Understanding the shipment of Mirage 2000-5 to Ukraine in 7 points

France will therefore send Mirage 2000-5s to Ukraine! It has now become a habit for the French President to surprise his audience, including staff and industrialists, regarding the decision to send major new equipment to Ukraine.

Indeed, the announcement to cede part of its Mirage 2000-5 fleet to Ukraine, during a television interview as part of the June 6 commemorations, is reminiscent of that which was made, a little over two years ago, concerning the first Caesar cannons transferred to the Ukrainian armies, and, six months later, that of sending the AMX-10RC to this theater.

If questions about the appropriateness of such an announcement, its feasibility in terms of deadlines, and its impact on French air defense capabilities, may arise, it nonetheless remains true that the French decision to Sending this fighter, of entirely French and therefore European design, also marks a new stage in the support provided by Paris to Kyiv.

What is more, once the aircraft are actually operational, as long as they are maintained and piloted by qualified personnel, they will be able to bring certain key operational added values ​​to the Ukrainian air forces against the VVS, but also open strategic avenues, as to their evolution.

The Mirage 2000-5, a specialist in interception and air superiority, still very effective

There is no doubt that the presidential announcement will have surprised people. Firstly because just a few days ago, Sweden announced that it was giving up sending Gripens to Ukraine, to promote the homogeneity of the transformation of the Ukrainian fighter fleet onto F-16s, but also in the choice of Mirage 2000-5, to reach Ukraine.

Mirage 2000-5F EAP Baltic
Two Mirage 2000-5Fs perform a flight following a tango scramble on August 21, 2018 at Ämari Air Base in Estonia.

The penultimate version of the first French fighter with electric flight controls, the -5 is, in fact, an aircraft specialized in interception and air superiority, where many, including on this site, were more anticipating the sending of Mirage 2000 -D attack, French side.

On the other hand, the twenty of these fighters still in service within the Air and Space Force, mark the weight of the years, because they are based on -C cells, delivered in the 80s, and upgrades in the 90s to this new standard.

Finally, because, despite their age, the Mirage 2000-5F of the Air and Space Force, assuming that the dozen fighters which will be sent will be taken from the active French fleet, continued to provide numerous services to ensure the air defense of the territory, to do the same in the Baltic countries, even to escort the Rafale B carriers of the ASMPA nuclear missile, during Poker missions.

Mirage 2000-5 and ASC 890, a pair designed to defend the depth of Ukrainian airspace

And for good reason! Indeed, the Mirage 2000-5 remains, even today, one of the most capable air superiority aircraft, which is why, in addition to France, front-line air forces, such as Greece facing the Turkish F-16s, India facing the Pakistani F-16 and JF-17, and Taiwan, facing the Chinese J-10/11 and 16, continue to rely on this device.

MIrage 2000-5 MICA Heelenic Air Force
The Mirage 2000-5s of the Hellenic Air Force continue to be on the front line against Turkish F-16s in the Aegean Sea.

There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!

Metadefense logo 93x93 2 Fighter aviation | Military alliances | Defense Analysis

The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from 1,99 €.


For further

All

13 Comments

  1. It's getting serious. We cross fingers. The erratic announcements about potential customers for the 2000-5 used by Greece, the UAE or Qatar in recent months tended to show that the subject of sending mirages to Ukraine was far from being closed, especially since Generals had hinted between the lines that the use of Mirages to deliver cruise missiles or more was being considered.
    We'll have to see what that gives. Mica is good, but it doesn't have the range of meteors or Russian missiles. And according to official data, stocks are limited, whether of missiles or bombs. Fingers crossed that the necessary decisions have been made in advance.

    • We must not be fooled by the theoretical range of Russian missiles. During the Indo-Pakistani engagement of 2019, their 2000 MICAs obtained firing solutions on the Pakistani F-16, Mirage III and JF-17, well before the Su-30MKI, and their R-77. Like what …

      • yes the 2000 is a wonderful device. Wherever he was engaged, he reigned over the sky.

        We see that the loop is finally closed.

        We were wondering why there were amazing rates at Dassault (I saw 4 per month) well we understood

        I see Mirage customers spend their hunt in everything rafale F4….. it’s going to be crazy

        Note that France has always announced aid when it was done or almost done (SCALP A2SM AMX or Caesar) The rumors of Ukrainian training therefore find their explanation (ejection seat test flight on patrol)
        The plan was perfect.

  2. France will not provide anything to Ukraine because by December 2024 there is a strong chance that the Russian-Ukrainian affair will be resolved. And European leaders know this perfectly well; you only have to see the indifference with which the President's decision was greeted by his European colleagues.
    The Ukrainian President seems to have come to terms with this idea, his speech to the National Assembly being more of a speech of thanks for what has been done rather than what will be done.
    Planning to deliver planes with trained pilots and MCO in 6 months, while the Russians are in full offensive and have broken the Ukrainian front, is either the most complete incompetence or the most complete lie. Optimism leads me to believe that it is the second option.

