None of the bombs there are GBU-24s or unguided Mk 82s. Which is exactly my point. If you ever see an F-15E toting GBU-24s, it will probably (as in 99.9% probability) not carry M 82s at the same time.
France doesn’t operate the GBU-31 hence the GBU-24 on the 2000D (Yet, the body is of the same BLU-109 type).
I see 2 reasons for the MK-82 instead of the 500 lbs GBU carried by the F-15E and A-10:
1- AFAIK, the Mirage 2000D can’t launch GBUs from the rear fuselage points and opening this option was judged too costly for the MLU. Therefore it has to make do with air burst MK-82 instead.
2- During the Mali conflict the Mirage 2000D operated alongside the Mirage F1; the 2000D carrying GBUs and the F1 carrying MK-82 airburst bombs. The combo proved quite effective. The MLU of the Mirage 2000D allows to carry both GBU and low cost MK-82 Air burst at the same time on the same aircraft which is a nice operational improvement. (BTW, another load opened by the MLU is 2 GBU-12/49 on the center fuselage point + 2 MK-82)
But keep in mind that this MLU is driven by getting as much operational options as possible in a very tight budget. No doubt that if the French Air Force had the same budget as the USAF for upgrading and operating its aircraft’s, 500 lbs GBU or SBU with fancy fuse programing would have been adoped to replace the dumb bombs at the rear fuselage points…
Eventualy the FAF prefered to integrate a low colateral damage laser guided weapon on the rear fuselage points : the BAT-120 LG (again more operational options for current conflicts at the lowest possible cost):
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tPPA-2P1000553.jpg Views:t1 Size:t681.5 KB ID:t3839367″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3839367″,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”PPA-2P1000553.jpg”}[/ATTACH]
Sign In
