They fixed it according to the report. More evidence was found later to support enhanced IRCCM and it is currently open.
Glad we got rid of the nonsensical discussion topics.
Then, by your pov what are left to be discussed on m4k or m2k-C and -5F? Or weaponary ?
Is GBU-12 Bug report for M4k is doable?
I mean it is weird that the charts of weapons gives such GBU-12 and that only the GBU-24 is availble,… even more when the GBU-12 is on M2K’s
If a pilot calls their Eurofighter or F-22 his beloved Mirage does it transform into a Mirage III derivate?
Do you even realise at what level you are ‘‘moving’’ there?
1 Like
@Cpt_Bel_V poly is derailing… Do I have permission to engage with is his question?
I do not quite understand the question either.
No, a pilot is not the aircraft manufacturer, Lockheed nor Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH can call those aircraft a Mirage either.
A pilot can nickname his jet whatever he wants. But no one can slap this base model logo on the side of any aircraft. Only Dassault can. Dassault decided it is a Mirage and to further identify the type/variant they place the designation right after it. III, IIIE, 2000C etc. They all hail from a patriarch, an original design. The Mirage.
You have a base model: The Mirage
You have model type: III, 2000. IV etc.
You have subvariants: IIIE, 2000C, 2000-5F.
no way this is still going on
i saw this happening when i wokeup 😭
2 Likes
It is reasonable to say that Mirage 2000 is based on experiences with the tailless delta design Dassault gained during design and support of each member of the Mirage III/5/50 family.
That is where I draw the line. Mirage III/5/50 and their variants are the grandfather, father, great uncle, uncle, great cousin as well as their brothers, sisters and cousins.
A different generation.
Mirage 2000 is a different generation however silly that term can be when used to determine the performance of a aircraft.
The Flanker family can not be fit for comparison since there is no generational leap involved. The design is actually directly based on the predecessors. You could take a SU-27 and build it into a SU-33 if you wanted, or into SU-37/47, SU-30 or SU-35.
Since Mirage 2000 is a entirely different design you could not do that starting from a Mirage III airframe.
As far as I know the V in F-16V actually does stand for Viper, which is the name pilots gave their fighting falcons. So yes people who use stuff often get to name it in practice. But that does neither change what the aircraft is capable of nor the technologies, production methods and other research which went into it.
That you apparently in all seriousness are determining a aircrafts desing history, origin, state of the art or whatever you want to name it based on it’s name instead of it’s actual ‘‘design’’ incorporating materials, aerodynamics, engine, avionics and so on is mind boggling.
Especially seeing how in other topics you are seemingly more focused on facts as far as the average layman can of course only assume without research in fields that can often not simply be looked up in an archive for example - unlike the topic at hand.
There also are P-38 Lightning and F-35 Lightning II.
Wether you are trolling or simply have a blind spot in this particular case is up for you to call but there is no bloody substance to the wild and seemingly crazed idea that is your flawed and 3 times cursed assumption that Mirage 2000 is based factually in design on Mirage III.
It is the other way around Mirage IIING is incorporating technologies from Mirage 2000 or even 4000.
1 Like
So you agree. But kind of, sort of?
At least there is logic present you are saying?
Thanks
No its not silly at all to refer to it as you do here. That is logical.
Yes, it’s a different generation. A different generation of the Mirage.
Dassault believed it would be the final generation and last Mirage of the century and that is why they gave it the special model type designation 2000.
It’s a new aircraft but it is still a Mirage and comes from the Mirage family of fighters all dating back to an original design.
The Mirage family has its origins within a series of studies conducted by the French Defense Ministry which had commenced in 1952.
The Mirage 2000 is a model based on, originates and is a direct descendant from those series of studies conducted in 1952 by the French government.
Grandfather, father, great uncle, uncle, great cousin as well as their brothers, sisters and cousins…
Are you for real???
What do you call this again? A strawman argument?
Anyway, Dassault organizes their designs starting with the name of the original concept followed by a name and type/variant into families. A family line of aircraft.
They literally use the word FAMILY of aircraft in their own history.
For example,
Ouragan
Mystère
Falcon
Étendard
Mirage
&
Rafale
Each one of these "family" of fighters has newer model types and subvariants, it does not matter how new or tricked out they are, they all started from an original design and base platform.
Every single model types/variant/subvariant are directly related in design in one way or the other and can be traced back to the original first aircraft and concept that was given the name.
In this case. The Mirage.
Because I disagree, you equate this with “trolling”.
Disagreement is not trolling, especially if you keep directly pinging me to come talk in the Mirage 2000 topic.
Speaking about history of the Mirage 2000 (when asked) is no more off topic or derailing than @Cpt_Bel_V complaining why a missile is not as good as he wants.
If any of you are personally offended that I politely disagree, that is no one else’s problem but your own.
“Blind spot”? “No bloody substance”? “Crazed idea”? Yet you keep throwing out wild “what abouts and what if”… Like seriously asking me what if an F-22 pilot calls his jet a Mirage?
If you are not sure I am trolling, I strongly urge you to stop asking me questions and directly pinging me in the first place.
Thank you.
