Chanakya's_Chant
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
- Location
F-16 Block 52 vs Mirage 2000-5 Mk2
Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 Vs F-16 Block 52 Part 1 : Views of a pilot
Hello guys, I found some interesting piece of information from an interview with a Hellenic Air Force (Greece) Mirage 2000 pilot. The Hellenic AF operates both the Mirage 2000 and the F-16. They train together and have gained valuable experience about both the aircraft and especially the F-16, as their rivals, the Turks also operate F-16s. Do read:
Interviewer : Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?
Statement 1 : To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful.
Statement 2 : With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight.
Answer : Statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K (Mirage 2000) will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).
I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.
The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).
A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.
Interviewer : As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage. Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?
Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.
HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.
The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system.
Interviewer : Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?
Statement 1 : To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful.
Statement 2 : With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight.
Answer : Statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K (Mirage 2000) will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).
I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.
The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).
A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.
Interviewer : As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage. Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?
Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.
HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.
The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system.
Source:- Interview with Captain Christian "Louis" van Gestel
Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 Vs F-16 Block 52 Part 2 : Technical Analysis
Mirage 2000-5 Mk2
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 in clean configuration
Service ceiling: 17,060 m (59,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 285 m/s (56,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 337 kg/m² (69 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.95
F-16 Block 52
Maximum speed: Mach 2 in clean configuration
Service ceiling: 15,240+ m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 254 m/s (50,000ft/min)
Wing loading: 431 kg/m² (88.3 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095
PS : Range factor is ignored as both aircraft are capable of inflight refueling. The F-16 has more range than the mirage at the cost of agility if it carries CFTs.
Dogfights
The Mirage is superior than the F-16 in terms of top speed, service ceiling and rate of climb. It has lower wing loading and hence is much manoeuvrable. The Delta wing design of Mirage bleeds energy and hence it has more Instantaneous Turn Rate but less Sustained Turn Rate than the F-16.
Thee F-16 has greater thrust to weight ratio because of a powerful engine although lesser top speed. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. At this stage, pilot skill will determine the end result, although it's slightly inclined towards the Mirage.
BVR combat
Both the aircraft have multimode radars which are similar in capabilities. But the newly integrated IR variant of the Mica AAM can be a game changer. Although slightly less in terms of range if compared to the F-16's AMRAAM, the missile is stealthy as it is Imaging Infra Red guided instead of radar. When the AMRAAM is fired, the Mirage's RWR and other defensive sensors will know that it's coming and will allow the pilot to deploy counter measures, thus increasing his survivability. The Mica being IIR guided won't tell about it's existence. The F-16 has 11 hardpoints but only 6 are capable of carrying AAMs whereas the Mirage has 9 hardpoints and it can carry 8 AAMs. Both aircraft are armed with digital counter measure suites with jammers and dispensers.
Air to Ground roles
Although the Mirage is a proven AtoG platform (Kargil war being the evidence), the F-16 is much potent in this category. The F-16 has 5 heavy hardpoints whereas the mirage has 3. This allows the F-16 to carry more fuel and munitions. Moreover, the addition of Conformal Fuel Tanks frees up some heavy hardpoints from carry drop tanks for more munitions. CFTs enhance the range of the F-16 thus making it more effective on strike roles, but on the other side they create more drag and reduce manoeuvrability, reducing performance in agility than the Mirage. Thus, it's one thing sacrificed for the other.
Conclusion
Mirage 2000 and F-16 are multirole platforms but, the Mirage's performance varies according to the role, whereas the F-16 performs satisfactorily in every role. Mirages are thus used for specialised missions albeit being multirole. F-16s are versatile, they can perform all roles, but not all of them as good as the Mirage. Pilot skills matter a lot.
Last edited:
