I mean, I know the history of the Mirage. But I am not going to lose sleep at night because you think its an entirely new design completely different and Dassault just could not think of a better name than 2000 or whatever.
Lets be real, since you are “realistic.” You are entirely offended by my opinion of the aircraft, no?
Why? Like I respect your opinion. But lets be real, you are offended. Highly offended of mine.
Why?
Yes…
a family of french aircraft…
a family has a beginning, and it was the original Mirage… The end of that line was the 2000 and its subvariants…
Currently you omit pretty much everything around the history of Mirage,… i don’t know what kind of bullshit documentary you’ve seen,… but all in all you’re wrong on why the Mirage Family is called Mirage,…
You are offended. Highly offended. I can tell.
Why? I respect your opinion of the aircraft. Why cant you for mine?
Do you usually get this upset over the smallest things that have zero effect on you personally?
I’m despised more than offended, than an US guy from california is currently trying to tell me, a French guy who have worked in French Aeronautic Industries, that the reason is a Based-off bullshit,…
You’re making yourself a target aswell as a guy that try to impose fake views, or create myths,…(check for your preference).
You’re oblivious to most part of the origins for each Aircrafts of a family, but telling they’re all based off one plane is WRONG,… both industrially/technically/technologically.
The Name is a BRAND,… nothing more, nothing less.
I know i shouldn’t be doing this but if people are offended it’s because through all your arguments you say the Mirage Aircraft series naming is due to one peculiar design created, tested and operated in the 60s. While the fact this plane is kinda the origin of the serie does not connect it at all with the fact all Mirages were based off this one even if the overall shape come from a Tube with F104 inlets all designs through the history of Mirages had unique features. What pissed people is that you are saying Mirage 3 made the Mirage Family by it’s design which, in the end, is wrong because through the years Mirage got many shapes, technologies and weapons and believe it or not none of the Mirage have common designs, they emerge from an idea for the most part which is Single Engine Delta Fighters. BUT all planes of the Mirage series, believe it or not are in no way linked to Mirage III except for their name. The Mirage name is founded on a period of time and a successfull design and what kept them being named Mirages is mostly the period of time than the design behind it.
Rafale had a different name because it truly made a leap in terms of design and tehcnology compared to all the other Mirages. Everything on this planes differs from most of Mirages : Delta(Only remaining feature), Onboard tech, flight perfs, missions goals, doctrine, air inlets, gun placement and number… Everything was new on this plane totally cutting the line with how the Mirage Family has been designed.
But still Mirages of any variant aren’t based of Mirage 3 they inherited it’s name but not it’s features.
Staying in line with major features doesn’t mean being designed from.
Yikes…
Apparently, the guy above is only mad because he is French.
That is like saying he cannot know more about US aviation history than me because he is French. No… He very well can know more than me. Nationality has nothing to do with it.
Actually, he should be flattered I even give a damn about French aviation history, Being just an ignorant “US guy from California”, right?
You agree… dude stop playing games. The Mirage 2000 is from the family of Mirages that originated from the Mirage, II and III.
Yes, and so did the Mirage 2000, that is why they called it the 2000. But it was not different enough to start its own line or “family” of fighters.
I gtg Ily guys. Great talk.
Ignorant,… maybe not as much as some of your patriot fellows,…
Yet,… i’m SURE 100% that you’re making things up,…
So i can’t be flattered but despised you try to spread it around,… well spam it around would be more exact in this case.
Sorry but i’m not letting this fake to spread. ^^"
I assure you no-one important is paying any heed to the nonsense. They never have. I actually know that some staff have already gone ahead and blocked him as I have.
i’m just going to add one thing :
The 2000 is nearly one meter higher and wider than the Mirage IIIC, while the F15E and EX are only a few centimeters different from the F15C : theses two situation are not the same, the F15 airframe stayed the same while the equipment was upgraded, the Mirage 2000 however is a completely different airframe, only the general shape look the same, from far away.
Same for the Mirage 4000, that is 4 meters longer than the Mirage 2000 per example, or the Mirage IV that is nearly 10 meters longer than the Mirage III.
Theses differences in size are huge, saying that kinds of things (like Mirage IV and Mirage 2000 are variants of the Mirage III) is the same thing than saying “hey, the MIG 29 is a variant of the SU 27 because they look the same from far away”.
