By: noble
- 1st September 2012 at 00:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M4000 had a fixed canard. It may not be as good as the M2000 or F-15 in manueverability. Its radome is bigger than the Rafale's. Every fighter's radome is bigger than rafale's.
By: MadRat
- 1st September 2012 at 05:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would imagine the idea was four 530's and six 550's or four each and two supersonic 1300L drop tanks. Not much more than the M2K in all reality. And with no real improvement over M2K, why?
New
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss
- 1st September 2012 at 14:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would imagine the idea was four 530's and six 550's or four each and two supersonic 1300L drop tanks. Not much more than the M2K in all reality. And with no real improvement over M2K, why?
Early Mirage 2000C RDI could only take two 530D and Two Magics... So yes it was an improvement at the time.
Only later Mirage 2000-5 can take six Micas.
By: toan
- 1st September 2012 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If French AF had decided to buy Mirage 4000 during 1980s, it would still need to prepare its successor at the beginning of 21th century.
However, since the procuring and operating costs of Mirage 4000 should be much more expensive than Mirage 2000, I think French MoD would have no enough money for developing and buying Rafale on its own, and then the successor of Mirage 4000 shall be Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F, or even F-35.......
New
By: Anonymous
- 1st September 2012 at 17:52Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Good point, although I'd expect the result would have been France remaining part of the Eurofighter consortium, so the "Eurofighter" in that scenario may not have been the one we know today.
By: mack8
- 1st September 2012 at 19:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A scenario in which both the Mirage-4000 and the Rafale can co-exist imo ( roughly as we know it, relatively small to fit carriers) is one in which France buys Mirage-4000 strike derivatives in lieu of Mirage-2000D/N, or maybe in lieu of just the Ns etc. It would certainly be more survivable and boast a longer reach than either Mirage-2000s. Assuming the same money as for the Mirage-2000D/N would be available, perhaps they would only buy say 2/3rds of the numbers, maybe less.
Still, would have been rather interesting seeing it in the colours of (potentially) Iraq(:diablo:), Saudi Arabia, maybe India, maybe others aswell. ( although that would meen taking some slices away from Su-30 ...hmmm.)
Anyway, so nothing in the contemporary press or nothing definitive about Mirage-4000's air-to-air typical loadout of Super-530s and Magics? MadRat says 4 of each and 2 drop tanks , but i see 6 hardpoints under the wings only. Can it carry A-A missile under the intakes aswell ? To my knowledge , the Super-530 cannot be carried in tandem right ? (thinking it can somehow carry Super-530s in tandem under the fuselage a la Rafale).
Managed to find a picture of it i think during Le Bourget 1981 with 2 Super-530 shown in front of it, but that's a far as i got.
By: mack8
- 1st September 2012 at 20:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You meen this one ?
Speaking of pictures , the other night i've found somewhere a picture of it loaded with jammer and Antilope pods under intakes , AS-30L, Magics and drop tanks underwing, and LGBs under the fuselage ( not the black and white one posted on this forum), taken roughly from the front , in flight , but i can't remember where now! I should have saved it.
By: Fedaykin
- 1st September 2012 at 21:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You know my initial answer to the question was yes as France needed a carrier fighter as well and the M4000 wasn't carrier capable. Then I considered that if funding had been sunk into procuring the M4000 rather then M2000 the Aeronavale might of had more clout in getting their preferred choice for the F-8 Crusader replacement. The preferred choice of the Aeronavale was the F/A-18 Hornet, the Rafale was forced on them as a French and joint solution. If the French airforce had got M4000 only in several different variants the Hornet might well of won out for the navy.
New
By: Anonymous
- 1st September 2012 at 21:11Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Speaking of pictures , the other night i've found somewhere a picture of it loaded with jammer and Antilope pods under intakes , AS-30L, Magics and drop tanks underwing, and LGBs under the fuselage ( not the black and white one posted on this forum), taken roughly from the front , in flight , but i can't remember where now! I should have saved it.
There's one fitting that description here, though not really from the front:
Nonetheless, I'd agree that they could not really be considered primary control surfaces - more like 'active flow conditioning devices' that optimised the environment for the wing downstream (somewhat analogous to slats). Alternatively, they may have been used to vary longitudinal stability, as on the MiG Ye-8 some 20 years earlier (though probably with somewhat more sophisticated scheduling).
By: swerve
- 1st September 2012 at 21:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You know my initial answer to the question was yes as France needed a carrier fighter as well and the M4000 wasn't carrier capable. Then I considered that if funding had been sunk into procuring the M4000 rather then M2000 the Aeronavale might of had more clout in getting their preferred choice for the F-8 Crusader replacement. The preferred choice of the Aeronavale was the F/A-18 Hornet, the Rafale was forced on them as a French and joint solution. If the French airforce had got M4000 only in several different variants the Hornet might well of won out for the navy.
Indeed. And now, the AdlA would be giving its M4000s a SLEP, including AESA radar with a big array to fit in that big nose, to keep them going until the arrival of the all-singing, all-dancing, stealthy successor. :diablo:
The F-18s would be getting a bit long in the tooth, though. What would be lined up to replace 'em? F-35C? Or a naval version of Dassault's new stealth aircraft?
