In the future, maybe?
2 Likes
i doubt they will change the loadout on the SAAF one for a while
2 Likes
no lol
its similar to the IRIS-T but no combat capable missile has ever been produced.
1 Like
Last warning about this antagonistic disruption…
They can tone its performance down no? Just as they did the magic II? Even the aim9L & Ms don’t have their primary advantage modeled in, their max effective range. Perhaps something similar will take place for the Darter and Python 4?
It just feels weird flying around with aim9s and sky flashes on a later model South African gripen.
2 Likes
As soon as things start to be balanced aritifically, things just start to get really messy.
Like for example. ASRAAMs BIG advantage is its range. That kinda its whole deal. If it was modeled accurately, but they then decided to turn around and go “we think its unfair for it to have its IRL range and therefore we are capping its range to that of its equivlanets” then Britian would be pretty much rendered DOA. (hyperbole)
I think, as we have seen with the Challenger 2 and Stinger. We really dont want gaijin “balancing” things. Yeah they could give it IRIS-T that is nerfed down to Aim-9M level. But its just going to probably be far worse than the Aim-9Ms its already got and just makes it overly messy.
4 Likes
I see what you are saying, makes sense. Here I was thinking the flares / chaff deployed from along the bottom side of the rail similar to the underbody dispenser on the MiG-23M.
Seemed logical when I said it. Some planes can’t even deploy air brakes and landing gear at the same time for some reason… among other issues.
2 Likes
Yeah, that is a wierd one, for a few like the Hunter I think its because the air brake would hit the ground on landing.
1 Like
Reasonable but that results in people claiming J-10 is a Eurofighter clone etc.
Canards alone for example can fulfill differnt roles on various platforms even if all of them are delta-canard configuration. When the other features of design be it larger or smaller slats for example or whichever improved variant is being used, also named differently as well, with added functionality are now coming together with canards for example, which fulfill a different role, be it a additional one or not, might completely change the result of such a comparison.
If we are talking about experts evaluating pictures a U-2 took in the 70s off MiG-25 for example it is surprisingly easy to draw wrong conclusions as happened in reality.
If it is a bunch of gamers whose education in regard to aerodynamics is based on Wikipedia, a bunch of articles and maybe a book or two people would have to note that everything they are talking about is a feeling based on snippets they believe to understand…
It looked to me as if the talk had been mostly revolved about the aircrafts abilities and not the aerodynamic configuration.
Mirage 2000 has very little to do with Mirage III beside the general configuration.
In comparison Mirage III would be a D.520 while Mirage 2000 would be Rafale.
Taiwan still relies on Mirage 2000 for air superiority and interception especially as far as I’ve come to understand.
That Mirage 2000 is not receiving the support some airframes from it’s time are enjoying most likely is based on marketing decisiosns from Dassault as well as demand. Rafale already is a somewhat cost efficient aircraft compared to some it competes with and is obviously more capable than Mirage 2000 which likely does not have as much room for growth as some other aircraft from it’s time.
3 Likes
It’s not though, the Chinese bought the research and intellectual properties that the Americans and Israelis did to develop the IAI Lavi. The Chinese developed the J-10 and used what they learned from that fighter to develop the 5th generation J-20
This statement is contradicting itself. You say it has little to do with the Mirage III but go on to say besides general configuration. General configuration means it’s generally the same jet.
The Mirage 2k is an upgrade upon the III. Digital radar, it sports a new digitally designed fuselage with strakes on the intakes, leading edge flaps and the arrival of Fly-by-wire allowed Dassault to tap into the performances that they were not able to before in the Mirage 3.
It is the modernization of the III brought to 4th gen standard.
Dassault specifically named it the 2000 because it was the Mirage platform that would take them into the turn of the century.
1 Like
As for the Mig25. You are correct. The broad wings, large elevators engines etc. would look to appear the aircraft would be a highly agile fighter with insane thrust to weight. The Americans did not realize the aircraft was insanely heavy and these features were nothing more than to compensate for it.
Exactly. And that is one of the most obvious issues.
Negative. It has very little to do with Mirage III besides the tailless delta configuration.
Sure the 2000 is called Mirage but Mirage III/5/50 is the Mirage family.
Mirage 2000 essentially is a different aircraft. As far as I understand Dassault stuck to the tailless delta configuration but that’s it.
Mirage 2000 is completely different. The biggest similarities are the tailless delta configurationa s well as the new engine developement stemmign from the Atar engine.
Calling Mirage 2000 a upgrade from Mirage III is like saying that J-10 is a Eurofighter clone or saying that everything that has optical similarities to F-22 is copied from the US instead of saying that there are factors dictating how a low visibility aircraft will have to look.
The unstable design combined with fly-by-wire, the composite materials, the strakes, the avionics…
Mirage 2000 is the epitome of Dassaults experience with the aerodynamic configuration not a upgrade of the Mirage III/5/50 family. Anything else understates the differences.
2 Likes
So, what do you declare the Mirage 2000 is? A completely separate aircraft and totally new design that has little to do with the previous mirages, besides name, designer, and wing configuration?
It is not a modernized variant of the previous Mirages but a new design altogether. Correct?
Please bro, that is not the same and no one said the Mirage 2k is a clone of the Mirage III.
of course they can tone down the performance.
But why?
why add it just to nerf it?
We’ll just end up with either an R-73 or an AIM-9M copy paste because gaijin would nerf it to be in line with those missiles.
1 Like
True, but my thing has always been to get the missile in the game first and then we can address performance. I believe the greatest hurtle is getting it in the game first.
I haven’t looked how good the Darter is. But I do believe the SA Gripen should not be a copy paste and should have some specialty.
Question, does the SA Gripen have AMRAAMS?
IRL it does not.
1 Like
So perhaps that can be a justifiable call for the darter for the SA Gripen when the time is right?
they will just give it amraams…
this also circles back to the issue of standardization: Where does gaijin draw the line
1 Like
Yeah, more likely AMRAAM IF it gets ARH at all and after all the issue with Skyflash that still havent been fully resolved, not too mention red tops and SRAAMs. Where ever possible, I want C&Ps of US missiles because at least they might reliable
1 Like
Nah they should just make other counties missiles close to irl as possible, same for USA and Russia. American missiles should stay in the American tree, unless there is no other option and if the other option would be too good for the game