Talk:Dassault Mirage 2000/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Three-view diagram

Three-view diagram of 'Mirage 2000' is actually of 1950s era Mirage III.

Good catch, I removed it from the article.--Sylvain Mielot 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good site with info on history/background of the Mirage 2000 & 4000, and another site with more technical data. -- Adeptitus 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is way too less information abt this fighter

This fighter is having far less technical information here. I can add some.

Good job & kudos to Ajay ijn! -- Adeptitus 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

I took a rather quick pass through the article doing basic spelling and grammar clean-up, and made a few corrections. I'm sure I didn't catch it all, but at least it's a start. --Askari Mark | Talk 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a pass through, all looks OK to me. I removed a whole bunch of broken links, mainly to names of specific weapons systems, radar pods, engines etc. If someone wants to go write all those articles, they can revert my edit, otherwise the whole thing was peppered with red. In terms of correct English, I'd say the "Copyedit" tag could be removed. I don't know if it comes into the same remit, but coming into the article as an interested layman, I found the long list of Mirage 2000 variants and exactly what brand and mark of radar they use/d to be quite boring. Would it be worth splitting off a "Mirage 2000 Variants" page if we want to keep all the information? It sort of kills the readability of the page at the moment.Brickie 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Variants section contains both the primary models as well as the "sales designations" of specific equipment configurations sold to various foreign customers. There is also too much use of bullet lists. Askari Mark | Talk 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd better let someone more acquainted with the subject matter tackle that - my instinct would be to hive off a page of "Mirage 2000 variants" or some such, but I don't know whether that's policy or not. Brickie 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per unopposed request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Dassault-Breguet Mirage 2000 → Dassault Mirage 2000 — Dassault-Breguet became Dassault Aviation in 1982, about the time the aircraft entered production. Dassault-Breguet can be mentioned in the text, but no reason to make the title longer for a name no longer used. BillCJ 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mirage 2000 in Indian fiction

The Mirage 2000 has been featured in Indian military fiction. In the book Op Kartikeya the story centers around a Mirage 2000 fighter pilot.Sarkar2 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there is no mention to the event in October 1996 when a greek Mirage 2000EG shot down a F-16D of the Turkish Air Force?

Negative stability

Hey, this article claims that this was the first fighter jet with negative static stability; so does the article on the F16. Only one can be right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.214.114 (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed anecdotal information section

I removed the following text from the article as it contains only anecdotal information about one flight. --McSly 03:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In flight

Mirage 2000-5 was, in 2000, the subject of an Andrea Nativi (director of RID magazine) article about a flight test made from Istres airbase. At that time Mirage 2000 was proposed to Italian AM as stop-gap interceptor (waiting EF-2000), in competition with F-16ADF (that in 2001 won the contest).

The aircraft tested was one of the modified Mirage 2000C RDI updated to 2000-5 standards. This operation led to use the avionics of RDI interceptor to replace that of the first 37 RDM, updated to RDI standards.

Preparation and start

The cockpit's space was found quite cramped (Nativi is around 1,9 m tall), but the ergonomy was 'excellently arranged', with all the commands immediately availables. The right flank consolles had several controls for the fuel tanks, Ulysse 52 INS and other systems. Left side panels had radio, engine throttle and other controls. Frontal consolles had HDD (Head Down Display), Artificial horizon and several alarm panels. Stick had HOTAS commands, with 9 different commands (another five were on the throttle).

Mirage 2000 took off without external power sources: it had no APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) but for the start were simply used the batteries, that were made enough powerful for this task, with 40 A/hour. Idle consumption was found at only 17kg/min while waiting to the take-off, then the fighter at 12,7 t (including internal fuel and one 1,300 l auxiliary tank) accelerated quickly, rotated after 12 seconds, and took off after 700 m, at 145 knots. Undercarriage was retracted within 270 knts. Cockpit insonorization was excellent. The aircraft was docile and quick at the same time (FCS system forbidden too hard rolls and turns to avoid G-LOC) and HUD had a special feature, a TV-screen that displayed FLIR images and other datas, in the lower part. If the mission needed high altitude interceptions, Mirage 2000 can reach mach 2 and 15 km ceiling within four min, climbing at over 280-300 m/sec. with an even better performances than F-104S (4-5 min to 12 km/mach 2). The agility at high speed could allowed 3 g turns at mach 2, without loosing speed and despite the relatively weak engine (F-104G, as example is capable to pull 2 g at 1,8 mach sustained).