New
By: Anonymous
- 1st September 2012 at 21:53Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Indeed. And now, the AdlA would be giving its M4000s a SLEP, including AESA radar with a big array to fit in that big nose, to keep them going until the arrival of the all-singing, all-dancing, stealthy successor. :diablo:
By: mack8
- 1st September 2012 at 22:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for all the links Trident. Managed to find those numerous Farnborough pics aswell last night. However, i can't seem to find any showing the Mirage-4000 from the OTHER side, that is, i'd like to see what's opposite to the Antilope pod, i have read in another place about one (or two?) Sycomor jammer(s) , but i'd like to see it with my own eyes. Besides, in that fully loaded picture you pointed to me, it seems whatever it's on the other side is quite voluminous to be a Sycomor , but i might be wrong. Maybe it's some sort of ATLIS pod for the LGBs and the AS-30Ls?
New
By: Anonymous
- 1st September 2012 at 22:27Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Yes, the black&white photo definitely shows a laser designator pod under the port intake, so that might be what is on the starboard side in the Farnborough load-out. It would be odd for such a large aircraft to carry external self-defence jammers (even the much smaller Mirage 2000 ended up with a fully internal system) anyway.
Nonetheless, I'd agree that they could not really be considered primary control surfaces - more like 'active flow conditioning devices' that optimised the environment for the wing downstream (somewhat analogous to slats). Alternatively, they may have been used to vary longitudinal stability, as on the MiG Ye-8 some 20 years earlier (though probably with somewhat more sophisticated scheduling).
I daresay they were used for trimming purposes only depending on how loaded the aircraft was?
Its a pity no conformal stores were ever used, but one could imagine maybe a conformal centerline tank maybe for a future upgrade should it have gone ahead into production?
The R530 was used on quite a few Mirage models. Several Mirage III types could carry one centerline. Some of the Mirage F1 types could carry one centerline or one Super 530F under each wing, but I don't think they could use the combination of different 530's on all three stations at once.
Later mods of the Mirage 2000 could carry a pair of larger Super 530D, one under each wing. But are those four Super 530F and two Super 530D on one Mirage 2000?
New
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss
- 2nd September 2012 at 18:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 101
By: noble - 1st September 2012 at 00:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M4000 had a fixed canard. It may not be as good as the M2000 or F-15 in manueverability. Its radome is bigger than the Rafale's. Every fighter's radome is bigger than rafale's.
Posts: 101
By: noble - 1st September 2012 at 00:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there enough room in the inlets of M4000 to have movable canard actuators? If the french want it to be..
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 1st September 2012 at 05:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would imagine the idea was four 530's and six 550's or four each and two supersonic 1300L drop tanks. Not much more than the M2K in all reality. And with no real improvement over M2K, why?
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 1st September 2012 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Early Mirage 2000C RDI could only take two 530D and Two Magics... So yes it was an improvement at the time.
Only later Mirage 2000-5 can take six Micas.
Posts: 992
By: toan - 1st September 2012 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If French AF had decided to buy Mirage 4000 during 1980s, it would still need to prepare its successor at the beginning of 21th century.
However, since the procuring and operating costs of Mirage 4000 should be much more expensive than Mirage 2000, I think French MoD would have no enough money for developing and buying Rafale on its own, and then the successor of Mirage 4000 shall be Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F, or even F-35.......
By: Anonymous - 1st September 2012 at 17:52 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Good point, although I'd expect the result would have been France remaining part of the Eurofighter consortium, so the "Eurofighter" in that scenario may not have been the one we know today.
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 1st September 2012 at 19:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A scenario in which both the Mirage-4000 and the Rafale can co-exist imo ( roughly as we know it, relatively small to fit carriers) is one in which France buys Mirage-4000 strike derivatives in lieu of Mirage-2000D/N, or maybe in lieu of just the Ns etc. It would certainly be more survivable and boast a longer reach than either Mirage-2000s. Assuming the same money as for the Mirage-2000D/N would be available, perhaps they would only buy say 2/3rds of the numbers, maybe less.
Still, would have been rather interesting seeing it in the colours of (potentially) Iraq(:diablo:), Saudi Arabia, maybe India, maybe others aswell. ( although that would meen taking some slices away from Su-30 ...hmmm.)
Anyway, so nothing in the contemporary press or nothing definitive about Mirage-4000's air-to-air typical loadout of Super-530s and Magics? MadRat says 4 of each and 2 drop tanks , but i see 6 hardpoints under the wings only. Can it carry A-A missile under the intakes aswell ? To my knowledge , the Super-530 cannot be carried in tandem right ? (thinking it can somehow carry Super-530s in tandem under the fuselage a la Rafale).
Managed to find a picture of it i think during Le Bourget 1981 with 2 Super-530 shown in front of it, but that's a far as i got.
Posts: 1,237
By: Mildave - 1st September 2012 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You would be making my day by posting these pictures my friend :)
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 1st September 2012 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You meen this one ?
