That comparison is the closest we have, and it isn’t even a bad one at that. The Gripen and Mirage 2000 should act very similarly with the Mirage 2000 having a higher T/W and lower wing loading… but otherwise higher wing sweep angle of 58 vs 52 degrees for the Gripen.
Seriously? Even Gaijin wouldn’t say “should act very similarly with.”
What basis do you have to make such a statement?
2 Likes
Unstable designs need to pitch the nose down, solve the delta issue of trim drag. What further similarities do you need to understand how these aircraft are similar? Are we going to ignore the fact that they suggested the Mirage 2000 is a gen3 delta?
The Gripen has negative static stability provided by the canards, when they deflect they make it positively stable or neutrally stable. This is because when they lose lift, the CoL moves rearword… rather simple thing to understand. Also, due to having a Canard to provide airflow over the wing at high angles of attack the leading edge flaps are not necessary on the inboard side of the wing. The dog tooth works to act like a simplified double leading edge flap, even having two specific actuators to help push the flap out but otherwise being a simplified system to save on weight and complexity… relying more heavily on the canard.
The Mirage 2000, also negatively stable is unable to recover from pitch-out departures as easily because it has no method of becoming suddenly neutrally stable as the Gripen does. Otherwise, the leading edge flap system is a little more complex and likely a little better off than the Gripen for transonic and supersonic flight thanks to the more complex leading edge flap system. They can be differentially deflected when needed to develop the same vortices and control as the dogtooth.
Overall the two designs are extremely similar, function in practically the same exact way… but the Gripen has forward trim surfaces as well as rear trim surfaces… and has a method of becoming neutrally stable. What is most interesting is that the Gripen compromised in certain areas in an attempt to improve subsonic maneuvering performance whereas the Mirage 2000 focused solely on supersonic energy maneuverability. Both are 4th gen designs, both incorporate all of the same advancements but to put it simply…
The Gripen chose canards, the Mirage 2000 chose a more complex leading edge flap system. The two are totally comparable in all other regards.
He has quite the imagination huh? lol.
WRONG.
Gripen only has one droop flap per wing. The Gripens leading edges are DRASTICALLY different. The droops flap does not cover the entire wing like the M2k. Neither does the M2k have a leading-edge dog tooth extension.
Flaperons of the M2k do not tapers and blends into the fuselage like that of the Gripen
WRONG.
the M2K is a purely a delta wing the Gripen is not. Nor does the M2k have massive controllable foreword wings called canards.
IRRELEVANT
Single vertical tail? You mean a vertical stabilizer? Like an F-16 and almost literally all single engine fighters?
ok.
IRRELEVANT.
Like the F-16C?
IRRELEVANT.
Like the F-16C?
1 Like
Dude stays making things up.
Thats why the Mirage is OBSOLETE AND RETIRED? The Gripen is not.
1 Like
SAAB design a unstable aircarft but with close coupling canard and leading edge flap
Big Briain
How can compare when the Mirage 2000 doesn’t have movable canard ?
4 Likes
It does not have canards period. He think they do the same thing even though he has studies on it saying it. Its really weird how he interprets these things when his own sources say otherwise.
1 Like
If you don’t understand how the Gripen’s canard works you will not understand why they are similar.
To put it simply, the canard cannot deflect at low subsonic maneuvering speeds or the aircraft loses the instability. The canards generally stay neutral… providing additional lift. The Mirage 2000 doesn’t need this because it has negative static stability in its’ normal configuration to begin with.
The advantage of the Canard on the Gripen is the ability to deflect the canard at high angles of attack to make the aircraft neutrally stable again - this allows for ease of recovery from post-departure or post-stall conditions. Otherwise it is acting like the leading edge flap / strake on the Mirage 2000 at the same time.
You do not know what you are talking about and the dev literally told you to stop spam reporting on the canards. You are wrong.
It’s a wrap my boy. Keep looking for more ways to nerf the jet.
1 Like
looks like F-16 or M2K with canard, so FM is very similar. it’s unstable design
trust me bro
5 Likes
m2k isn’t retired though
and it’s gen 4, not 3 like some said in this thread…
2 Likes
I knew someone would come through with that.
I am sorry. Let me correct that and be really detailed about it.
The Mirage 2000 is being phased out because they are obsolete. It’s over with. Mirage 2000 is finished. Gone, Bye Bye. Rafale is superior. The Gripen and Rafale are here to stay. Because they are the superior design more modern design.
The Mirage 2000 is OBSOLETE and Dassault refuses to update and modernize nations who have them without being paid insane amounts of money.
I’ve entertained them long enough, I think just here to heckle and let out their grief that the FM is being… buffed? They aren’t even reading the reports.
1 Like
and yes, btw those individuals are wrong. The M2k is purely a 4th gen fighter.
But it does not change the fact that they have stopped being produced YEARS ago (over a decade) and is an obsolete platform. They are being phased out of service as we speak.
Everyone is getting rid of them, and Dassault has zero interest in modernization.
The Gripen and Rafale are the superior modern designs, and more units are being manufactured now this minute.
yes it is, because rafale exists, who knows maybe it would still be upgraded if it wasn’t the case, but that’s just “ifs”
back on topic, i can understand why mig is trying to compare gripen with m2k.
think of it the other way, what plane out there is more similar ?
f15, su27, mig 29, f14, j8 ? certainly not
f16 ? maybe, it shares a similar role and size
mirage 2000 ? same as f16, and you have the delta. Yes i get it, the canards are a plus on gripen, but quite honestly those 2 are the most similar from all in game planes at the moment
As for the engine thrust, if it’s nerfed they obviously need to adjust the drag accordingly, since we already have a source for the acceleration
1 Like
Comparing the Rafale and the Gripen is appropriate. Not the M2k.
They are both made with aerodynamically integral designs and computer-generated aerodynamics.
The Mirage 2000 was built upon a 3rd generation platform. Meaning some Frenchman in the 1950s drew the original Mirage design on a piece of paper.
These aircraft are completely digitally developed and are vastly superior to the M2k.
It is an utter disrespect to SAAB and Dassault to keep kicking this dead horse the M2k. A lovely aircraft no less. The Mirage 3 has the number one record for peer air to air kill over the Mig21 and F4 Phantom irl.
the Mirage 3 platform is legendary.
But its obsolete and Dassault has moved on. You should too.
mirage 2000 is old and will be retired probably soon, only a fool would think it could go toe to toe with latest designs
the thing is, while the gripen is probably better suited for WVR fights, although not by a large margin (weak engine), the airframe itself doesn’t offer much for BVR. Scrap a spectra, meteors and an AESA on the m2k, and the 2 can probably go toe to toe (hell i’d argue the C variant of gripen only equipped with amraams is comparable to the 2000-5f equipped with mica in that regard)
what ? 1950s ?
TLDR, gripen is neither comparable to m2k or rafale, it’s somewhere in between
1 Like
The community and the devs have rejected your report spamming in regard to the canards. Game over there.
The only reason you are here is because this jet is currently in the spotlight, and spam reporting gives you a sense of purpose and opportunity to about yourself and slide in a narrative about unrelated FM models you will shift over to next.
1 Like
The original platform the Mirage was drawn up on a piece of paper by a Frenchman in the 1950s.
Yes.
The M2k is called a Mirage because it’s the same damn platform but instead just with 1970-1980s upgrades.
The Rafale and Gripen is the next generation of combat aircraft design. (the next evolution of the delta wing configuration) Entirely in another league over the M2k.
common misconception (thought the same some years back tbh)
mirage III and 2000 look very similar, but they are not the same at all
one was indeed drawn by someone in the 50s while
the other is an unstable design (unable to fly without FBW) mirage 2000 is NOT a mirage III with some random radar or engine upgrade. It’s a completely new plane, and both airframes aren’t the same shape, but it doesn’t strike at first glance.
but i’m off topic
2 Likes