Combat and avionic

Mirage 2000 was tested against an Alpha Jet E that acted as 'boogey'. Alpha Jet approached to Mirage and thank to its very small RCS (just 1,5 sq.m when the standard for a fighter is around 5), was seen at 'only' 45 miles, while another Mirage could be seen at over 50. At 20 miles there was a MICA simulated shot. Alpha Jet descended to 300 m and Mirage to 3,000 m. Despite the lower altitude, the target was seen at 38 miles, with a perfect lock-on at 33 (around 60 km). Despite many evasive counter-manoeuvres there was another lock-on for MICA missiles. In the final close combat, Mirage still outclassed Alpha Jet, being able to pull 9 G turns and AoA up to 29°.

As for avionic capabilities, this test displayed all the new performances of Mirage 2000-5. With RDY radar the maximum range was 150 km to an airliner and 90 to a fighter. With MICA engagements there was the possibility to update (in a cone of 40 degree in the forward sector) two missiles at once with datalink, and fire another two without datalink update. The IR MICA missiles can be slaved to radar. The display targets presentation was made with rectangles and triangles depending by situations (friendly or foe). Gun engagements were typically (in the air-to air mode) at 500 m range. The cartographic mode radar system allowed so see from 1x1 miles to 6x6.

Modes already possible were TWS, close combat mode (with HUD selected with 10 miles range, 15 with Mk 2), telemetric (Air to Air and Air to Ground mode), Tracking, and many other sub-modes.

With the already planned RDY Mk 2 radar several improvements were possibles. RDY Mk 2, not yet available in 2000, have 10-15% more air-to air range, the capability to update four MICA at the same time+ another two not updated, allowing to engage up to six targets at the same time. For air-surface mode, Mk 2 have Doppler Beam Sharpering and TERPROM.

Acrobacy and return

About the flight capabilities, Mirage 2000 was tested with severe manoeuvres. With external loads it is still capable to roll up to 150° sec, pulling 6 g and reaching 20 AoA. Thanks to the low wingloads on this flight, Mirage was tested with climbs up to 85 degrees and tail slides. A 360 degrees turn was performed at 3,000m/10,000 ft.: it was started at 442 knts, pulling 8,5 g sustained, with an exit speed still of 370 knts, despite the delta configuration (that causes high drag) and the not so powerful engine (compared to the F-16s one). Another manoeuvre was a double split ('S' manoeuvre) started from 2,700 m and 700kmh/380 knts, pulling 7 g sustained. Mirage always displayed excellent controllability, and it was still stable flying at over 500 knts over the sea. The real shortcoming was the high fuel consumption at low altitudes.

The flight lasted for 70 minutes, and less than 500 kg fuel remained at landing. The aircraft approached at 130 knts, and displayed excellent stable thanks to the wide undercarriage. INS displayed 0,2 miles (320 m) error (270 m/hour), despite the manoeuvres at high Gs. Older INS models took even 2-3 miles for every hour during 'normal' flights.

Despite this good presentation, the french proposal for 28 new-built Mirage 2000-5 (22 single seats and 6 double seats) was rejected, mainly for the higher cost (25%) compared to 32 F-16ADF (second hand machines).

---

NO. It contents not only 'anecdotal info about one flight' it contents a whole array of info about last generation Mirage 2000-5, expecially with avionics. Not exactly the same thing. Also, you have deleted at least three other important tecnical info in the rest of article. So sorry, i do not see how you have improved article, instead you have worsened it.--Stefanomencarelli 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dassault Mirage 2000/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a lot of trimming in areas such as variants; these should probably be moved to a separate variants-dedicated article. Also needs more citations, and some fleshing out of standard WP:Air/PC sections.

Substituted at 06:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong picture

The picture show a Mirage 2000 from Qatar, this isn't a 2000! It should be updated.

Not exactly true!

