would Dassault be more successful iif it kept with Mirage 2000 instead of Rafale?

Ok.
What tech does the Raf introduced in the “we” country when it came online?

I have already mentioned 70’s manufacturing tech and weight. How do you think the Grip got a place in the league ?

The most ridiculous thing is that it would have been partly a straightforward thing to do in a record time. But someone draw a line in the sand and history turn it into a failure.

That really funny. You are a farce. A freaky one I would say. Do you understand the meaning of our conversation?
Where does the -9, the -5 and “I” got their improved airframe? What are those customer complaining about?

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrright. So the Mirage 2000-5 uses avionics derived from the Rafale program which is what you were suggesting. I think the farce is on you there.

Aside from avionics, what do you suggest the Mirage 2000 would borrow to the Rafale? I’m curious.

Nic

Europe, perhaps instead of France, might have been better off if they could have figured out how to get some kind of hi-lo mix to develop for partners. France was satisfied with a lighter fighter and I’m not so sure Eurofighter couldn’t have been just as successful as it was only built with a common engine to the Rafale. If they could have got Sweden to cooperate to run Gripen off the same engine core, well then everyone benefits even more.

You are always better off when you pursue your own domestic program. Period. I’m glad that France avoided the mess that the EF became. And sad to see “we” are now forced to cooperate with the UK on FCAS.

But ever since the end of the Cold War we’ve seen anything save for cooperation among European partners. Eurofighter wasn’t anywhere as successful as it could have been. Rafale has been too expensive for the French. And Sweden found even Gripen a bit more expensive than they had hoped.

The Rafale isn’t too expensive. The french gvt is broke because it’s run by a socialist mafia and banksters.

If everyone had rallied around a common M88-size core then much of the problematic nature of developing several engines could have been avoided. And because so many different countries used the same engine, it would have made the choice to operate common overhaul depots all that much easier to coordinate.

And who would have the know how to make the core of a military engine? Either just RR or just SNECMA. Ie one of the two would have lost the know how. Have GE buy the other one and the know how disappears from Europe completely & we are forced to buy american…

Nice plan.

Europe, perhaps instead of France, might have been better off if they could have figured out how to get some kind of hi-lo mix to develop for partners. France was satisfied with a lighter fighter and I’m not so sure Eurofighter couldn’t have been just as successful as it was only built with a common engine to the Rafale. If they could have got Sweden to cooperate to run Gripen off the same engine core, well then everyone benefits even more.

But ever since the end of the Cold War we’ve seen anything save for cooperation among European partners. Eurofighter wasn’t anywhere as successful as it could have been. Rafale has been too expensive for the French. And Sweden found even Gripen a bit more expensive than they had hoped.

If everyone had rallied around a common M88-size core then much of the problematic nature of developing several engines could have been avoided. And because so many different countries used the same engine, it would have made the choice to operate common overhaul depots all that much easier to coordinate.

So, what did the 5, 9 and “I” did for the aircraft cell?

That really funny. You are a farce. A freaky one I would say.

Thanks.

I can see that you don’t know where M2K-5 (/mk2/-9) came from.

That really funny. You are a farce. A freaky one I would say. Do you understand the meaning of our conversation?
Where does the -9, the -5 and “I” got their improved airframe? What are those customer complaining about?

The Mirage 4000 wasn’t a Mirage successor. It was a supplement, a double size Mirage 2000 for long range interception & deep strike. It was aimed at Saudi Arabia & a possible replacement for the Mirage IV. The French state didn’t want it (& never asked for it – it was a Dassault private venture), & the Saudis chose F-15 & Tornado, so Dassault dropped it. No customers. It didn’t fail technically, it failed to get the interest of buyers.

The AdlA was content with the Mirage 2000 (which was brand-new: it only flew a year before the 4000) for the time being, & long term wanted something to replace all its Mirages & Jaguars. The MN wanted a carrier fighter. The AdlA would have been happy with F-18, but politicians wanted to buy French, so the requirement was for a carrier-capable fighter-bomber, which Mirage 4000 never was.

According to the Dassault website, work on what was to become Rafale began two years before M4000 flew.

nonsense… the Mirage successor (a better aircraft) was being studied since 1978, even before first Mirage 2000 entered service.

as for the upgrades for M2k, while Dassault proposed it in the late 90’s – early 2000, nobody wanted it anymore, even upgraded. As a result you can be sure it wouldn’t take any orders from the Gripen that would have the edge, if anything, because it is a more modern concept. And Dassault would never have been able to sell it to any of the markets that the Rafale gets today for pretty much the same reason. Another point is that as the Mirage is not carrier capable (and absolutely unrealistic to imagine such modifications), the french navy would have been forced to get their fleet fighters elsewhere, reducing even more Dassault sales. What’s more, the Rafale as of today,has more export orders than the Gripen

Basically, there’s no contest between the Rafale and Mirage 2000.. the latter did what it had to do, but the new bird is what Dassault needed to continue its development.

that successor was the mirage 4000. Rafale only went through because 4000 failed and Europe was moving a head.