You can be mad at me all you want bubba… I really wish you would not though… They are only opinions and perspective.
You cannot police opinion, if you try you will just be angry all the time like this guy Mig23. Additionally, one of our game masters pinged me and so did another fellow user and asked me why I come to such a conclusions… I offered it and I thought it was interesting productive conversation.
He even memed me about it and it was comedy.
It was all in good fun. I understand the 2000 is really special to you. But it’s not like I said it’s a bad aircraft. It’s absolutely legendary and comes from a legendary line of fighters.
I just have a different perspective on it.
Yeah, well the ones that matter love me :)
That is all that counts!
Thanks for being a positive community building user as usual.
It does not apply my friend. The Mig29 was made by Mikoyan and the Su27 is made by Sukhoi.
I understand your logic here and makes sense.
Ok, so If you want to go with this as a standard. Is the Su33 an entirely new aircraft based on physical changes such as canards and broadened wings? Completely separate from the Su27?
Or is it merely a variant of the Flanker series of aircraft as NATO reports it as well as the Russians?
What about the F-15 STOL/MTD? Were those changes not great enough either? Gigantic canards and thrust vectoring? Why is it still nothing more than a design based on the original F-15?
Same principle is applied to the Mirage 2000. It does not matter how big it got or how small it gets. The aircraft was designed and improved upon the original design.
The Mirage 2000 is a 4th generation redesign of the original Dassault Mirage fighter of the 1950s.
Guys stop this nonsense just let him be. Last time there has been such a long talk that was semi off topic cf. This thread Things wrong with the Mirage 4000 Thread - #1170 by Kishin_SR6
the whole thread has been closed for more than a 100 hours so just stop here.
I think the whole mess here mainly comes from the different interpretations of “based off”.
But where I really have to contradict you strongly is if you compare Eagle/Strike Eagle/Streak Eagle to Mirage III, Mirage IV and Mirage 2000. Those two cases is just not compareable.
The M2000 is not just a vastly modernized/improved/extended M3 (like the Strike Eagle is an improved/extended Eagle), but a new construction. Just as the Mirage IV is not just a bomber version of the M3, but a new aircraft, in SHAPE similar to (or based upon, if you want to use that term in this connotation) the Mirage 3. (Maybe a bit like the B-58 shares a lot of aerddynamic features and (apart from the engines placement) similar layout like the F-102 and F-106 (which eally IS based on the 102…), all from Convair…)
Even the wiki entry describing the Mirage family (Dassault Mirage - Wikipedia) explicitly says "Mirage 2000 supersonic tailless delta-winged successor to the Mirage 50, with an all-new airframe.
Sure, “based upon” the Mirage III in the sense that it uses the same design philosophy, aerodynamic similarities. but NOT “based upon” the Mirage III in the sense that it would be “just a Mirage 3 with Generation 4 tech”… (And that last bit that you saida bit further up is what rankles for me…).
Cmon on Sntitdes… Bro we are discussing the Mirage 2000 and learning about it. Generating interest in it. I am always open to learn more about it and hear perspectives.
Don’t you want to generate interest and examine the history and hear perspectives on it? Its not like I am not listening to your points and cutting you off.
I agree, and I think that is why @Cpt_Bel_V was mad. It sounds awfully like “the same”.
Though to me even if someone said that, I would think it a compliment because how legendary the III was. It’s just not talked much about in western pop culture as most of its victories were in the Middle East and waring countries that had them.
I agree 100% and that is the position I held. They are new aircraft but designed to fit a role/era. All coming from the same linage of aircraft. A Patriarch, The Mirage.
I only said that to throw a jab out there because I felt cornered, my apologies. I do not believe that. It’s the Dassault’s 4th generation iteration of the Mirage platform Imo.
Who knows Dassault is returning to the pure delta design for 6th generation. They may very well call it the Mirage.
The Mirage family may very well not be dead as we know it and very well make a comeback in the next decade.
Haha, guess now you’ve boiled it down to what we probably all can well agree to! = )
Yes sir! Now I am all super pumped about it.
I am going to play the M2k and M4k the rest of the day and look for another documentary on them!
I wait gajin add new Mirage 2000D with 3rd generation targeting pod and domestic france guidance munitions