Mirage 2000 Thread : Variants, performance, characteristics and sources

Btw: look, ANOTHER Mirage: https://wiki.warthunder.com/images/thumb/e/e2/GarageImage_Mirage_F1C.jpg/800px-GarageImage_Mirage_F1C.jpg

…not the same aircraft as the Mirage III / 5.

What you can say is that the Israeli developments up to the Kfir are based on the Mirage III / %, but that’s about it…


“based off of” is not synonymous with “the same.”

They are two completely different designs! It’s not altered fuselages or wings, everything is completely new, just sharing the same aerodynamic layout that Dassault was most experienced and successful with.


I don’t understand why everyone keeps disagreeing with Ziggy here, all mirages are obviously derived from one design, and share a delta wing (even the F1), just like the FH Phantom and Phantom 2 are both twin engined jet monoplanes, and neither of them is a biplane, so they’re 100% related

1 Like

You are in the wrong at all stages first between original Mirage IIIs and 2000 the airframe changed and the general tructure changed too while keeping the delta which is only common point between the two aicrafts. For the Airframe the design of the internal structure changed a lot mainly due to the new tech inside, sensors have been upgraded and internal desing of the plane has changed due to that. Plus you have 4 obvious observable facts the airframe changed and are not the same : Size + Tail design + Wing design with moving edges + Fixed Canards. Second tech insides evolved a lot as said previously and internal disposition of components changed too for electronics more than weapons. The fact the name Mirage hasn’t been changed is just that it was a French Single engine Deltawing fighter which is the only true aspect Mirage III share with 2000 being a single engine fighter. Also then how TF is Mirage F1 a thing when its has nothing in common with Mirage III airframe LMAO.

I am not even saying it to be mean (at first) though I threw a little jabs in there because I am getting jumped by everyone and our a Game Master. (lol no hard feelings).

But it’s just based off the previous designs before it. Literally why Dassault did not feel it was much different and still called it a Mirage, but super fancy enough to give it the 2000 designation.

The Rafale is a completely new design that came from scratch. But of course used the lessons learned from the previous & legendary Mirage.

The success of an external design don’t make it comparable if what is inside changed. Design is an everything it includes outside and inside. Here you only base off the outside which still has changes compared to the Mirage 3 like when you search for the real sole similarity you’ll obsevre it in top view becaue you’ll have a tube with triangle wings from topview. Otherwise design change quite a lot and, well, performances too.

I guarantee you the Mirage 2000C has parts that came from the Mirage III before it and shares many interchangeable misc parts. It was a leap in technology and capability and its why they gave it the 2000 designation.

To sum it all up it’s not truly the design that make a Mirage a Mirage it’s the concept. And the concept similar to all these aircraft if that they are French Planes because Mirage F1 exist which is not Delta and Mirage IV and 4000 exist which are twin engines so Mirages aren’t even single engine deltawings like i said lol.

Inspiring from and basing off are two different things.

Then @Ziggy1989 would you for exemple consider that the su35 is based on the su27 ?

1 Like

Another clue why the Mirage 2000 is based off original design.

If it was a completely new design Dassault would give it a new name without a variant designation.

The Mirage started off as just the Mirage.

The Rafale is a new design that is why its only called a Rafale. It is the original design. The Rafale is not based of any other existing fighter. Dassault built it completely from scratch.

For this case it’s more sensitive as all SU27 derivations alike truly different versions, visually at least are the ones with canards and the SU 34 honestly.

Yes, it’s still a Flanker. All of NATO still considers it and calls it a Flanker E.

This standard is held across the board.

No matter how mad Sukhoi fans gets, it’s still a Flanker at the end of the day.

It’s LITERALLY based from the progress and observations made thanks to Mirage 4000. The name change does not have anything to do with the design but it has a lot more with the period of time and the original purpose behind it otherwise Mirage IV shouldn’t be a Mirage F1 too and 4000 too.

1 Like

But then, the mirage 2000 is still pretty different from the mirage III. Back of the fuselage does not meet the wing at the same place, front and engine intake are different… the entire structure of the plane is different, materials are different…

1 Like

The Rafale was designed on the lessons and research taken in the M4k and other research efforts done by Dassault. Not just the m4k.

I don’t support the Mirage 2000 = Mirage III i’m against it since the begining dood.


Okay. My opinion is a bit different from yours. But all in all it’s just a matter of where you put the line between different designs. But I understand your point of view still.
As long as you are consistent with other denominations (such as the flanker), I don’t see the point in this argument tbf

1 Like

Then by your logic it should be named Mirage X)