Speaking of pictures , the other night i've found somewhere a picture of it loaded with jammer and Antilope pods under intakes , AS-30L, Magics and drop tanks underwing, and LGBs under the fuselage ( not the black and white one posted on this forum), taken roughly from the front , in flight , but i can't remember where now! I should have saved it.
Posts: 1,751
By: Bruggen 130 - 1st September 2012 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
4000
A few pics of the 4000 taken at Farnborough.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 1st September 2012 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You know my initial answer to the question was yes as France needed a carrier fighter as well and the M4000 wasn't carrier capable. Then I considered that if funding had been sunk into procuring the M4000 rather then M2000 the Aeronavale might of had more clout in getting their preferred choice for the F-8 Crusader replacement. The preferred choice of the Aeronavale was the F/A-18 Hornet, the Rafale was forced on them as a French and joint solution. If the French airforce had got M4000 only in several different variants the Hornet might well of won out for the navy.
By: Anonymous - 1st September 2012 at 21:11 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
There's one fitting that description here, though not really from the front:
http://www.alexstoll.com/AircraftOfTheMonth/11-00.html
For other members, this is the B/W image mack was referring to:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1062111&postcount=2
If you dig around, there are a few more photos of another interesting load-out, demonstrated at Farnborough 1982:
http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1147885
http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1074206
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Air/Dassault-Mirage-4000/1789074/L/
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m63/Cking507/m4000.jpg
Also, while their range of motion was very limited, the canards DID move:
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rarebird/0185.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rUHyHq68ak0/Sldi4NAOZ_I/AAAAAAAAplQ/p5oFsjQ9y5s/s1600/Mirage-4000-0.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34184899@N06/6094089286/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Nonetheless, I'd agree that they could not really be considered primary control surfaces - more like 'active flow conditioning devices' that optimised the environment for the wing downstream (somewhat analogous to slats). Alternatively, they may have been used to vary longitudinal stability, as on the MiG Ye-8 some 20 years earlier (though probably with somewhat more sophisticated scheduling).
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 1st September 2012 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed. And now, the AdlA would be giving its M4000s a SLEP, including AESA radar with a big array to fit in that big nose, to keep them going until the arrival of the all-singing, all-dancing, stealthy successor. :diablo:
The F-18s would be getting a bit long in the tooth, though. What would be lined up to replace 'em? F-35C? Or a naval version of Dassault's new stealth aircraft?
By: Anonymous - 1st September 2012 at 21:53 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
A bit like this?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1620478&postcount=9
http://www.pictaero.com/en/pictures/picture,89874
http://www.pictaero.com/fr/pictures/picture,89873
http://www.airliners.net/photo/France---Air/Dassault-Mirage-2000BOB/1778510/L
:D
A Mirage 4000-9 with Mica-EM/IR, Scalp-EG, Damocles and AASM would make a great what-if model, methinks :)
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 1st September 2012 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for all the links Trident. Managed to find those numerous Farnborough pics aswell last night. However, i can't seem to find any showing the Mirage-4000 from the OTHER side, that is, i'd like to see what's opposite to the Antilope pod, i have read in another place about one (or two?) Sycomor jammer(s) , but i'd like to see it with my own eyes. Besides, in that fully loaded picture you pointed to me, it seems whatever it's on the other side is quite voluminous to be a Sycomor , but i might be wrong. Maybe it's some sort of ATLIS pod for the LGBs and the AS-30Ls?
By: Anonymous - 1st September 2012 at 22:27 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Yes, the black&white photo definitely shows a laser designator pod under the port intake, so that might be what is on the starboard side in the Farnborough load-out. It would be odd for such a large aircraft to carry external self-defence jammers (even the much smaller Mirage 2000 ended up with a fully internal system) anyway.
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 1st September 2012 at 22:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Trident. Picture in question , just in case someone might have a clue ...:confused:
Posts: 784
By: slipperysam - 2nd September 2012 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I daresay they were used for trimming purposes only depending on how loaded the aircraft was?
Its a pity no conformal stores were ever used, but one could imagine maybe a conformal centerline tank maybe for a future upgrade should it have gone ahead into production?
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 2nd September 2012 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://mblogthumb1.phinf.naver.net/20111004_292/pwrangshion_13176948964803TEJ6_JPEG/815995957486098826.jpg?type=w800
http://mblogthumb2.phinf.naver.net/20111004_145/pwrangshion_1317694876069qEz6S_JPEG/664562420014869261.jpg?type=w800
The R530 was used on quite a few Mirage models. Several Mirage III types could carry one centerline. Some of the Mirage F1 types could carry one centerline or one Super 530F under each wing, but I don't think they could use the combination of different 530's on all three stations at once.
Later mods of the Mirage 2000 could carry a pair of larger Super 530D, one under each wing. But are those four Super 530F and two Super 530D on one Mirage 2000?
Posts: 170
By: Sergeleboss - 2nd September 2012 at 18:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These are Mirage 2000-5.
Mirage 2000 C =
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Mirage_2000C_in-flight_2.jpg