AspisI doubt this unless u include the developmental costs that UAE paid for it. It is one of the contenders in the MRCA competiton (a modified block 60) and still regarded as much less expensive than the Rafale.
In greek press, the 52+ with current exchange rates, is supposed to be around 40 mln euros (fly away) , with the Rafale at 60. From what i remember about the B60s from greek forum, the price would come to around 50-55. UAE paid 3 bln $ for development, but will be receiving royalties for any future sell of the B60. Now, i don’t know how this is affected from the fact that India will manufacture the aircrafts locally. Nor how the exchange rate of euro and $ is affecting the indian bid. For example if you loval currency has gained over the dollar and lost to the euro, buying american becomes even cheaper, because the american bid will look even lower at cost. Or what the “modifications” on Indian B60s are compared to UAE B60.
The TOTAL cost for IAF will be CERTAINLY much bigger if you choose Rafale, because of the higher cost of french weapons alone. F16s come with cheap weapons.
AspisThe Greek Mirage 2000 are optimized for A-A operation on the othe hand 🙂
The Mirage -5mk2, is by design better in interception. Because, the delta wing performs better as you go higher, the Mirage has superior ceiling and final speed than the F16, thus maximizing the envelope of its weapons (thank God radars have look down capability for quite some time now). In interception, if you are better at higher altitude and speed, you have better chances to win and there’s not much you can do about it.
– The F16 can stay low. Well, so much worse for it, it will penalize its own weapons envelope and even if they meet for WVR, the Mirage will be taking advantage of the momentum from coming at higher speed from higher altitude to gain the first turn. The only mitigation factor for this is JHMCS or survive the first turn. The latter being more difficult against a good pilot, because the Mirage could win against B30 in HAF, which is considered better dogfighter than the B52+.
– The F16 can go high. Still, it can’t beat the Mirage ceiling and final speed and once there, it’s in the realm where the Mirage performs best in dogfight.
The 2000-5mk2 has also better radar than the B52+, which allows for first look on the enemy. This , combined with links and MICA IR, can allow a Mirage formation to break and encircle an F16 formation possibly avoiding their radar cones, using links and IRST image of the MICA to approach from directions that the F16s are unaware.
The other positive aspect of performing better in the high altitude, is that it’s also the realm where you have better fuel economy while cruising.
And the french EW suite is better, which comes handy at all times.
– However, for very long range interceptions, B52+ is better, because it offers you a better flexibility. You can drop tanks, engange in a fight and still have 2 CFTs to give you peace for mind fuel-wise.
The Block 60 has AESA radar, has IRST, it’s another story. But as Glitter said, for that price you can buy the Rafale.
AspisIf Mirage 2000 is so better than F-16 why Greek ordered more F-16?
Simple:
– The Mirage fly-away cost was always higher than the F16.
– HAF never particularly valued the Mirage as a strike aircraft compared to the F16. The advantage of the Mirage is to take advantage of delta wing on high altitude, high speed, while keeping the wing load low (interception). As a result, no A-G was purchased.
– 1 MICA costs as 4 Amraams.
– Upgrade cost for Mirage paid: about 28 mln /plane. Upgrade cost for F16 as proposed by LM: 8-11 mln /plane (depends on what block you start and on which block you want to bring it).
– French spare parts are more expensive than american ones.
– Inability of the Mirage to use of the biggest part of US made A-G missiles (so pay more money for expensive french ammunition).
– Greece isn’t UAE or Saudi Arabia (well, even UAE last week declared inability to pay its debts asking for 6 months delay, so go figure).
The Mirage in HAF was valued only for:
– High altitude interception/dogfight.
– At the time of the combined buy of M2000 and F16 B30, the M2000 was judged better dogfighter and with better SARH missiled (Super530D). The latter changed with the Amraam. On the brighter side, the successive F16blocks, grew heavier. Today, the non upgraded M2000 has taken TASMO as primary function, with interception as secondary.
– EW suite (the french have traditionally offered better than the americans for export).
– RDY II of the M2000-5, is the best performer in HAF today (the RDM on the other hand took about 2 years to become accepted after modifications, HAF never grew fond of it.).
– Ability to carry AM-39 (2000) and SCALP (2000-5). The limitation here is the cost of the SCALP…
– Partial independence from US political pressure or operational unofficial embargoes.
– The value of “being different” (introducing an aircraft that isn’t what the opponent has and knows thoroughly).