  3. Mr. Arnaud, or whoever you are as a pro-Russian troll hiding behind this nickname, your pro-Russian propaganda based on sand and regularly denied by the facts only interests you and pollutes one of the rare sites dedicated to military thing where the subjects are argued and approached in a balanced manner.
    Please reserve your gall for sites accustomed to this (like opex 360, which is not uninteresting in its genre) and let mature people exchange in a thoughtful and intelligent manner on this site.

  4. Where did the Russians break the front???
    The incompetence (or misinformation) is more in your statements

    • That's my last name and I don't know what the term "troll" means, which is not, in my opinion, a French term.
      I am not pouring out any anger on anyone but am only analyzing what I read and listen to in the press, not just LCI, and drawing my conclusions. If you don't like them, I can't do anything about it and you see me sorry!
      Generally speaking, I don't see how a country of 45 million inhabitants, without an arms industry, could defeat another of 146 million such as Russia. The proof is the aid that the USA and others must constantly provide to this country so as not to be swept away. Especially since this aid will have to stop one day or another given the insufficient financial and industrial resources available to European states and the strategic problems that the USA will soon face in the Pacific.
      Now, if you prefer to see Ukrainians being killed – or you don't care – so that you have the pleasure of thinking you are on the side of good, that is your absolute right but in terms of maturity we have seen better !

      • For information, Israel had a population of 3 million people in 1968. It defeated an Arab coalition of more than 120 million people, in fact, thanks to American and Western support. We were then in a ratio of 1/40, not 1/3 as in Ukraine. So this argument of the difference in population is hardly relevant.

        • Dear Comrade,
          I share your opinion but I would like to point out that, unlike Ukraine in 2022, Israel in 1968 had essentially, equipped by the Russians, the Egyptians facing them, who were never the wrath of war (see Franco-English operation) and had weapons (mainly supplied by France), relatively speaking, and much greater know-how than their enemies.
          Furthermore, their choice, at that time, was binary: win or die!
          And finally, if there was a coalition, the Israelis only had to confront it in phases but never united.

          • As it turns out, there are other factors to take into account.
            They did not fight on the same front the four major Arab countries allied against Israel (Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq), but that was not an advantage, since they had to confront the Egyptians in the Sinai, the Syrians in the Golan etc… And even against Egypt alone, equipped with high-performance equipment (T-55 vs centurion, Mig-21 vs Mirage III…), the population ratio was 1 to 12.
            The difference in population is not really decisive, in itself. Prussia was significantly less populated than France in 1870 (25 vs 38 m), Imperial Japan faced China in 1936 (70 vs 650 m), etc... Many factors influence the balance of power, as much or even more than this one.

  5. Mr Arnaud,
    you don't know what a troll is: find out.
    Along the way, also find out who is the aggressor in this war, who is bombing civilian populations if the deaths really matter to you...
    With your reasoning on numbers, Churchill's Britain should have laid down its arms to Nazi Germany and its allies in 1940.
    With you, the spirit of Munich is not dead: you prefer dishonor to war. Rest assured, with Putin you will have dishonor and war.
    I don't know if it's the side of good, but I prefer to support the attacked rather than the aggressors.
    Everyone has their own choices...

  6. Sir,
    You should reason and not get carried away by passion and cling to a bygone history: the spirit of Munich? you would think you were hearing BHL! The difference between Munich and the Ukrainian conflict is that in 1938, no country had nuclear weapons but I grant you that if the leaders of that time had banged their fists on the table, Adolf Hitler would perhaps have reconsidered copy! You probably think that negotiating with a country with nuclear weapons as well as with a country without them will do you a lot of good, but you are wrong. Even more so when one of the two is considered a dictator capable of the worst.
    As for the number: if it is true that Great Britain and especially W. Churchill were able to resist Nazi Germany, it was with the certainty that the USA would sooner or later intervene in their favor knowing that they were already providing it with a significant volume of weaponry, which takes nothing away from their courage! Furthermore, I remind you, or inform you, that Great Britain at that time had an empire, the first world war fleet and significant tactical and strategic aviation, which is not the case with Ukraine.
    On the other hand, I am stunned when reading your conclusion which demonstrates the inconsistency, and it is an understatement, of your reasoning: “I do not know if it is the camp of good, but I prefer to support the attacked rather than the attackers. So you doubt that support for Ukraine is not on the side of good? Interesting approach to the situation!
    Conversely, I never advocated or wished for Russia's victory, reread what I wrote with less passion, but only said that its victory seemed inevitable to me. This is my analysis and I put no passion into it. If the peace negotiations proposed by Zelenski from March 2022 had not been thwarted by the UK and the USA, this would have avoided unnecessary civilian and military losses: there is a difference between being "Munichish" and cynical, which has was the case in this affair to allow the USA to wage war against Russia through person and corpses.
    Last detail, I now know what a “troll” is, a term widely used on the Opex 360 site which you must therefore visit assiduously to master the vocabulary as well.

Comments are closed.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Last articles

Meta-Defense

FREE OF CHARGE
ABOUT