Dassault Mirage 2000

Archibald said:
There are not many of them, 30 or less. But they could be "bridgeheads" for UAE, Qatar or Greek Mirages - also second generation 2000s...
Click to expand...
As well as any French M2Ks that may still have hours left on the airframes but have otherwise been retired.

100 hours for conversion training, hopefully a couple hundred more for combat.
 
As unveiled by a parliamentary report, it seems we have an indirect confirmation that it will be 6x French 2K-5 that will finally be delivered to Ukraine in the first 3 months of 2025:

www.opex360.com

La France livrera finalement six Mirage 2000-5F à l'Ukraine - Zone Militaire

En janvier 2023, quand le débat portait sur la cession de chars Leopard 2 et Abrams à l'armée ukrainienne, la France fit savoir qu'il n'était pas question
www.opex360.com www.opex360.com
 
Last edited:
So this means that in addition to more aircraft to intercept Russian missiles and drones the Ukrainian ground troops will have more effective air support.
 
@NMaude : It should be able to fire it relatively easily. However convincing Dassault to open it to the M2K is a bigger challenge.
AMRAAM should however stands a better chance to make a difference being a slimmer missile on a relatively small airframe with a very comparable range when kinematics are taken into account (higher launch speed and better acceleration before launch).
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
@NMaude : It should be able to fire it relatively easily. However convincing Dassault to open it to the M2K is a bigger challenge.
AMRAAM should however stands a better chance to make a difference being a slimmer missile on a relatively small airframe with a very comparable range when kinetics are taken into account (higher launch speed and better acceleration before launch).
Click to expand...
High launch kinematics on Ukrainian side are kinda unlikely - 40n6/9a83/R-37m flying from who knows where will likely win.

That's the whole point why Meteor may be the only a2a weapon for Ukraine that sort of matters. But as it seems, for Ukraine it's probably tied to gripens.
 
TomcatViP said:
That beast climbs like a flee high on blood full of cocaine. Good luck to get a proper lock on it.
Click to expand...
With 2000-2020s pesa/aesa radars?
Like, any time a day. Please sign delivery of M=9 poleflying tower.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
High launch kinematics on Ukrainian side are kinda unlikely - 40n6/9a83/R-37m flying from who knows where will likely win.

That's the whole point why Meteor may be the only a2a weapon for Ukraine that sort of matters. But as it seems, for Ukraine it's probably tied to gripens.
Click to expand...
Can Gripen C/D even capitalize on the full potential of Meteor? (impo, this is highly questionable)

Probably even E/F can just barely achieve this.
 
snne said:
Can Gripen C/D even capitalize on the full potential of Meteor? (impo, this is highly questionable)

Probably even E/F can just barely achieve this.
Click to expand...
I don't think full potential is in question.

The question is meaningful firing range from the deck, without taking unacceptable risks(it's still extremely dangerous, because escorts are in the air, and fighter isn't LACM, AWACS sees it way further even on the deck). Meteor is the only missile in the world that has claim to that.

With AMRAAM, aircraft will have to cross FLOT at exactly right moment(determined by Russia), which assumes VKS and GBAD(both Russian and Ukrainian) are just completely blind.
 
Scott Kenny said:
At least Russian VKS/GBAD have not exactly covered themselves in glory over the last 3 years.
Click to expand...
Objectively speaking, they failed to do that they aren't designed to do, and do well what they were designed to do.

Soviet AD was designed to force such aerial stalemate since 1950s. VKS are designed to support it and operate through it - exactly in the way they do nowadays.

Covering in glory and being outright blind is different things.
 
Ainen said:
Objectively speaking, they failed to do that they aren't designed to do, and do well what they were designed to do.

Soviet AD was designed to force such aerial stalemate since 1950s. VKS are designed to support it and operate through it - exactly in the way they do nowadays.

Covering in glory and being outright blind is different things.
Click to expand...
Neither Russian air force (VKS/Tac Air or PVO/whatever the interceptors are called) achieved even local air superiority at the start of the Ukraine invasion.

That is utter incompetence.

No one has seen the RusAFs flying in more than 4-ship formations in combat, likely because nobody who knows how to plan those operations is still in the service. (While the US makes brand new Lieutenants plan wing sized operations in training and then execute those plans). Russians have lost a couple of A-50s, either to UkrAF penetrating the AD, UkrArmy sneaking a long-range SAM launcher or three within range, or fratricide. None of those options speak well of Russian competence.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Neither Russian air force (VKS/Tac Air or PVO/whatever the interceptors are called) achieved even local air superiority at the start of the Ukraine invasion.

That is utter incompetence.
Click to expand...
VKS isn't configured to achieve air superiority, that should be obvious just from its order of battle and procurement strategy. It's a force designed to buy time against largest concentration of air power on Earth, while biting back, before going doomsday.
As a secondary task, it was built for CAS(mainly through helicopter force) and COIN.

