Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th October 2016 at 04:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Using 20-20 hindsight and today's realization that avionics make the weapon system, the Mirage 4000 makes far better sense than M2K. Its twin engines provide more power and cooling to support sophisticated avionics and big fuselage had more room for those avionics. Gulf states easily had the money to buy sophisticated jets. But I don't know if l'Armée de l'Air had the budget.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 04:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
assume the Saudis chose the M4k instead of the Tornado (something which probably would've been better to begin with)
The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a lower wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 06:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well, first, what killed the M4000 was that the saudis made the choice of the F-15, not the Tornado.
Now, as far as the wing choice goes, the major drawback of the delta for a fighter was its sustained turn performance . With its two M53 engines, it had 19t of thrust installed which, in A2A configuration would give it performance that not many fighters could match.
The major problem with it was its cost.. pretty much as the F-15 at the time. They had the same market and, if you look at the sales of the F-15, that market was very small
By: - 19th October 2016 at 06:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now, as far as the wing choice goes, the major drawback of the delta for a fighter was its sustained turn performance
No, it would have very good sustained turn performance with its large wing area and light wing loading. FBW makes a delta wing a good option, eurofighter is pretty much a delta wing.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 07:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After Mirage III Dassault never really knocked one out of the park again. The F1 did okay but only about two hundred Mirage 2000s were exported. Most buyers bought handfuls. Other than the Saudis I can't see anyone besides France buying.
In some alternate universe where the Soviet Union didn't implode in 1991 some of the Flanker customers like China and Indonesia could've turned to the Mirage 4000.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it would have very good sustained turn performance with its large wing area and light wing loading. FBW makes a delta wing a good option, eurofighter is pretty much a delta wing.
As I said, the STR is the major flaw for a delta wing (any delta) where its drag makes it more difficult to sustain speed (and therefore its performance).
The M4k had a very high thrust available, as the Typhoon or Rafale have today (actually, they are a league above, but it is normal as they are another generation), allowing to compensate that drag. An f-102, f-106, Mirage III etc... all had good response in instantaneous but suffered in sustained turn. Mirage 2000 does it better, even if it's not on par with the F-16 in that matter
By: - 19th October 2016 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a higher wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.
Mirage 4000 wrong layout? You should see performance graphs...
By: - 19th October 2016 at 08:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am puzzled by its ability to reconfigure the canards in flight. What could they do with that? Could these canards have been upgraded later with full control like on the 4.5 gens?
By: - 19th October 2016 at 08:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M4k had a very high thrust available, as the Typhoon or Rafale have today (actually, they are a league above, but it is normal as they are another generation)
I'm not so sure of this last part.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 10:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am puzzled by its ability to reconfigure the canards in flight. What could they do with that? Could these canards have been upgraded later with full control like on the 4.5 gens?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249090[/ATTACH]
By: - 19th October 2016 at 11:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a higher wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.
the JH-7 series is very much a Tornado with fixed wings. it has all the benefits and none of its drawbacks
By: - 19th October 2016 at 11:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249090[/ATTACH]
Thanks for that. I had been looking for this for a while, and had also wondered about the statement about the canard being able to be moved in flight.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249090[/ATTACH]
Wow where did you find that? It was used for trimming apparently. Do you have more info?
By: - 19th October 2016 at 12:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.It, Tornado, was designed for specific flight envelopes. Meaning in the Tornado's case; low-level at high speed, and given the era it was conceived and produced it's swing-wing wasn't idiotic and it didn't handle like a hog because it simply met it's requirements. By your "logic", you could say the Typhoon's delta wing design is idiotic and handle's like a hog at low-level, maybe that would be the case because it wasn't its primary requirement as it was the Tornado's. Find another aircraft still operating today that can match the Tornado in it's comfort zone, you'd be hard pressed.
Nice to see that Key Publishing still has its... Odd, kind of people... No miss.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a higher wing loading. Making it swing-wing was idiotic and it handled like a hog.
First the Mirage 4000 was a hot rod that outclimbed, out turned and out runned a Mirage 2000, its performance graphics were outstanding, nevermind the range of the ****** or the huge frontal real estate for the avionics/radar, the only problem that it had was the money bit, it was too expensive for the Adla budget, Macdonnell Douglas had cornered the Saudi market and good old Saddam Hussein didnt foot the bill.
The Tornado doesnt "handle like a hog", far from it, and the swing wing was an entirely reasonable choice for what it was designed to do, blowing the second and third Warpac echelons beyond the Fulda Gap through low level fligh. The Tornado was not designed has an ATA, 9 G´s, mid to high altitude supersonic fighter.
And the bit about the "higher wing loading" is hilarious.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the JH-7 series is very much a Tornado with fixed wings. it has all the benefits and none of its drawbacks
Its actually a bigger and heavier aircraft than the Tornado, with a bit lower range, slightly less speed and identical cargo capabilities by comparison with the European aircraft. Pretty much a 2X Jaguar.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After Mirage III Dassault never really knocked one out of the park again. The F1 did okay but only about two hundred Mirage 2000s were exported.
I make it 274, not counting the secondhand ones passed on to Brazil.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The mirage airframe was very efficient for a single engine light fighter but the wrong layout for a large twin engine fighter. The Tornado fuselage is the proper layout for a large twin engine fighter and would have been top class if it had fixed wings and a higher wing loading.
Higher wing loading? It was pretty high anyway.
By: - 19th October 2016 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its actually a bigger and heavier aircraft than the Tornado, with a bit lower range, slightly less speed and identical cargo capabilities by comparison with the European aircraft. Pretty much a 2X Jaguar.
I think you are confusing the JH-7 and JH-7A
also the Tornado cannot carry four AShMs
By: - 19th October 2016 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Higher wing loading? It was pretty high anyway.
whoops, meant to say lower wing loading...will correct that post
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 19th October 2016 at 04:03
assume the Saudis chose the M4k instead of the Tornado (something which probably would've been better to begin with).
what other air forces would've potentially wanted such an aircraft/capability?
i would argue that eventually it would've been adopted at home (and the 2000D and N wouldn't have been developed in response, and instead of the Rafale, Dassault may have made a different aircraft to follow)
Singapore
and India (and as a response, they may not have went with the Su-30, and instead with the su-34 and 35)