Sorry to bring this up but I can’t let someone insult this plane based on a skewed view of history.
Reducing the Mirage III to ‘It was beaten by the Harrier’ is not only generally false (only one aircraft loss) but also adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
There was also mirage 5s that where not behind tech wise but I digress
I’ve taken it off topic and I apologize
Cool! do it in PMs because you’ve already ruined this thread irreversibly.
Well, I think I am biased a bit more on Harrier than Mirage.
Still, both are fancy lovely iconic jets which need some extra love. Isn’t it?
Especially when those infamous J-7D are invading our airspace with their PL-5B.
I am unsure if my claim will also be valid after the FM buff of the harrier drops.
But, for now, Mirage III suits more than SHar in ARB I think.
Mirage III is a solid platform in this game, while SHar suffers dreadfully due to FM issue.
(which was ill constructed, and even was underpowered at 9.7 on the flight characteristics side. which is shame.)
it might be true that we fragged a Mirage in that conflict IRL.
but in WT. Mirage IIIE might have some advantage from FRS.1 Early (which is similar to one which showed that conflict)
Both have two IR missiles. But Mirage flies faster in supersonic speed, and also can access the R.530 SARH.
And Harrier’s unrealistic heat-sig can be a problem when it needs to fight against R.550 Magic 1. maybe?
Anyway, I think no need to argue furiously about Mirage and Harrier.
As I claimed earlier. both are fancy lovely iconic jets.
Why do we need to choose one when we can have both of these?
They are great gunfighters with Magic 1s as backup.
I prefer the iR missile on centerline, but others prefer the radar missile.
Overall a cool plane, and both are among my favorites.
I don’t quite understand the “great maneuverability” comments on the Mirage IIIE. It gets beaten in a dogfight by almost anything it faces, as it’s overweight and underpowered too. It is however fast and has a great array of weapons at it’s disposal
Not bad
I think he means High Angle of Attack since the AOA is good on the Mirage III’s/5’s/Nesher’s at the price of not that great energy retention/high speed bleed
Lost to to short loitering time over the battlefield, inferior ground/ship based and aircraft mounted radar and inferior missiles and self defense suite or lack thereof.
Harrier pilots got to train against and on Belgian Mirages before the Falklands war.
Comparing a 80s Harrier to a 60s/70s Mirage makes little sense.
The Bri’ish sometimes talk big for a country that by and large crippled it’s aviation industry during the 60s.
EEL was in service till 1988 also. Imagine going up against M2K, MiG-29 or SU-27 in that thing…
The Harriers were limited in help by what the ships could possibly provide.
In the first mix ups the Harriers did not have counter measures.
Again in the first Harrier vs Mirage fight of the war the Mirages had full internal fuel after dropping the tanks and did use reheat.
The Blue Fox radar certainly wasn’t amazing it just did the basics for f finding ships and or tanks planes, it could not see over land.
Mirage did not have a AIM-9L equivalent, no reasonable RWR and less ground/ship support in the radar department.
All 9L shots in the Falkland’s where taken in a near perfect rear aspect as the Harriers just out played the Mirages.
The pilots did with superior avionics and training as well as better ground control.
No one is saying they did not do a good job. But the odds were stacked against the Argentinians - not to Mirage being inferior over all.
The Argies where not poorly trained and they where held in a professional light by basically all other pilots.
The Harrier was just better, this does not mean the Mirage was bad.
The only actually advantage in terms of pure ACM the Mirage has over the Harrier is speed.
The Harrier has a better climb to 20,000 feet or so
Better turning abilities, and a LOAD more SEP to play with.
In those particular circumstances perhaps.
The Harrier would comfortably beat the Mirage up to around 20,000 feet above that the mirage starts to take lead.
Regarding the general topic Mirage 3C/E are overtiered currently.
Mirage IIIC would be more interesting with Magic one removed while being placed at a lower Br.
Perhaps 9.3 just as the early F-104s or 9.7.
There is no reason for Mirage IIIE to sit at a higher Br than MiG-21 MF/SMT which it currently does.
10.7 & 10.3 respectively at the moment.
The issue was that the Mirages in the falklands did not have the avionics on the aircraft, ground or on ships to reach the level of alertness necessary in many cases.
They were often guided in by ground control into a particular area which was not effective.
Harriers often were scrambled by ships not only awareof the fact that a enemy was suspected or known to be in the area but knowing that it was and where said enemy was going.
The British could vector in their jets properly.
Mirage also did not often have the fuel to give chase.
Doubt that.
Harrier is more maneuverable than one would think but it does not beat it comfortably when on equal footing.
As I said British pilots also knew how to fight Mirage while the Argentinians had little to zero experience with the Harrier.
Yes it does lmao. They had no issues against F-15s at 20,000. However they really had to play to the Harriers strengths to beat the F-15.
In the formal CTTO Harrier ACM analysis it has a 7-1 advantage over a MiG-21 up to around 20,000 feet.
The MiG-21 and Mirages are fairly comparable.