Ukrainian GBAD was, at the start of war, simply more numerous than it(and more numerous than whole Europe worth of GBADs, not far from US), and it thus managed to do a full reverse.

Scott Kenny said:
No one has seen the RusAFs flying in more than 4-ship formations in combat, likely because nobody who knows how to plan those operations is still in the service. (While the US makes brand new Lieutenants plan wing sized operations in training and then execute those plans).
Click to expand...
So either you don't see something, or Russia doesn't have a single lieutenant.
Feel free to believe in the former, I already saw enough how absolutely clueless experienced lieutenants taught Ukrainians how they should actually fight.
Scott Kenny said:
Russians have lost a couple of A-50s, either to UkrAF penetrating the AD, UkrArmy sneaking a long-range SAM launcher or three within range, or fratricide.
Click to expand...
That's called war.
Or did the Russians shot down that superbug too?
 
Ainen said:
VKS isn't configured to achieve air superiority, that should be obvious just from its order of battle and procurement strategy.
Click to expand...
If they can't even achieve local air superiority for a few minutes to execute a raid, that's incompetence.


Ainen said:
So either you don't see something, or Russia doesn't have a single lieutenant.
Feel free to believe in the former, I already saw enough how absolutely clueless experienced lieutenants taught Ukrainians how they should actually fight.
Click to expand...
Large difference between pair-to-section operations and squadron- or wing-scale offensive operations.


Ainen said:
That's called war.
Or did the Russians shot down that superbug too?
Click to expand...
The US and NATO haven't lost a single AWACS to enemy action in 1991, 2001, 2003, or any of the continuing operations in between. Out of 68 built, a total of 3 have been lost to accidents (2 to bird strikes on takeoff).

How many A-50s has Russia lost again? How many lost IN COMBAT with a country that has something like 1/10 their economy?
 
Scott Kenny said:
If they can't even achieve local air superiority for a few minutes to execute a raid, that's incompetence.
Click to expand...
They can and did.
At a cost of ~1-2 planes a day, because GBADs bush back, and DEADing dispersed field GBADs deep behind enemy lines is a task you have to prepare for(assuming that it can truly be achieved, because that's an unproven statement behind last 50 years of USAF progress).
1-2 planes a day is up to 700 aircraft a year, without incidents, which is, btw, 6 times US fighter production (speaking of China, by the way, and sustainability of covering yourself with glory). Whole VKS tactical fighter force doesn't reach that number.
Scott Kenny said:
Large difference between pair-to-section operations and squadron- or wing-scale offensive operations.
Click to expand...
Or large difference between outside observer without any combat experience, and an airforce with the most combat exposure on Earth. Feel free to choose.

Just a reminder, that Russian(Ukrainian) armed forces weren't designed to get majority of their support from the air. If you lose western airpower, bluefor is going to find itself naked.
Scott Kenny said:
The US and NATO haven't lost a single AWACS to enemy action in 1991, 2001, 2003, or any of the continuing operations in between. Out of 68 built, a total of 3 have been lost to accidents (2 to bird strikes on takeoff).
Click to expand...
Oh, that's a list of serious challenges.
Russia didn't lose a single AWACS in 1994, 2001, 2008, 2014 and 2015, too.

I guess your assumption is that in Pacific conflict US won't lose them either. Didn't happen before, after all.
 
Ainen said:
Oh, that's a list of serious challenges.
Russia didn't lose a single AWACS in 1994, 2001, 2008, 2014 and 2015, too.
Click to expand...
Difference being that the US and NATO had 2-3 AWACS up 24/7 for Desert Storm, Kosovo, the continuing No-fly-zones from 1991-2003, Afghanistan, Iraq 2...


Ainen said:
I guess your assumption is that in Pacific conflict US won't lose them either. Didn't happen before, after all.
Click to expand...
The US will sure as hell make China work for any one they do manage to kill.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Difference being that the US and NATO had 2-3 AWACS up 24/7 for Desert Storm, Kosovo, the continuing No-fly-zones from 1991-2003, Afghanistan, Iraq 2...
Click to expand...
So did VKS.

But at some point they encountered a state - industrial state - level opponent in a long war, capable of producing a seeker for an already available VLR missile (as well as patriot, though I frankly doubt it was it).

At the same time, they encountered pressing need to move AWACS to closer orbits, in order to detect LO LACMs;
A-50U(or, for the matter, E-3) doesn't see terrain-hugging missile from 400 km away.
Scott Kenny said:
The US will sure as hell make China work for any one they do manage to kill.
Click to expand...
Ukraine worked for two years to get to those A-50s. PLAAF started early, as we saw this week.
 
NMaude said:
Now the Mirage 2000-5 carries the MICA which is a good design however I wonder if it can carry the MBDA Meteor?
Click to expand...