By sharing most of it system with the Rafale, a 2K NG would have won many of the market share swallowed by the Su30, Typhoon T1 and Gripen. Moreover, this share of systems would have been beneficial to the Rafale by helping to keep costs down.

I can see only a lack of vision in it.

I can see that you don’t know where M2K-5 (/mk2/-9) came from.

Out of curiosity, could the M2000 have been converted to a close coupled canard? The Flanker got canards, as well as some mirage-5, so it is not impossible.

nonsense… the Mirage successor (a better aircraft) was being studied since 1978, even before first Mirage 2000 entered service.

as for the upgrades for M2k, while Dassault proposed it in the late 90’s – early 2000, nobody wanted it anymore, even upgraded. As a result you can be sure it wouldn’t take any orders from the Gripen that would have the edge, if anything, because it is a more modern concept. And Dassault would never have been able to sell it to any of the markets that the Rafale gets today for pretty much the same reason. Another point is that as the Mirage is not carrier capable (and absolutely unrealistic to imagine such modifications), the french navy would have been forced to get their fleet fighters elsewhere, reducing even more Dassault sales. What’s more, the Rafale as of today,has more export orders than the Gripen

Basically, there’s no contest between the Rafale and Mirage 2000.. the latter did what it had to do, but the new bird is what Dassault needed to continue its development.

It was in the early 90’s. Nobody wanted anything.

With the work done on the Rafale, all that experience could have been piped back to the Mirage (a late 70’s airfraime with all the unnecessary added weight) to close the gap where the Gripen so successfully engulfed itself.

By sharing most of it system with the Rafale, a 2K NG would have won many of the market share swallowed by the Su30, Typhoon T1 and Gripen. Moreover, this share of systems would have been beneficial to the Rafale by helping to keep costs down.

I can see only a lack of vision in it.

Does anyone know why did they changed the wing configuration from delta in Mirage III to normal in mirage F1 then back to delta in Mirage 2000 ?

delta had limitations before the F1. F1 was bleeding less energy and needed less thrust and space to take off.

Mirage 2000 was FBW, unstable, better engine. No issues with having a delta

Does anyone know why did they changed the wing configuration from delta in Mirage III to normal in mirage F1 then back to delta in Mirage 2000 ?

nonsense… the Mirage successor (a better aircraft) was being studied since 1978, even before first Mirage 2000 entered service.

as for the upgrades for M2k, while Dassault proposed it in the late 90’s – early 2000, nobody wanted it anymore, even upgraded. As a result you can be sure it wouldn’t take any orders from the Gripen that would have the edge, if anything, because it is a more modern concept. And Dassault would never have been able to sell it to any of the markets that the Rafale gets today for pretty much the same reason. Another point is that as the Mirage is not carrier capable (and absolutely unrealistic to imagine such modifications), the french navy would have been forced to get their fleet fighters elsewhere, reducing even more Dassault sales. What’s more, the Rafale as of today,has more export orders than the Gripen

Basically, there’s no contest between the Rafale and Mirage 2000.. the latter did what it had to do, but the new bird is what Dassault needed to continue its development.

Nicolas was right, it was a test bed for the RBE-2 AESA, the radar was way heavier than the RDI/RDY, that brought severe fligh restrictions to that particular Mirage airframe.
The Mirage 2000 line could not be kept open because there were no orders for it, and Dassault could not maintain an upgrade path for it without a major backer.

no, nicolas was wrong because he is talking about current day.

I am asking, if the Rafale was never made, then France would have to put more effort into upgrading the M2K.
The question is if the M2K would’ve been more marketable.
Yes, we know it is a dead end NOW, because people went elsewhere.

no you’re bull.
because it was tested with an aesa radar.

Nicolas was right, it was a test bed for the RBE-2 AESA, the radar was way heavier than the RDI/RDY, that brought severe fligh restrictions to that particular Mirage airframe.
The Mirage 2000 line could not be kept open because there were no orders for it, and Dassault could not maintain an upgrade path for it without a major backer.

its a dated design, unlikely to undercut gripen in operational cost,
ill suited for carrier compatible unlike the close coupled canards.

no you’re bull.
because it was tested with an aesa radar.

No it wasn’t tested with an AESA, it was test-flying the AESA radar for the Rafale program. It’s even written on the side of the plane.

Nic

the current M2K has a lower operating cost than the F-16 and Gripen.

I’m surprised to hear that the Mirage 2000 is cheaper to fly – where did you get that information?