The above didn’t justify to buy larger number of aircrafts, because an airforce can’t do just interception. Someone needs to go for strike, SEAD, CAS. If you don’t have access to F-16, then ok, you may consider paying for expensive french weapons, spares, etc. But if you do have access on F-16s, why not buy F16s? The buy of extra Mirage2000-5 was further penalized, by the potential request of being able to offer some assistance to Cyprus. Historically the operational problem was that “Cyprus is too far away”.
The Mirage is inadeguate to offer any assistance over Cyprus. We don’t have the A-G weapons needed and the range is almost prohibitive, it would need the Mirage to load with 3 tanks, ruining the aerodynamics of the delta wing and even then the CAP time would be very limited and once dropped tanks to engage in fight, it would be doubtful if they would have the fuel to go back to Crete in case the Cypriot airport is destroyed. Non CFT F16s had pretty much the same fuel issue, but with the advantage of being able to deliver some A-G weapons. At the time of the options for F16s and M2000-5 the natural solution was to buy F16s B52+ with CFT, which is why the first order of B52+ was placed on Crete instead of the mainland Greece, where someone would expect to put the “better” aircrafts (closer to the main cities).
AspisA small addition. In case someone is wondering why the map generated is displayed both in the MFD and the HLD (Head Level Display). The HLD diplays image with focus in the infinite. This is to facilitate especially in night missions, the eye focusing. So, if the pilot has been observing for a long time his MFDs, his eye lenses will be already adapted to focus to small distance, so he ‘d better use the MFD. On the other hand, if the pilot has been looking for sometime outside the cockpit, or looking through the HUD, his eye lenses aren’t ready to focus quickly to the MFDs. In this case, it’s preferably to use the HLD , which will not strain the eye. Basically is helps avoiding eye strain and helps pilot’s vision adapt faster to any situation.
Aspisthanx ! A pitty it in a greek for me !:o
What are the interesting points raised ?
It’s quite boring actually, you don’t miss anything for not being able to read it.
Mainly, it starts with a comparison with the 2000EGM simulator which is next to it and from the exterior looks more important, because it’s… bigger. Then once you get inside , all changes.
Then he describes the cockpit and what’s positioned where.
Then with the help of the instructor he took off, he tracked a single “enemy” at 80 miles, in the meantime he became dizzy ( :p ) , he arrived at close range, he managed to get the tail of the enemy at guns range , he started shooting with the gun and … missed and at that point his airspeed went below 150 , that made the computer take over control to correct his stall attitude and would restore commands to him once the airspeed was again over 150. An inglorious end for the dogfight…
He liked the fact that it’s the most digitized aircraft in HAF and he liked the autopilot ( :p ). By pressing a little trigger on the rear part of the stick, while you have AP engaged, you take control of the aircraft and AP indicator turns orange, you correct course, let the trigger go, the AP light turns green again and the AP is back on staying on the new course. Well apparently the journalist was enthusiastic about that. I suppose once you get dizzy, anything that can take off your shoulders the pressure, is “awesome”. 😀 He says that the feeling that he was in the real thing was so strong, that he started sweating. 🙂
At the end he landed. That’s pretty much the story.
AspisAn interesting pdf where you can see photos from the simulator of M2000-5mk2.
http://www.interception.gr/app/webroot/objects/27_SIMULATOR_MIRAGE.pdf
There is also a photo of the cockpit of the 2000EGM in comparison (the one with 1 MFD. Actually we have recently changed that MFD but doesn’t change much).
There is a photo near the end of the pdf, with the RDY-II in A-G mode, producing map image. This image is still without enabling the SAR function of the radar, something that was done later with the update of the software. Still it provided good detail.
Aspis.
Integration? Probably. The UAE paid for the development of the Mirage 2000-9 & Black Shaheen.
Yes, in the M2000-5Mk2, in order to use SCALP, it had to take an update of SEG 52 software.
AspisThe Rafales on the Charles De Gaulle are now F3s?
Dec. 1-8 there will be major air-naval exercize between in Greece with the French.
From the French part:
– Charles De Gaulle.
– Cdt Bouan, Aconit, Cassard, Jean-Bart, Cdt Ducuing
– Meuse.
– 1 submarine.
From the greek part:
– 2 frigates, 5 FACs, 5 gunboats, 2 general support ships.
– “Big” number of aircrafts from various squadrons.
– CSAR helicopters.
If the Rafales are F3 and the scenarios predict A-A engagements, it will be interesting to see , if anything is divulged to the press, how the impressions will be compared the last time De Gaulle was in Greece with Rafales F1.
If i come to know anything about it, i will post it.
AspisWhat about the mission readiness, can you tell us anything about it Aspis?
I ‘ve no clue really, never read a comparison between the 2. If you ask me, as long as you pay to get a regular flow of spares and you have available technicians, more or less it will be the same. The only fact that we know for sure, is that the Mirage’s airframe “withers” better than the F16 (the F16 have paid visits to HAI industry for structural upgrade, the Mirage didn’t need to). And it is commonly accepted, that at least in HAF, the Mirage has taken more beat from sea salt compared to the F16s B30 (which are of the same era), since they have been used more and more often over the Aegean in that period. Because Mirage in HAF do just that. Fly over sea, either for A-A or TASMO or less often reco with ASTAC(and only lately they “discovered” A-G with SCALP). While F16s do all kind of things, including A-G missions over the mainland, SEAD, etc.
On the other hand, the Mirages in Tanagra AB enjoy a quicker “serious” service, because they are practically next door to the HAI facilities. So, it’s hard to make comparisons unless you are in some HAF statistics office taking everything into account. HAF is quite secretive in divulging such stuff.
Oddly enough, the F16 Block for which i have read that has given the most problems is the B52+. It could be though also due to the fact that they were stationed in Crete, that never had F16s before that, so they had to make new support facilities and also re-activate a “dormant” AB in Kastelli, which acts as auxiliary to Souda AB.
For the rest, we use both in 5,3 and 2 min readyness on islands (Lemnos has F16s, Skyros has Mirage2000 and F4E AUP).
The only “quirk” that affected mission availability or increased risk if you want, is something that has been written repeatedly in greek media so it must have some truth to it, which is, that in the 1996 crisis, the Mirage and F4 were on CAP, the F16 on either side would eventually fly if needed, but didn’t actually fly, because they had an odd light reflection issue on the bubble canopy in very bad weather, which made it easier for the pilot to go on vertigo. It was heavy rain in January with winds at tempest level (civillian ships had prohibition of leaving island ports in that day due to bad weather). It is supposed that this light reflection thing has been mitigated in B50s and later. I don’t know how true all this is, but it is a repeating story i have read. Could be “urban legend” too, i don’t know.
AspisTo make an example, tanks. Not all tanks have the same philosophy, not all armies have the same philosophy. Which the best? The one that you will be able to use in the way that maximizes its advantages and minimizes its defects.
For example, in ranking tanks, the greek army, goes lethality, mobility, armor, in that order. Because in our ground this is what’s best thought that suits our dogma. Right or wrong, who knows? We retire the M60 before the Leo1. Why? Because the Leo1 has inferior armor, but increased mobility, which is more appreciated. So which tank of the 2 is the best? Who knows? It would depend on the situation, tactics and terrains. In a desert, armor would probably have more importance. In a more mountainous terrain, the better mobility probably helps survivability more than shere armor. And if you have a better FCS-cannon-ballistics computer-ammunition, your increased lethality could probably beat the importance of armor. Is it fair? No. You can’t be fair with different models of a weapon. Depending on conditions, one will have advantages.
Israelis point on heavy armor first. Because they have another, very specific battlefield and threats. So the best tank in Israel, IS the Merkava.
AspisThanks for the vids, HUD videos are always fun to watch. Just for the record and yes these are excuses, but all of the above F-16s have had two external tanks, its not like they are optimized for dogfighting or anything
The double underwing tanks for F16s is a configuration used both by HAF and TuAF. By TuAF because they change waypoints and often try to fly deep into the Aegean from their not so coastal bases and need the fuel. From HAF because F16s taking off from Larissa or Aghialos or Crete usually go to the furthest sectors. On the other hand, since we “reply” to an incoming threat, we don’t need as much fuel, specially if you look were Skyros and Tanagra are , appointed usually to intercept the “middle” sector.
It’s also about the mentality. The delta wing, at high g turn acts like a sort of pivot, which is what makes it turn its nose quickly. In low altitude, the Mirage isn’t optimised, so if you want to keep energy after the first turn, you ‘d better not add huge drag under your wings, which already have more “pivot”-airbrake effect than the F16’s trapezoid wing. The contrary is true for the F16, which can count on its own more potent engine and different wing shape.
Unfortunately, this is how things go in real life, in specific theatres to meet specific conditions. I mean, we can’t provide a “head on duel for AFM with AFM’s rules”… Each weapon is better used when you use it better at its strong points. If it was real war, the Mirage for example, wouldn’t go initially low just because the F16 would like so. This happens in “daily” life because they are supposed to do visual observation and write down serial numbers. It’s the “peacetime reality”. It would keep high at high speed and expend all BVR weapons, then come down from high altitute to take advantage of the momentum for the first turn.