Now that's a pretty interesting question ! As far as France was concerned, the 2000-5F was always a PESA stopgap with MICA (also the airframe were not "fresh" but an upgrade of 1980 era RDI Mirages).
Waiting for the Rafale which would carry the Meteor.
Also Mirage 2000 production stopped in 2007 with the last of the 15 Greek planes. Too early for METEOR ?
...
All the above duly noted, one can wonder whether Dassault ever considered integrating METEOR on Mirage 2000-5 / -9.

Anybody has a clue ?
...
Size-wise, if the Grippen can carry it, so can a Mirage 2000.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Now that's a pretty interesting question ! As far as France was concerned, the 2000-5F was always a PESA stopgap with MICA (also the airframe were not "fresh" but an upgrade of 1980 era RDI Mirages).
Waiting for the Rafale which would carry the Meteor.
Also Mirage 2000 production stopped in 2007 with the last of the 15 Greek planes. Too early for METEOR ?
...
All the above duly noted, one can wonder whether Dassault ever considered integrating METEOR on Mirage 2000-5 / -9.

Anybody has a clue ?
...
Size-wise, if the Grippen can carry it, so can a Mirage 2000.
Click to expand...
PESA? The Thomson CSF RDY uses a MSA, its not a PESA.
A few years ago the Indian Air Force looked at integrating the Meteor into the Mirage 2000, nothing come out of it, if i remember correctly the reason for droping it was "too expensive".

Cheers
 
Surprising that no one's shared this before:

(looks PS'ed but anyway)

GjHATalWQAE6RzA


https://twitter.com/x/status/1887493067701182745
View: https://x.com/DefenceU/status/1887493067701182745
 
Photoshoped for sure. AFAIK there ain't such a thing as a two-seat Mirage 2000-5F. Not french ones at least. Greeks and Arabs and Taiwanese -5 and -9 orders may have included some two seaters, but AFAIK all 37 french converted Mirage 2000 RDI were single-seaters. And all French 2000B remain with 1980's avionics.
 
www.twz.com

First Mirage 2000 Fighter Has Arrived In Ukraine

Less than a year after the transfer was announced, the first of the French-made delta-wing jets has now arrived in Ukraine. Less than a year after the transfer was announced, the first of the French-made delta-wing jets has now arrived in Ukraine.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Six planes won't make a big difference, but still better than nothing. Hopefully more of them will be transfered, since France has 24 more and Rafales ordered to replace them (albeit not enough for my taste, but that's just MHO).

Main interest of the transfer is Ukraine now has MICA armed interceptors, a missile that is no slouch and a good complement to the MLU F-16s' AMRAAMs.

en.wikipedia.org

MICA (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
6 planes with one of the best inertial nav suite for low level attack...
Not too bad.

It would be nice if they are adapted to shoot AMRAAM.
 
Last edited:
What they will carry is a matter of interest.
armyrecognition.com

First French Mirage 2000-5F Fighter Jets Delivered to Ukraine to Strengthen Its Air Defense Capabilities

First French Mirage 2000-5F Fighter Jets Delivered to Ukraine to Strengthen Its Air Defense Capabilities
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com

"The armament of the Mirage 2000-5F is a key asset for Ukraine. These fighters are equipped with MBDA MICA air-to-air missiles with radar and infrared guidance, providing an advantage in beyond-visual-range combat. They can also carry the SCALP-EG cruise missile, capable of striking strategic targets over 250 km away. This deep-strike capability enables Ukraine to weaken Russian infrastructure and rear bases, thereby reducing its operational reach. Additionally, the Mirage 2000-5F is compatible with AASM Hammer-guided bombs, allowing precision strikes against mobile and fortified targets."
 
It is interesting how "quickly adaptable" the SCALP is. I mean, integrating it to Su-24s wasn't exactly part of the plans, say, 20 years ago. Mirage 2000-5F makes some more sense, because Mirage 2000D. Can't help thinking it's a pity the 2000-5F did not got that SCALP capability while in France but once again, the 2000D was already doing that job - and still does.
 
snne said:
Surprising that no one's shared this before:

(looks PS'ed but anyway)
Click to expand...

Terrible photoshopping. Here's the original: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/g...0-fighter-jet-aircraft-gm1022838188-274572521


Archibald said:
It is interesting how "quickly adaptable" the SCALP is. I mean, integrating it to Su-24s wasn't exactly part of the plans, say, 20 years ago. Mirage 2000-5F makes some more sense, because Mirage 2000D. Can't help thinking it's a pity the 2000-5F did not got that SCALP capability while in France but once again, the 2000D was already doing that job - and still does.
Click to expand...

Well the SCALP is carried by UAE and Greek Mirages of the -5 family so integrating the missile on French jets should be pretty straightforward.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom