Deliveries will be. And the Ukrainian Air Force will have at its disposal aviation NATO equipment, otherwise everything described here (Is it about tanks??) won't make any sense.
A war in the style of the First World War is a war of mutual destruction, nothing more. And in order to achieve certain goals and objectives, warfare is required in modern conditions. That is, not a stupid positional grinding of the enemy’s manpower and equipment in one place with the help of artillery and small arms, but a tactically mobile war that allows you to capture territories with minimal losses and the most intact in terms of infrastructure.
Ask yourself a question and try to answer it honestly: why do we need cities of ashes, in which there is neither a population nor conditions suitable for life and work? A total cleansing with the help of artillery can only give such results as in the same Mariupol. What is the use of Soledar or Bakhmut, wiped off the face of the earth, is a question for many to comprehend. But the fact is that there will be no benefit from these cities, except for injecting an abyss of money into them for “restoration”. Yes, as in Mariupol.
And in order for the cities to get relatively intact, a completely different approach is required than pounding on fortified areas in frontal attacks, as the Russian army is doing now (and, apparently, will continue to do).
We need a modern approach to the use of all types of troops, and we need the very use of these types, including the most modern ones. Ukrainians are beginning to demonstrate this, for whom the Americans and British think in European headquarters. And they are good at thinking. This means that, over time, it is expected that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will abandon the tactics of fighting on the level of the First World War and move on to the tactics of fighting under the full guidance of NATO experts, and even with NATO equipment and, most importantly, in my opinion, with NATO communications.
But in modern combat, all these breakthrough divisions, mobile lightly armored groups - they require clearing space for operational space. You can, of course, draw the Moon on the ground with artillery as much as you like, or you can use aviation. That's who will have the sky - he will be the master of the situation.
Now a certain parity has developed on the Russian-NATO front: the Ukrainian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces cannot portray anything, being bound by the work of air defense systems. But in any case, this picture will have to change. And the military command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is trying with all its might to do this. Get aircraft in every possible way and train crews, then minimize losses from Russian cruise missiles and Iranian drones, and subsequently - to provide the greatest possible support to their advancing troops. Everything is pretty logical.
And here the $100 million allocated by the Pentagon for the retraining of Ukrainian pilots and the training bases in the UK where they are trained look very normal. It is believed that three months is enough for a pilot of 2-3 class to master the F-16 at a basic level, and retraining of pilots of a higher class will take even less time.
F-16
And where to get fighters is also not a question. Representatives of the well-known company Lockheed Martin have already stated that if any NATO countries decide to transfer the same F-16s to Ukraine, then Lockheed Martin will replace it as a priority, for which it will quite calmly increase the production of aircraft.
And there, in the management of the corporation, they already see a solution to the problem of servicing equipment. This can be done by the so-called "civilian specialists" from countries that operate American aircraft at bases in Poland. Why not? There you can also retrain and retrain the crews as much as necessary in time, practicing simple tactics to intercept our missiles in the central and western regions of Ukraine, then there will be flights in the “air defense zones”, where air battles will make it difficult for us to Western air defense systems, and only then and front-line operations to provide cover for their troops.
There are many countries in the world that will be happy to give away their old Falcons in exchange for new ones or, alternatively, for advancement in the queue for the F-35. The same Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Norway ...
Mirage 2000
France stands apart, which has already been noted for generous deliveries of ground equipment for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Caesar self-propelled guns, TRF1 towed howitzers, LRU MLRS, Crotal air defense systems, and plus the promise of wheeled tanks AMX-10 RC), then the interests of the French military go further. It is clear that the Ukrainians will not see the Rafale, the French Air Force needs the Rafale. But the Mirage 2000, about three hundred of which are still serving in the Air Force of the republic (plus another hundred and a half around the world), is quite suitable for the role of a generous gift.
It's not just that France is traditionally considered one of the leaders in the aviation industry. War in general is an excellent occasion to write off old aircraft and load them with orders for new military factories. And the French authorities illustrate this in the best way with their policy, because the Mirages have not been produced for a long time and are withdrawn from the French Air Force, being replaced by the Rafali.
Officially, the country's government has already stated that the "Rafale" does not shine for Ukraine, but the "Mirage" ... The French media say that negotiations are already underway. So in general, this is a solution to a number of issues at once: political points as fighters for everything good against everything bad, getting rid of old equipment and loading, as mentioned above, their enterprises. That is - good money.
So, the Mirage 2000 has every chance to be in the sky of Ukraine. It is worth considering this issue through the Russian sight. After all, if this happens, then it cannot be said that it will be an easy walk, although France is well aware of the capabilities of Russian air defense systems and combat aircraft.
Especially aircraft, and here's why. If the Mirage does not show its strong side, it can easily be attributed to the terrible and effective Russian air defense systems and aircraft of a completely different class than the Mirage 2000.
But this is reality.
In general, the Mirage 2000 is a light aircraft, on the same platform as the MiG-29. But the MiG-29 is gradually being withdrawn from the VKS, so the chance to meet classmates is very small. But the subsequent incarnations of the Su-27, of which the Russian Aerospace Forces are today, are very easy. The same Su-30.
Why "thirty"? Well, simply because this aircraft can most often be found in the NVO zone as a fighter.
"Mirage" as a plane is very good. Being “only” half as light, it can carry only 2 tons less ammunition than the Su-30.
In general, despite the long history "Mirage" 2000, he met with the Su-30 only in theoretical and training battles held in the east. That is, in the Indian Air Force, where both fighters are in service, moreover, the Su-30 is in such quantities, twice the number in the Russian Aerospace Forces.
The Indians have studied both aircraft quite closely, and based on their findings, we can make certain predictions in the event that French aircraft appear in the sky of Ukraine.
Speaking about the technical characteristics of aircraft and their combat capabilities, first of all, it is worth considering not so much the performance characteristics of aircraft as the very concept of application, which is determined by the concept of creating the aircraft in question. And a pair of Mirage 2000 and Su-30 may turn out to be fundamentally different, like, for example, the Su-25 and Tornado.
So the concept
The Su-30 retained and multiplied all the characteristics of its progenitor, the Su-27, which became our first fighter to gain air superiority. Aircraft belong to the class of heavy fighters, that is - a large mass, two engines, additional survivability, range, the ability to take more weapons.
But the main feature of the Su-27/Su-30 is the ability of autonomous combat use, the solution of strike missions in the complete absence of target designation and orientation from ground control centers. Including - and in the depths of enemy territory.
The Mirage 2000 is a classic light fighter. It is intended for use as an air defense fighter, mainly using information channels from ground control centers. Naturally, he has a much smaller combat radius and a smaller supply of weapons.
But the main feature and at the same time weakness lies precisely in the fact that the Mirage is very weak in terms of operations at considerable distances from target designation centers and airfields.
That is, it is somewhat incorrect to initially compare the Mirage and the Su-30, since the aircraft initially belong to fighters of a different class and they have their own areas of practical application. This, by the way, is taken into account by potential buyers. The same Indians quite calmly purchased both the Su-30MKI and the Mirage 2000 for their Air Force. And for each of the aircraft in the concept of the Indian Air Force, there was a place.
The main factors in assessing the level of technical and combat capabilities of aircraft are flight performance, a set of on-board electronic equipment and a set of weapons.
The performance characteristics of the Su-30, due to the level of aerodynamic quality (which is typical of all aircraft of the Su-27 family), stands out among the world's fighter aircraft. Engines with deflectable thrust vectors make it possible to perform figures to which such a concept as “super-maneuverability” is applicable, useful in combat missions.
The aerodynamics of the Mirage 2000 is much more modest, although this aircraft, made according to the tailless scheme traditional for French fighters, is distinguished by high aerodynamic characteristics at supersonic speeds. And the speed of the French fighter is slightly higher than that of the Russian one. 200 km / h is a decent difference, especially if you need to catch up with someone or quickly escape from someone. But the Mirage does not have engines with a deflectable thrust vector, which, of course, does not provide such opportunities as the Su-30.
