How good of a fighter was the Mirage III?

>>32474026
Good enough to be a major export success.

File: Spanish McDonnell Douglas F-4C Phantom II.jpg (348KB, 1352x997px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1352x997px

In my country, Spain, our Mirage (Mirage IIIEE) lost the vast majority of DACTs (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) against our Phantoms (F-4C), that's the reason why the Phantom was our main fighter and the Mirage just for secondary role missions. But I read that in Israel was the opposite, they used the Mirage as a main fighter and the Phantom just for air-to-ground role. Why?

The Isrealis used them to goof effect against the Egyptians, Syrians and others.

>>32474103
Good, not goof.

>>32474080
Not the same version. Israel has the III CJ (Chasse Juif, litt. Hunt Jew) interceptor while Spain has the III EE (Epsilon Espagne) polyvalent version.

Docs about the post ww2 military programs by the history department of the french airforce (in french)
http://www.eurosae.com/index.php?page=static&cmd=comaero

And the pdf that contains info about the Mirage III.
http://www.eurosae.com/pdf/comaero/Bonnet_Avions_militaires_II.pdf

It was a horrible fighter, it cant turn at all, it just yaws and bleeds speed in a turn. FBW changed all that and the M2K is an awesome fighter. It was bought a lot in the 60s and 70s because it was the only option for anyone who did not want to buy american or russian fighters during the cold war.

>>32474026
The engine had good reputation. Not sure about the rest.

>>32474064
>so cheap every idiot dictator and country too poor to buy real stuff bought it

k

how good was/is the Mirage 2000 ?

>>32475208
Its very good, eurocanards are way over-rated. If people were smart they would still buy it as it is similar to the F-16 being a very low cost but capable fighter. Its still in service with the French AF. Too many countries are stupid enough to think that the Gripen is the only 'low cost' fighter available

File: mirage2000djordan2014177012028_adla.jpg (109KB, 1200x776px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1200x776px

>>32475208
Reasonably good fighter on par with earlier F-16s, but it's lacking in the radar and armaments department (thanks to poor integration with non-french weapons). However, it does address most of the shortcomings of the Mirage III by being unstable and using FBW controls.

The Mirage 2000D is a reasonably good strike aircraft, but again it suffers from poor integration with non-french munitions.

>>32475886
>poor integration with non-french munitions
Business is business.

>>32475886

Is there a standard for weaponry interfaces like MIDI or is everything its own special snowflake system and connector?

>>32476177
IIRC there's a degree of standardization in the west thanks to NATO standardization treaties, and the proliferation of American weapons means that usually even independent companies try to make sure their weapons are compatible along the same standards as American weapons (things like IRIS-T being usable on anything that can mount a Sidewinder for example).

That being said, most integration isn't all that simple. It's more than checking to make sure the weapon fits the hardpoint and isn't too heavy - you've got software integration for anything guided, and you need practical demonstrations to ensure that the weapon will separate safely from the aircraft.

I'm not sure where French munitions fall, but the issue seems to be more with the latter point - Dassault just doesnt want to go through the effort to integrate many foreign weapons on their designs, as it entails a lot of expensive testing, and, for more capable munitions, major overhauls of the avionics.

>>32476177
There are some "standard" connectors, but like Apple's power cables, there are also proprietary ones. The French use the latter. The Soviet descended gear has their own standard.

>>32474427
There's way way more than just fly by wire differentiating the III from the 2000...
And don't forget there were the Mirage IVP, V, 50, the Etendard, Etendard IV, and most importantly Mirage F1, before the 2000. Plus prototypes like the Mirage Milan (with retractable canards) the IIIv (for vertical) and the G8 with swept wings.

So considering the 2000 as an evolution of the III is a bit like considering the F-16 as an evolution of the F-104.

File: Mirage_2000_300pix[1].jpg (23KB, 300x143px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x143px

Mirage thread?

>>32476177
MIL-STD-1553 and MIL-STD-1760 come to mind, I could be wrong but I believe most post-2000s western aircraft use these standards for stores compatibility.

>>32475886
>>32476150
>>32476250
I could excuse it not integrated non-French munitions, but the 2000C is limited to only two Magics and two Super 530D's for A2A. These aren't bad weapons by any means, but there simply aren't enough of the damn things for any prolonged engagement.
To be fair to it, when the Mirage 2000 went into service, its main competitor, the F-16, could only carry Sidewinders. That said, the F-16 grew while the Mirage mostly stagnated. Keeping with the weapons, a modern F-16C can carry a loadout of two Sidewinders and six AMRAAM's, while the Mirage is still stuck with its whole four missiles.

The Mirage 2000 is a great plane, but it has a lot of unfortunate flaws, especially in a modern context. No one cares how great your plane was in the 70's, if it hasn't seen substantial upgrades in the 30-40 years since.

File: Dassault_Mirage_IIIV.jpg (342KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 900x600px

>>32476645
>the IIIv (for vertical)
This is a crime against aestheticism.