Also the F16s on their part, would drop the wing tanks and would have to decide if they want to keep low or go high.
There is a video from Andravida AB, which is the home of HAF’s “Weapons Tactics School”. Basically it hosts the best pilots from all squadrons and they pass a 3 month “Top gun” school in mixed combat configurations and scenarios, A-A, A-G and against SAMs. An F4E AUP pilot says at some point says: “of course the aircraft is the starting basis. Simply it is also needed to have sharp mind and opinion on what’s the opponent doing. So it’s possible that an opponent with lesser capabilities, ends up beating you, because he knows where your system hurts and strike you in that point”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_lAbTTa4v8
(unfortunately no english subtitles).
It is also interesting what an instructor at the end of the video says : “Here the students at the end learn, that it is not the one with the most modern aircraft that wins always, but the one who knows how to think tactically and has aggressive spirit”.
I think this summarizes why all the usual AFM talks about “Which beats what” is more or less futile, because this happens only in scenarios where the pilot counts nothing and both aircrafts are in some kind of agreement to enter a “fair and square” heads on encounter where none of the 2 aircrafts will be using its advantages. This happens only if 2 same model aircrafts encounter.
Which is also why the pilots in the video, when asked “who’s gonna win”, nobody wants to admit defeat, not even the F4E pilot. However it is interesting the comment of the F16 pilot: “Heh, it’s what i believe. That this is the year of the F16s”. Which could imply that the previous year wasn’t.
Personally, i think a better pilot in either aircrafts can beat the opponent. I also give the newer F16s the advantage in WVR for the only fact of the JHMCS unless a Mirage gets Topsight. For BVR, i probably would say the Mirage.
Back in 1989 when we ordered 40 Mirage and 40 F16s B30? Most likely the Mirage had overall significant advantage in A-A from what i have read and is probably the reason they were selected to be positioned in the AB closest to Athens.
Better overall aircraft? The F16, both then and now.
AspisThis is another at guns.
AspisHmm this F16 looks like dead meat to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sypS-GeDWSo&feature=fvw
:diablo:
There’s a better one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpmwjdcGCG0&feature=related
Jackonicko http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc79l…eature=related
Good tone at 2.02…..
Not saying that an F-16 can’t lock a Mirage, it can, and pilots are always part of the equation. A pilot one said, that any pilot can sometimes lose to any pilot, because it’s all about split second decision, you can always make a bad call. And eventually, if you let enough sustained high g turns, the F16 will get on the tail.
However, on that particular video, i would like to point one thing out. The Mirage in question, is in a configuration NOT used by HAF in ANY “anti-Turk” interception. Aka 2 fuel tanks.
Two things happen:
– Either that video is from a DACT possibly with UAE Mirage (who have been to Turkey more times) or Egyptians (don’t think the French have gone to Turkey).
– Or, that’s a HAF Mirage on flight trainning mission that by accident found itself engaged in dogfight. I repeat, NO greek Mirage is ever sent with 2 fuel tanks. 2 tanks make sense, when you are rookie on the type and you are on “learning” mode, so it’s worth to get more time on air on every sortie you get or in TASMO mission against some far away naval target.
This is from HAF Mirage scrambling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyKbMUkoYJI&feature=related
1 fuel tank.
Other video, from the readyness hangars at Skyros and Tanagra. 1 fuel tank:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TovGtnlEVLc
Skyros readyness, at the end of the video, while talking to the journalist, the pilot is actually called to depart in 2 minutes (no, it wasn’t for the cameras, it was the real thing). Again, 1 fuel tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdzrHpOiTeE
Whoever loads the Mirage2000 with 2 fuel tanks in intercept mission, is a moron and certainly is not HAF practice. In HAF , given the positioning of the 2 Mirage AB , it is simply not needed a second tank, so why increase the load, specially since the opponent prefers to go low?
AspisI have no idea how the RCS of the Mirage compares with the F-16(I suspect that it’s not lower though), but the F-16 wouldn’t be fighting 1 vs. 1 either. It’d come down to tactics and pilot skill in the end, as each have some very good capabilities.
I don’t swear about the RCS either, it’s something i think i remember from somewhere (a bit smaller). What i do remember, is that the range of RDY-2 currently is unique inside HAF.
