DCS Mirage 2000C Discussion

[mattebubben]

yes it has worse BVR then the 27/15 due to its Small loadout (2 Radar and 2 IR missiles vs 8 missiles for the F15) and the short range of the Radar guided missile (Super 530D has roughly 40km compared the 105 km of the Aim-120 but these numbers mean little since we dont know under what circumstances the numbers where attained)

Up close it will be a tough opponent and on longer ranges u will have to use tactics to allow u to get into fiering range.

But im eagerly looking forward to it.

Im actually training with the Mig-21 since if u can get into range to fire or even lock the enemy with the Mig-21 then the you will have no problem using the Mirage 2000 effectively.

Personaly i will use the Mirage 2000 at low alt high speed to sneak up on enemies and nail them.

Since High alt Bvr Combat against F-15s/Su27s would get u in trouble.

[dartuil]

Yeah we are going to have issue with 530D against r-27 and aim-120.

But in turning fight we should win the F-15 not sure for the su27.

[Fer_Fer]

I realy do wonder how it would perform in a fight against Su27...

 

I love Mirage 2000 for its looks... but is it ready to combat those very good BVR ready planes?

 

Well, it very much depends on the situation.

First up, the Mirage can carry up to 6 missiles, 4 Matra Super530D's and 2 Magic II's.

The RDY radar is pretty decent allthings considered, having a range of 120 km (if the manufacturers advertisements are to be believed.)

Now your Magic II is your pretty avarage close in IR missile, 15km max range, so pretty comperable to the US IR AIM missile, with the exception the French have a thing for Mach 5 missiles.

Likewise the Matra Super 530D is a 40-50 km missile, with a top speed of, again Mach 5, but semi active. For Comparison, the US AIM missile tops out at Mach 4, and the R27 at Mach 4.5.

overall, it isn't too bad, its pretty much in line with what the rest of the world used in the 80's. So overall i think, that it stands a pretty decent chance all things considered, especially since Jamming and a small radar cross section make detection harder, partly compensating for the slightly less then stellar missiles.

 

@Dartuil

Interesting you mention that.

A coversation with a former Hellenic Air Force pilot in WAFF

 

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

 

A: This true.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hope that clears things up :)

[GGTharos]

Just FYI, none of those missiles are 'mach 5 missiles'. You could technically get sidewinder to M5, if you shoot it at M2. That's what they mean by 'top speed' ... that missile won't go anywhere near M5 in your average combat scenario - it'll be between 2.5 and 3.

 

Sidewinder and Matra Magic 2 are very similar in weight and shape, with the MM2 probably having a slight edge in available AoA (and thus some turning ability) thanks to the the canard arrangement.

 

As for it being a 'better weapon' ... you're not going to see anything like that in-game since no one qualified what makes it better. They're very, very similar missiles from the little information that's available.

[mattebubben]

Well, it very much depends on the situation.

First up, the Mirage can carry up to 6 missiles, 4 Matra Super530D's and 2 Magic II's.

Can the Mirage 2000C carry 6 air to air missiles?.

I know the Mirage 2000-5 can but i was unaware the standard Mirage 2000C of the french airforce (the 1 being modeld without the later upgrades like the mica etc)

Could carry 4 530s.

As i understood it, it was only able to carry 2 530s and 2 Magic II missiles.

Would love if somone could point me somewhere to prove either way.

[Ktulu2]

Me too I think it can only have 4 missiles (2 of each). Plus the FSX has that same configuration. Maybe you are thinking of an upgraded version?

[Solty]

yes it has worse BVR then the 27/15 due to its Small loadout (2 Radar and 2 IR missiles vs 8 miitssiles for the F15) and the short range of the Radar gusome day:)ssile (Super 530D has roughly 40km compared the 105 km of the Aim-120 but these numbers mean little since we dont know under what circumstances the numbers where attained)

Up close it will be a tough opponent and on longer ranges u will have to use tactics to allow u to get into fiering range.

But im eagerly looking forward to it.

Im actually training with the Mig-21 since if u can get into range to fire or even lock the enemy with the Mig-21 then the you will have no problem using the Mirage 2000 effectively.

Personaly i will use the Mirage 2000 at low alt high speed to sneak up on enemies and nail them.

Since High alt Bvr Combat against F-15s/Su27s would get u in trouble.

 

I am just afraid that it won't be as awesome in maneuvering as you think... Beeing Delta wing. Still, I think i may get it. I love its looks. I just wish for F16C Blok52... Maybe someday

[Rolfey]

Really looking forward to M2K. Will be a great addition to the DCS skies.

 

Keep up the great work RAZBAM

[King_Hrothgar]

I am just afraid that it won't be as awesome in maneuvering as you think... Beeing Delta wing. Still, I think i may get it. I love its looks. I just wish for F16C Blok52... Maybe someday

 

I don't think it will be anything special tbh but I'm looking forwards to it. It isn't like there are a lot of other options for a full DCS level modern jet fighter.

[dartuil]

M2M/Razbam restarted mig-29 and f-15E maybe we get them in DCS in 2016 or 2017. I Hope for mirage in 2015.

If I could I would give them right on 2000-5 systems but I cant or let them do rafale A/ mirage 4000.

Edited April 2, 2015 by dartuil

[Manuel_108]

Well, 4 missiles is indeed somewhat sparse. Every shot counts!

[upupandaway]

I am just afraid that it won't be as awesome in maneuvering as you think... Beeing Delta wing. Still, I think i may get it. I love its looks. I just wish for F16C Blok52... Maybe someday

 

That would have to be in DCS 4.0... Some day ;)

[whitehot]

I was thinking that the 2000 can load the MICA AR/IR..

 

Wouldn't that make it some really tough opponent in BVR?

[mattebubben]

Later Mirage 2000 Updates can but not the 1 being modeld in the game it can not use the Micas.

[dartuil]

I do think 2000c dont use the mica they started using it at 2000-5. (If i understand well what I read)

2000C dont use Mica if it was razbam would do mica.

[Zeus67]

I was thinking that the 2000 can load the MICA AR/IR..

 

Wouldn't that make it some really tough opponent in BVR?

 

The C does not use MICA. The 5 and the N, later variants, do.

[GGTharos]

Depends on what you're fighting against. The MICA series is only a little heavier than sidewinder - it all depends very heavily on the fuel fraction, but so far we haven't yet seen a missile that really exceeds a typical fuel fraction of 30%-33%. That would make MICA a bit longer ranged than sidewinder, but again - it's just an educated guess and YMMV.

 

I was thinking that the 2000 can load the MICA AR/IR..

 

Wouldn't that make it some really tough opponent in BVR?

[emg]

I am just afraid that it won't be as awesome in maneuvering as you think... Beeing Delta wing. Still, I think i may get it. I love its looks. I just wish for F16C Blok52... Maybe someday

 

The F-16 planform is a tailed delta wing. I agree not to expect a wunder-dogfighter, but with FBW fighters, it's not so easy to draw conclusions just from the planform. Some US 6gen concepts are tailless, stab-less diamond wings.

 

The MICA series is only a little heavier than sidewinder - it all depends very heavily on the fuel fraction, but so far we haven't yet seen a missile that really exceeds a typical fuel fraction of 30%-33%. That would make MICA a bit longer ranged than sidewinder, but again - it's just an educated guess and YMMV.

An educated guess without knowing classified key data or its internal construction?

Edited April 2, 2015 by emg

[GGTharos]

Unless they've used some sort of super-advanced technology (rocket motor casing, electronics size reduction) in several places that no one else is using, then yes, the guess is quite educated.

 

With lofting capability you'll go further than just a straight shot, which again is something that is demonstrated with AIM-9X (AIM-120 also, but we won't involve that missile for now, since sidewinder is easier to compare in terms of mass).

 

The MICA is actually right between AIM-9X and AIM-120 in size ( 6" diameter) and more towards the AIM-9 in mass.

 

The MICA is fairly 'traditional' in AAM design, as opposed to concepts like the CUDA missile - so, I don't see why it should be treated any differently than existing AAMs when it comes to educated guesses.

