tactic makes no sense to me. With the M-2000Cs limited stores it is hard to engage even a single aircraft without expending everything.

Keep in mind the Mirage 4000 was to be a counterpart to the larger class of fighters. Of course it never went into production; only the 2000 did.

Valid point, my understanding was the Mirage was not actually intended to be a primary service fighter anyway, but that is was originally designed for export

True, but any F-16A Blk15 is AIM-7 capable. And to answer the original question, the Blk 15 came off the line in 1982, so it predates the M-2000C RDI.

I don't believe that to be true, not all block 15 where AIM-7 capable. That capability, like many others, depends on the year we are talking about, the specific country and even the specific serial number F-16. Every F-16 is different and are contentiously upgraded/downgraded, different countries and even different units within specific air forces might have different capabilities.