If you are speaking of any of these aircraft saddled with missiles and radars of point q at point t in time , any comparison does not make much sense.

The F-106 radar system as used was far superior to anything else except for possibly Russian equivalents.

Sage could pick-up items hundreds of miles away and even the F-106 was more limited by the lacking of the Falcon missiles than anything else.

As an interceptor it was far, far better than the F-4 and I have heard this from pilots who flew both.
The F-106 site, which is run by people who flew and worked on them, will open peoples eyes as to how good it was, or could have been.
One real life case, by an ex-pilot told of a exchange Navy F-14 pilot, who came over and showed USAF pilots just how good it actually was when in an inter-service Top Gun type exercise he succeeded in technically shooting down all aircraft he was put against including Navy F-14s.
The Navy pilots comment on the aircraft was that it was a good airplane that would do what you wanted it to do.

The veteran pilots said they learned a lot about how capable the F-106 actually was when young, temporary assignment, pilots would come and show the veteran six pilots– who were superior at knowing how to use the complicated SAGE based system in the six, which some ADC pilots said it took a couple of years to fully be able to master fully– what the six was actually capable of doing in basic air to air combat against other fighters.
More than one generation 4 pilot found himself shot-down when the young guns who did not have to unlearn anything and used the six to the fullest capability of what it could do without following some text book on what it is supposed to do or not do.

The six was always flying clean, the pilots on the site said the tanks it used really did nothing to hamper its performance in any way including at high mach, so as an interceptor, or even if it had been used as a air-superiorty fighter, it was always fully armed and flying clean.
The nuclear weapon it carried, one wanted to clear the radius not as much to clear the blast as to get far enough away from the EMP would not screw the sixes electronics; at the same time the weapon was not designed to blow bombers out of the air, although the one to close to the detonation would probably have gone down, but the neutron blast from the nuclear Genie would render the nuclear bombs carried by the bombers impotent.
It would have destroyed the bombs ability to detonate.

The six was at least tested for other applications as I have seen at least on picture of a six with a anti-radiation missile on an outer pylon, and another with a AIM-26 on said same pylon.
The six was never modified to carry the AIM-26 missiles in the missile bay as development on Falcon missiles in the U.S. stopped.
Sweden developed the Falcon to the level and actually beyond that the USAF would have had the AIM-4H not been cancelled.
Far more capable than any used by the USAF.

The numbers one reads on the performance of the six are merely numbers put out there for the public and do not show what it actually could or could not do.
Pilots who flew it said they were reaching altitudes, in intercept missions, in times far shorter than the printed rate of climb said would be possible.
Also during one Air Force series of tests, they successfully intercepted and shot down, for real, BOMARC missles traveling at super sonic speed at altitudes above 80,000 ft.
This was done using the very sophisticated SAGE-fighter link that would direct or even fly the aircraft to a point where the aircraft’s radar and pilot would take over and finish using information calculated by the fighters very advanced black-boxes for correct missile launch.

How fast the aircraft would really go seems to be actually unknown as pilots said speed was limited by fuel more than anything else.
If you came back with fewer pounds of fuel than you should, you may find yourself explaining to some desk jockey what happened to all that fuel.
One pilot said the fastest he ever saw on his mach gauge was a little over 2.2 with all the gauges showing every things was below anything that approached a redline, the aircraft was still accelerating smoothly but his mission profile required a turn and any turn scrubs off speed.
In his opinion he said he could see no reason he could not reach and exceed the aircraft’s listed top speed.
This was with a full weapons load.

Another pilot, said that when he took over the squadron commanders aircraft when the commander retired, found out that the former commander had told ground crews to not touch anything in the cockpit that had to do with pilot control.
He said when he flew it for the first time, the cockpit seat and controls were to the level of an old chair with all the upholstery gone and the controls were as loose tp the point one had the feeling they were going to fall off but he said that was because the former commander, who was an old timer who could do things with a six that amazed other veterans, and he did not want anyone to change anything because the old commander knew exactly how the aircraft acted and reacted to every input simply because nothing was ever changed.
The new commander quickly had the aircraft sent in for an overhaul.

Any lacking of the F-106 had more to do with how screwed up the Pentagon was under R Strange McNamara than any failings with aircraft the Air Force was flying.
Paper specs. (as were two actual aircraft) fitting the F-106 with better radar were drawn up, one including the same radar used by the F-15, but the USAF, with R. Strange MacNamara in the Pentagon was busy running around like a chicken with its head cut-off.
McNamara not only stopped production of more F-105s, but had the tooling destroyed to it could not be done, as he was going to have the F-111 built regardless of anything.

thank , very nice info :diablo:
btw according to wiki top speed of f-106 is about mach 2.85 :diablo:

F-106A : Modified F-106 with improved performance. Maximum speed at least Mach 2.5, with some estimates as high as Mach 2.85 in level flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart
but they also say

, the Phantom had a better radar

The F-4 had a higher thrust/weight ratio, superior climb performance, and better high speed/low-altitude maneuverability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart

On the contrary, delta wing gives Mirage 2000 very low wing loading: 336 kg/m2 @NTOW, 414 kg/m2 @MTOW. Compare that to 382 kg/m2 and 569 kg/m2 for F-4E’s NTOW and MTOW respectively.

nice info , but how about mig-19 , f-5 , mig-21 and f-8u they all more agile than f-4

True, but how much percentage of operational F-5s or MiG-21s carry HMS? Its possibly close to 100% for Mirage 2000-5s.

but they can have HMS and hobs missiles that the point , i mean we are compare aircraft type right , not airforce 😮

I have no data about them. But logically MiG-21 is more maneuverable than MiG-19, and F-106 as an interceptor is not maneuverable at all.

i remembered reading some where that mig-19 , mig-17 , f-8 is more agile than mig-21 however they have slower speed and earlier version og Mig-19 dont have radar or missiles, about f-106 , it also have delta wing so may be it will have good instaneous turn rate like mirage

Air-to-air combat testing suggested the “Six” was a reasonable match for the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in a dogfight, with superior high-altitude turn performance and overall maneuverability (aided by the aircraft’s lower wing loading)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart

Mirage 2k = 0,7 @NTOW 0,57 @MTOW
F-4E = 0,86 @NTOW 0,58 @MTOW

Still, T/W alone does not directly translate to better straight line performance.

better T/W give better acceleration => better zoom and boom fighter 🙂

guide from AWACS = you mean operator talking pilot where to go? Maybe, but in a dense ECM environment in today’s warfield, an F-106 pilot would likely to see his target with his own eyes before his radar does. Even if he somehow manages to lock on anything, an AIM-4 missile has only 9 km range. Nuclear AIM-2 missile has 10 km range. Theoratically, any escort with AIM-9s alone would outrange it, so its no good.

well F-106 doesnot seem very bad ( according to RpR ) and with GCI guide it can also sneak up behind target like what the mig did in vietnam war , btw i was talking strictly about intercept bomber only ( no escort ) and F-106 have quite impress top speed ( mach 2.85 ) and missiles with really nice warhead

Mig-21bis can carry R-73E

You mean MiG-21 BISON?
When BIS came out it was designed for nothing like R-73.

:confused: so the Mig-21bis is not the shorten name of bison ?? sorry may be i made a mistake ( thought it the same )

Ok, while I don’t have data for all the other aircraft you mentioned, I do have for MiG-21 F-4E and F-5:

WVR: A Mirage 2k with two R550 missiles has 29,2 deg/s max. instantenious turn rate at 9Gs at sea level. Thats quite a challenge even for F-16 pilots. Assuming a realistic high speed merge against any other aircraft on the list, Mirage pilot would make a hard, enegy draining turn to get to firing position within seconds.

f-16 have max instantaneous turn rate of only 26 deg/sec and max sustained turn rate of 21.5 deg/sec so yeah i agree that it quite a challenge for f-16 pilot to fight mirage 2000
but there 1 problem your situation is at sea level where the small wing ( giving little lift ) of mirage 2000 dont matter much , however at high altitude where the air is very thin the situation will be opposite giving the edge to f-4 , f-5 , f-8 ?

IIRC, 2000-5s are fitted with Topsight-E HMS, so with OBS missiles it would be nothing more than a target practice

.
well 😀 Hellenic F-4E can carry IRIS-T
F-5 Tiger III can carry Python-IV
Mig-21bis can carry R-73E
so probably we should left out HOBS missiles and HMS otherwise they be pretty equall :diablo:

Guns only. Delta wing or not, Mirage is designed to maneuver and all others not really much. Sure it has lower STR than F-16 or MiG-29, but it can run circles around any 2nd or 3rd gen fighter. Comparison between highest available STRs at sea level:
Mirage 2000 = ~19 deg/s (9G @ 530 kts)
F-5E = ~13.1 deg/s
F-4E = 13,7 deg/s
MiG-21 = 12,9 deg/s

how about the f-8U , mig-19 , f-106 ?
btw

F-4E holds a max sustained turn rate at sea level of 14.7 degrees/second

http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id15.html
do you have their T/W i think F-4 have better T/W than Mirage 2000 but not very sure

Interceptor: Its not the fastest, but fast enough (Mach 2.2 vs F-4E’s 2.23), with EFTs or not, it has more range than any other, quite possibly shortest take off run and highest sustained climb rates also. RDY-2 radar has impressive range, 24 target detection and 8 target tracking ability, combined with 6x active radar Homing MICA RF missiles (and their IR guided MICA IR counterparts), IMHO its beyond comparison with F-4E or any other type you mentioned.

how about F-106 , agree that it have really crap radar but with guide from AWACS or GCI it may be able able to get in position and it’s nuclear air to air missiles can do a great job :diablo: ( assume and interception against bomber so we dont have to worry about the enemy fight back )

Mirage 2000 is a 4th gen fighter which is broadly comperable to F-16. IIRC,2000-5 is further upgraded with avionics borrowed from Rafale. Mirage 2k clearly stands out in all the parameters (BVR, WVR, guns only, interceptor) you mentioned.

mirage 2000-5 is better as BVR fighter ,and WVR with missiles but iam not very sure it a better interceptor ( against bomber ) than F-4 ( f-4 is faster ) or F-106 ( f-106 have nuclear air to air missiles => huge blast => shot down several bombers by 1 missiles )
in WVR with only gun : Mirage also not a good sustain turn fighter like F-16 (because it use delta wing ) while F-5S , F-8U , Mig-19P are pretty good turning fighter at low altitude ( they also have more gun )

that’s a random mix you have there 😀

just for fun 😀 compare modern aircraft only is boring :p