A greek magazine had an extensive article about the new capabilites of the 2000-5mk2 compared to the new links that make much more efficient the targeting of the aircrafts within the same formation, but i think i threw away the issue. Anyway, here’s from wikipedia:
Mirage 2000-5
By the late 1980s, the Mirage 2000 was beginning to age compared with the latest models of U.S. F-16 fighters, so Thomson-CSF began work on a privately funded update of the Mirage 2000C which was to be named the Mirage 2000-5. A two-seat Mirage 2000B prototype was extensively modified as the first Mirage 2000-5 prototype, and it first flew on October 24, 1990. A Mirage 2000C prototype was also reworked to a similar standard, making its initial flight on April 27, 1991. The production aircraft entered operational service in 1997.[13] A two-seat version was developed as well, whose rear seat has a HUD but not an associated head-level display and lacks a built-in cannon, although cannon pods can be carried.
Improvements included the Thales TV/CT CLDP laser designator pod as well as the Thales multimode RDY (Radar Doppler Multitarget), which allows detection of up to 24 targets and the ability to simultaneously track eight threats while guiding four MICA missiles to different targets. Updates to defensive systems included the ICMS 2 countermeasures suite and the Samir DDM missile warning system. ICMS 2 incorporates a receiver and associated signal processing system in the nose for detecting hostile missile command data links, and can be interfaced to a new programmable mission-planning and post-mission analysis ground system. Avionics were also updated, using a new Night vision-compatible glass cockpit layout borrowed from the Rafale, a dual-linked wide-angle Head-up display, and HOTAS controls. The Mirage 2000-5 can also carry the oversized drop tanks developed for the Mirage 2000N, greatly extending its range.
In 1993, the AdA decided to upgrade 37 of their existing Mirage 2000s to the 2000-5 specification as a stopgap before the arrival of the Rafale in AdA service. The upgraded aircraft were redesignated Mirage 2000-5F, and became operational in 2000. They retained the old countermeasures system with the Serval/Sabre/Spirale units and did not receive the ICMS 2 system. The AdA is now considering upgrades for the type, including the MIDS datalink, MICA IR support, and the Thales Topsight helmet-mounted display and sighting system.
Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2
Dassault further improved the Mirage 2000-5, creating the Mirage 2000-5 Mark 2 which is currently the most advanced variant of the Mirage 2000. Enhancements to offensive systems included a datalink for the targeting of MICA ER missiles, the addition of the Damocles FLIR targeting pod, and a newer, stealthier Thales RDY-2 all-weather synthetic aperture radar with moving target indicator capability, which also grants the aircraft improved air-to-ground capability. The avionics were further updated with higher resolution color displays, an optional Topsight helmet-mounted display, and the addition of the Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU) designed for the Rafale. A new Thales Totem 3000 inertial navigation system with ring laser gyroscope and GPS capability was added, providing much greater accuracy, higher reliability, and shorter alignment time than the older ULISS 52 navigation system which it replaced. Other upgrades included the addition of an on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS) for the pilot and an ICMS 3 digital countermeasures suite.
Further planned upgrades will include Thales AIDA visual identification pod, a GPS receiver, MIDS datalink, new long-range sensors, and the Topsight E helmet-mounted display. Other technology developed for the Rafale will also be integrated into the Mirage 2000, including infrared and optical sensors for IFF and targeting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#Mirage_2000-5_Mark_2
Basically the only “common” thing with the “old” M2000 is the airframe and the engine. The rest of the capabilities is like night and day.
AspisI’d say a Block 50/52 would give it a run for its money too, especially with C7 AMRAAMs.
On 1 on 1 heads on, probably.
The thing is, in real life conditions,
1) The Mirage has i believe a lower RCS.
2) Despite the best wishes of everyone, pilots in war condition with many aircrafts flying, don’t shoot from 90 km away, because they want to have positive target ID and be have a good kill chance.
3) You can use terrain and different altitude to shorten the time at which your approach will be detected. In this actually, the Mirage2000-5 (not the simple Mirage) can switch off radar once it gets on the EW suite a signal from RWR and approach using MICA’s mini-IRST as target identificator from another direction.
In WVR the Block52+ has advantage because of the JHMCS.
On a funnier note, the Mirage is built with a more sturdy airframe.
Crashed at sea HAF Mirage of 1997 (pilot dead), just out of Skyros AB. The pilot was returning from night mission and probably mistook the fishing boats lights that were near the airfielf for the actual runway or according to others,the reflections of the lights on the sea made him lose space perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlq8P6ht0tU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A9lVYa-o0&feature=related
It has been repaired and still flies today.
Sign In