> On 8 October 1996, during the escalation over Imia/Kardak a Greek Mirage 2000 fired an R550 Magic 2 and shot down a Turkish F-16D (serial 91-0023) over the Aegean Sea, the only confirmed F-16 lost in air-to-air warfare <

During the soviet afghan invasion, a red air force MiG-23BM unintentionally destroyed a pakistani F-16 with a gravity drop bomb. The muslim plane was trying to intercept them and accidentally got in the way of the munitions dropped by the soviet fighter-bombers. That was the fist air-to-air F-16 loss. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mirage 2000 specifications

I'm trying to pull together some sources for Mirage 2000 specs. Are these specs from Dassault for all Mirage 2000 versions maybe? They look somewhat generic and no version is mentioned. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A have this which is from the early days and just says Mirage 2000 (Air Defence)

Data from The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft (Part Work 1982-1985). Orbis Publishing. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 14.35 m (47 ft 1 in)
• Wingspan: 9.0 m (29 ft 6 in)
• Wing area: 41 m² (441.33 sq ft)
• Empty weight: 7,400 kg (16,314 lb)
• Gross weight: 16,500 kg (36,376 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × SNECMA M53-5 , 88.3 kN (19,840 lbf) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 2,333 km/h (1,450 mph, 1,260 kn)
• Maximum speed: Mach 2.2
• Range: 1,800 km (1,118 mi, 972 nmi)
• Endurance: hours
• Service ceiling: 2,000 m (65,651 ft)

Armament

• 2 × 30mm DEFA cannon
• 5 × underfuselage hardpoints
• 4 × underwing hardpoints

It may just relate to the prototype MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's pretty much the same as the 2000C except for weights and engine thrust. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, the second secs template was just a clean copy of the specs. I was going to use it to make sure I had all the fields when I updated the specs, but I procrastinated. Thanks for working on it, and feel free to remove it when you're done. - BillCJ (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought maybe you were going to add specs for a different variant. I'm largely done with 2000C specs, so I'm remove that 2nd template. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I'm in the process of copyediting this article. I'm going to start by attempting to solve the issue with the listed content and the grammar, then I'll add sources later. If you have any suggestions/comments about the quality of what I'm doing, you can leave them on my talkpage. Swordfish36 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Post if you need some help or something. You might want to add a {{Under construction}} or {{Inuse}} tag if your edits might take a while in order to prevent edit conflicts. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the lists are all fixed...factcheck time Swordfish36 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. I've cited a couple paragraphs and added to the Lead. I think the Lead covers all the basics now. If so then the "Lead too short" tag can be removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft

But I have some doubts about JF-17 being a comparable aircraft. JF-17 being an a/c with low tech Chinese avionics does not even fare decent in comparison to Chinese J-10/11 A/Cs, leave alone a battle hardy and State-of-the-Art Mirage-2000-5. JF-17 has many issues including an extremely poor Chinese radar (due to fears of reverse engineering, no foreign aviation firm is ready to supply a PESA, let alone AESA), an Under-Powered Russian RD-93 engine, and above all the manufacturing nation i.e China is in no mood to induct it, as it has decided to stick to J-10/11 and other Russian A/Cs. I hope this anomaly is removed and Dassault is given its due credit. I think it should be removed from the list. Tutu1234 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And you already removed it. Comparable aircraft in that template only means similar, not equal capabilities. The aircraft must be of similar role, era, and capability per WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are reports that this aircraft or a rafaelle engaged and defeated f22 in excercises over the UAE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.47.126 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

do you have a source to confirm this story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.55.99 (talk)

It doens't matter - exercises aren't generally notable, as they aren't real combat. Hopefully we'll never find out! - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Derivation from Mirage III

Granted: the Mirage 2000 is a delta that takes advantage of experience with the Mirage III. I will even accept the idea that Dassault began the project as a Mirage III derivative (though the text does not say it overtly). However, the 2000 is an entirely new aircraft. I fear that the opening paragraph, as well as the first paragraph in the Development section, tend to mislead the unknowing reader into thinking that the Mirage 2000 is just an updated version of Mirage III. I doubt it that this was any editor's intent, but this is the result so far, as no further comment or comparison is made (which, by the way, could be appropriate). I suggest we change these two paragraphs to break somewhat from the derivation idea and to soften the relation between two entirely different designs. Not much would be needed, and I am a volunteer for it, but I would like to read what y'all think before I move in. 15:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that I signed the previous entry, I swear, I saw the four tildes here :-) but somehow it didn't stick. Let's try again now. SrAtoz (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_March_27#File:Mirage_2000-5_Nancy_-_Ochey_Air_Base.jpg

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)