Let’s open the envelope and discuss the Mirage 2000’s earliest variant, the F1! Crazy to think they went from this to a FBW relaxed stability delta within just a few short name changes.
2 Likes
@POLYDEUCES next time read a thread before answering,…
@Ziggy1989 don’t feed the people,… as you ask for them not to feed you,… next one you create a new topic and mention them in please.
@MiG_23M : not true either and you know it, but you do exactly what you don’t want.
→ CAN WE PLEASE FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE THAN HISTORY???
SHALL I CREATE A SPECIFIC THREAD FOR YOU ALL GUYS???
I ALREADY TOLD YOU ALL TO GO ELSEWHERE FOR THAT.
2 Likes
Sorry bel. I will not reply unless you say it’s cool.
You were just gone too long! I kept waiting for you to get on.
Ty. I will leave you guys to it!
I waiting new thread for Dassault Mirage F1 on new forum from @Cpt_Bel_V or @DirectSupport or other user
Dassault Mirage F1 - Variants, Characteristics, Armament and Performance
Or Dassault Mirage F1 - Variants, performance, characteristics and sources
1 Like
Point out the one I missed.
That and the following is not what I said or implied.
That is a rethorical question pointed at you being hung up on the name of the jet.
Strawman argument? After you actually agree that there is a generational leap? Of course you could argue I went over the top with the introduction of that argument. Said argument being the generational leap just to clarify.
Furthermore you could clearly call all aircraft designed by Dassault a family. A book about a companies history and tradition likely is going to establish a sense or idea of continuity. But that has nothing to do with the differentiation we have to make here in my opinion.
I also assumed that the last slightly ridiculous paragraph would be seen as what it was supposed to be, a ribbing attempt. Clearly to optimistic.
In my opinion you simply go to far on the take that Mirage 2000 stems from Mirage III/5/50.
It is a new iteration of a aerodynamic configuration Dassault is rather familiar and experienced with.
That is what Mirage 2000 is based on which is a signigficant difference to some of the comparisions and assumptions seen in this thread and elsewhere, which if true would by default claim that the performance and capabilities of Mirage 2000 are more on the level of a Mriage III/5/50.
If what I’m trying to say here is at all understandable.
The continuity and connection you are making out between what is often called the Mirage III/5/50 family and Mirage 2000 implies to many similarities going way beyond what actualy is there in similarities such as configuration of the airframe and issues France has had with jet engine design.
When you say things like Mirage is the design and III, 2000 and IV are the model types it becomes quite clear that you do not see or underestimate how far removed the aircraft named Mirage 2000 is from the Mirage III/5/50 family as well as Mirage F.1.
The advancements in technology and capability are great and as far as I know not based on existing hardware wherever possible.
When IAI reworked MiG-21 and called it MiG-21-2000 that is what Dassault did with the Mirage family when they offered Mirage 50 and other upgrade packages, some like Mirage IIING incorporating technology from it’s latest developements.
Mirage 2000 is not a upgrade package to existing airframes, not even a very extensive one integrating a new engine, a new radar, new missiles and other weaponry, adjusting the airframe, overhauling the structure to extend the service life of the airframe etc.
Mirage 2000 is a new aircraft merely based on a proven configuration.
2 Likes
Then you started it again,…
1 Like
Go create a new thread PLEASE,… stop with the non-sense of doing this bullcrap here.
1 Like
Oops.
1 Like
I didn’t reply
If you guys are fighting over naming. The first words of the French aerospace museum that has the original mirage-2000-1 (prototype) are « the successor to the mirage III and F1 ». Yes these aircraft are from the same family, they share the same design philosophy. This is different from the type of thing the Americans use: the f-XX designation are for different fighters, upgrades are given in « blocks » ex:
f-16 block 46 is not the same as f-22 block 46
But
f-16 block 50 is the same fighter as f-16 block 46
If you want to go to exceptions like the mirage F1 and it’s lack of a delta shaped wing, that is due to how it’s ment to be used in combat: a fast low flying strike/reconnaissance aircraft-> thus small wings are needed, otherwise, they use the same hardware, they have part compatibility, etc… (to the mirage III)
1 Like
@POLYDEUCES just let you know I read everything. You did not waste your time.
Cheers.
No one was fighting over naming. Just read the history of the designs. That where the naming comes from.
Thanks for sharing that link though
Dassault abandoned the delta because the original delta suffered in multirole, ground attack capability and payload.
The original mirage III & 5F is also very hard to use in CAS operations. It’s a jet that requires a high level of skill to use in that domain. Dassault was suffering in the export sales and went with the conventional wing design (F1) until the advent of fly by wire technology came in.
As soon as it did, Dassault immediately returned to the beloved original mirage delta design that originated from the 1950s & redesigned it from the ground up. FBW now allowed Dassault to tap into the performances they knew the original delta could do, but a pilot by himself cannot perform.
This mirage was so special they gave it the designation 2000 because it was the final generation of the century and will take the French into the next.
It is the final generation of aircraft that come from The Mirage Family of fighters.
You really have no clue about aviation history, design at all huh? Just sit around looking at game files you can barely understand right?
That’s unfortunate. Researching history is critical in understanding why some aircraft have what they have and some do not.