How come the Mirage-2000 failed to penetrate Western markets?

[Nodeo-Franvier]

Mirage-2000 was relatively successful commercially

But aside from France and Greece it's failed to establish itself in Westerns airforce

Even previous user of Mirage III/F1 like Australia or Spain rejected the Mirage 2000

 

[taly01]

Australia was "lucky" to get Mirages as it is firmly in the US military sphere of influence.

As an Australian I should know more about them, but one criticism was that they had too short range for Australia's long distances.

 

[Frog]

Australia was "lucky" to get Mirages as it is firmly in the US military sphere of influence.

As an Australian I should know more about them, but one criticism was that they had too short range for Australia's long distances.

The plane they had to replace was the F-86. Some of the reasons of its adoption were that the Mirage III O was less complex to maintain and was more compatible with Australia's airfields than the F-104.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Mirage-2000 was relatively successful commercially

But aside from France and Greece it's failed to establish itself in Westerns airforce

Even previous user of Mirage III/F1 like Australia or Spain rejected the Mirage 2000

Perhaps it comes down to what Dassault and the French government want to sell more of, with both the 2000 and Rafale overlapped until the end of 2000 production in 2007. Where the Mirage 2000 hasn't found success Dassault's Rafale often has, with sales to Egypt, Qatar, India, Greece, Croatia, Indonesia, Serbia, UAE, and strong interest from Bangladesh, Colombia and Iraq. India may prefer the Rafale over the 2000 since both the Indian Air Force and Naval Air Arm will both operate variants of the Rafale. A big win for the 2000 outside of the developing world was Taiwan.

As for Western Airforces, most have their own industries - it's the same issue SAAB faces. Even here in Canada we have Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that support the RCAF procurements. Nevertheless, I would have loved to have seen the Mirage 4000 in RCAF service. Had Canada bought the Mirage 4000 as a replacement for its CF-101, CF-104 and CF-116 this may have driven other interest and saved the program from cancellation.

The Mirage 4000 would have been nearly the ideal single-seat long range interceptor for Canada's 1980-onwards NORAD role, plus sufficient for the NATO/UN strike role.

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

Perhaps it comes down to what Dassault and the French government want to sell more of, with both the 2000 and Rafale overlapped until the end of 2000 production in 2007. Where the Mirage 2000 hasn't found success Dassault's Rafale often has, with sales to Egypt, Qatar, India, Greece, Croatia, Indonesia, Serbia, UAE, and strong interest from Bangladesh, Colombia and Iraq. India may prefer the Rafale over the 2000 since both the Indian Air Force and Naval Air Arm will both operate variants of the Rafale. A big win for the 2000 outside of the developing world was Taiwan.

As for Western Airforces, most have their own industries. Even here in Canada we have Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that support the RCAF procurements. Nevertheless, I would have loved to have seen the Mirage 4000 in RCAF service. Had Canada bought the Mirage 4000 as a replacement for its CF-101, CF-104 and CF-116 this may have driven other interest and saved the program from cancellation.

View attachment 795560

I have to think the Mirage 4000 would have been nearly the ideal single-seat long range interceptor for Canada's 1980-onwards NORAD role, plus sufficient for the NATO/UN strike role.

Mirage 2000 went up against F/A-18 in both Canada and Australia(And maybe in Spain too) and was defeated,Did McDonnell Douglas offered a more generous package? Or was the Mirae2000 just outclassed?

 

[Frog]

Perhaps it comes down to what Dassault and the French government want to sell more of, with both the 2000 and Rafale overlapped until the end of 2000 production in 2007. Where the Mirage 2000 hasn't found success Dassault's Rafale often has, with sales to Egypt, Qatar, India, Greece, Croatia, Indonesia, Serbia, UAE, and strong interest from Bangladesh, Colombia and Iraq. India may prefer the Rafale over the 2000 since both the Indian Air Force and Naval Air Arm will both operate variants of the Rafale. A big win for the 2000 outside of the developing world was Taiwan.

As for Western Airforces, most have their own industries - it's the same issue SAAB faces. Even here in Canada we have Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that support the RCAF procurements. Nevertheless, I would have loved to have seen the Mirage 4000 in RCAF service. Had Canada bought the Mirage 4000 as a replacement for its CF-101, CF-104 and CF-116 this may have driven other interest and saved the program from cancellation.

View attachment 795560

The Mirage 4000 would have been nearly the ideal single-seat long range interceptor for Canada's 1980-onwards NORAD role, plus sufficient for the NATO/UN strike role.

The Mirage 4000 was a private Dassault venture aiming at what the French Armée de l'Air pilots would have sought as an ideal fighter, against what the official penny counting authorities imposed them for economic motives (the 2000). More than an interceptor its niche was air superiority like the F-15.
Hence without a national adoption, that would have motivated foreigns orders, its fate was sealed, its qualities notwithstanding.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did McDonnell Douglas offered a more generous package? Or was the Mirage 2000 just outclassed?

Dassault pulled out before Canada decided. The French I believe is coït interrompu.

 

[GTX]

But aside from France and Greece it's failed to establish itself in Westerns airforce

Still served/serves with Taiwan, India, Peru, UAE

Even previous user of Mirage III/F1 like Australia or Spain rejected the Mirage 2000

It was up against some very stiff competition in the form of the F/A-18, F-16. F-15

 

[z42]

Mirage 2000 went up against F/A-18 in both Canada and Australia(And maybe in Spain too) and was defeated,Did McDonnell Douglas offered a more generous package? Or was the Mirae2000 just outclassed?

And Finland, it competed against F-16, F/A-18, Gripen, and Mig-29. F-18 won. I suspect the Americans can offer very competitive pricing due to large production volumes amortizing R&D costs over many airframes? Similar to F-35 winning many competitions these days, the vast volumes make it competitive price-wise even though it's in many ways a much more advanced aircraft than 4th gen jets.

 

[GTX]

And Finland, it competed against F-16, F/A-18, Gripen, and Mig-29. F-18 won. I suspect the Americans can offer very competitive pricing due to large production volumes amortizing R&D costs over many airframes? Similar to F-35 winning many competitions these days, the vast volumes make it competitive price-wise even though it's in many ways a much more advanced aircraft than 4th gen jets.

Or it could just be that the capabilities of the American jets are better...

 

[fannum]

Simply said, erratic French politics compounded by changeable monetary rates and unreliable labor creates big issues for parts, maintenance and support. The same issue has afflicted French electronics, autos, consumer goods to mass retailers, even nuclear plant technology.
Obviously not the sole reason, but a factor that has to influence any country relying on weapons for survival. The obvious example was the French Mirage/Israeli Kfir situation.

 

[Frog]

Or it could just be that the capabilities of the American jets are better...

The only occurence of a F-16 shot down in air to air combat was in 1996 when a biplace turkish air force F-16 was shot down by a greek Mirage 2000 after violating the greek airspace.

 

[GTX]

The only occurence of a F-16 shot down in air to air combat was in 1996 when a biplace turkish air force F-16 was shot down by a greek Mirage 2000 after violating the greek airspace.

Which really doesn't prove anything...

 

[Frog]

That means don't mess with the Greeks.