 

An educated guess without knowing classified key data or its internal construction?

Edited April 2, 2015 by GGTharos

[sedenion]

Propulsion is achieved by a solid rocket motor. Although the weight of the missile is 50 kg less than that of an AIM- 120A , it displays a comparable scope that is estimated between 60 and 80 km ( a Taiwanese test destroyed a drone after traveling 67 km) while getting a great maneuverability thanks to its vectored thrust and aerodynamic control surfaces.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MICA

 

If that can help...

[GGTharos]

No, it doesn't really help. First off, the two rocket motors may be working in different modes:

 

The AIM-120A/B/C1-4 use the same boost-sustain motor, the C5 uses an all-boost motor, and MICA also probably uses an all-boost motor.

 

Finally, there is no information on the altitude and relative headings and speed of the target and shooter. If you shoot any of these missiles at high altitude and high speed, they'll fly quite far.

 

Basically MICA could have a very powerful propellant and an usually high propellant fraction - it's possible, but there's no real reason to believe that the latter is true.

 

Missile 'range' is a very, very complicated subject and simple range numbers from wiki mean nothing. You can't use them to compare anything at all. If you know some other characteristics you can make a more meaningful comparison.

[sedenion]

Basically MICA could have a very powerful propellant and an usually high propellant fraction - it's possible, but there's no real reason to believe that the latter is true.

 

You mean, because it's a french missile, and a french missile CAN'T be better ? :p

 

Missile 'range' is a very, very complicated subject and simple range numbers from wiki mean nothing. You can't use them to compare anything at all. If you know some other characteristics you can make a more meaningful comparison.

 

The MICA was designed both to compete with the AIM-120 as medium range and to replace the Magic II as short range... You mean Matra/MBDA can't have do it ? Maybe the MICA is more sophisticated than you think...

[NineLine]

You mean, because it's a french missile, and a french missile CAN'T be better ? :p

 

 

 

The MICA was designed both to compete with the AIM-120 as medium range and to replace the Magic II as short range... You mean Matra/MBDA can't have do it ? Maybe the MICA is more sophisticated than you think...

 

Probably more so he means there is no info anyone is going to release to say which is better and which isnt for sure...

[sedenion]

If the MICA uses some tricks to be better, be sure it is highly classified...

[GGTharos]

You mean, because it's a french missile, and a french missile CAN'T be better ? :p

 

No, I mean regardless of whose missile it is, there's no reason to believe it is so much beyond what's happening with everything else. It's a physics thing mainly.

 

The MICA was designed both to compete with the AIM-120 as medium range and to replace the Magic II as short range... You mean Matra/MBDA can't have do it ? Maybe the MICA is more sophisticated than you think...

 

No, I mean the MICA was designed for a specific purpose, rather than competing for range with AMRAAM. It just doesn't have a chance of doing that unless it's using an UNHEARD of fuel fraction. Wishy-washy arguments like 'oh, just because it's a French missile it can't be better' aren't terribly good arguments against this. It's possible, but not plausible. The 120A has a 46kg propellant, at a weight of 150-160kg of missile.

 

The MICA is a 112Kg missile, and the casing has to be a certain minimum thickness as well - so as you go down in size, you start losing economies of scale for some things.

 

MICA is meant to be a light-weight missile that fills both BVR and WVR roles. As a result, a dedicated BVR missile will be better at BVR, and a dedicated SRM might be a better SRM.

 

It doesn't make MICA a bad missile, it makes it a missile with a specific designed purpose, like every other missile. If it doesn't go as far as AMRAAM - maybe no one cares? Maybe tactics make up for that difference, or maybe the ability of lighter fighters being able to carry it makes up for it as well.

 

This was the case with AMRAAM: Some maligned it for being such a small missile (compared to say Sparrow), but that in itself gave the F-16 BVR capability. So instead of having thousands of aircraft able to only carry sidewinders, now they all have a BVR missile.

 

Another thing is, a lighter missile means you get to keep more maneuverability while it's onboard compared to a larger missile. The 530 is a 250kg monster ... that's two MICAs. That's twice the firepower for the same weight.