But the mechanization of the wing of the French fighter, thanks to large elevons and internal flaps for pitch control, allows the Mirage to abruptly switch from horizontal to vertical flight. This somewhat levels out the superiority of the Su-30 in terms of maneuverability, but not to the extent that one could say that the aircraft could be equal in air combat.
What does approximately equal speed values mean for aircraft? This is the same time to reach the missile launch line.
When solving problems of intercepting air targets, this is a very important point. However, range is equally important. The Su-30, which has a range of 40% more than the Mirage, is quite capable of patrolling the territory of almost any country (except, perhaps, Russia), covering the objects located on it. And the presence of an operator who controls weapons systems increases the capabilities in combat, since it does not distract the pilot from performing his duties.
So if the Mirage looks normal in the form of an air defense fighter “take off-catch-kill”, then the Su-30 is able to “hang” for quite a long time, covering a certain area, which gives advantages in repelling suddenly appeared targets. Oddly enough, our AL-31FP engine is more economical than the French M.53-R2. And the fact that the Su-30 has two such engines does not worsen the situation at all.
In general, one can talk a lot about engines, but suffice it to say that the AL-31FP is more stable in terms of gas dynamics. It allows the aircraft to fly tail-first for some time, while performing figures that French aircraft did not dream of. Yes, the same "somersault", like the "bell" can not always be used in combat, but here it's just as an indicator of the capabilities of the engines.
If you look at the use of aircraft as strike aircraft, it is obvious that 8 (and in overload 10) tons of the Su-30 combat load is much more effective than 6 tons for the Mirage. With what speed these tons will be delivered to the shooting line is not so important, but the range here is of great importance.
Separately, about the radar. Whatever experts criticizing Russian radio electronics say, it is a fact that the Su-30 radar is superior to the Mirage radar. And, if when working on ground targets, radars are basically the same in terms of capabilities, then when working on air targets, the Russian locator is more effective, since it is 20 years younger than the French one. Plus, on the side of the Russian aircraft, the presence of OLS - an optical-location station that provides search, detection, capture and automatic tracking of air targets, as well as determining their coordinates and range. The Mirage does not have such useful equipment on board.
If you look closely, then OLS is not a guarantee of victory, however, how to look. Due to the use of OLS, the target acquisition time was reduced, and the accuracy of firing from a cannon was higher. Small change? But it can be very expensive, and indeed, there are no trifles in air combat.
For actions on ground targets on the Su-30 and Mirage 2000 (not all, but only the 2000-5 modification), optical-electronic surveillance and sighting systems of container design are used, which have similar characteristics. This once again confirms that the Mirage can work no worse than the Su-30 on ground targets.
More about weapons
In terms of quantity, the advantage, of course, is for the Su-30. 12 suspension points versus 9 for Mirage. Quality… The fact that the Russian R-73 short-range air-to-air missile is far superior to the similar French K.550 missile both in target designation angles and in maneuverability. Long-range R-37 missiles also have a significant advantage over similar Super Matra missiles.
We can say that the guided / corrected bomb weapons are better with the French and this will not be a departure from the truth. But bomb weapons are very narrowly focused weapon, and the range of application of these aircraft involves solving a wider range of tasks than bombing ground targets.
Assessing the quality of combat aircraft, we can say with confidence that the Su-30 has a much greater strike potential than the Mirage. When solving strike missions, the greatest strengths of the Russian aircraft compared to the French are a larger tactical radius, increased combat load and better survivability, which determine its overwhelming superiority.
The Su-30 is a versatile aircraft, suitable, as the initial phase of the SVO showed, for solving a variety of tasks. It can serve as a reconnaissance aircraft, an anti-radar warfare aircraft, an air guidance point, a fighter to gain dominance, and so on.
"Mirage" can be used mainly in solving air defense tasks in the near zone and, possibly, to destroy ground targets that are poorly protected by air defense systems.
In addition, do not forget that the Mirage 2000 is not the most common aircraft in the world. And, unfortunately, among the operators there are no countries capable of providing proper service to the Mirages that ended up in the Ukrainian Air Force. Greece, India, Taiwan, the Emirates are not the countries where you can hire technical personnel. Only France remains.
In this regard, the same F-16 looks much more preferable, since operating countries such as Poland, Denmark, Belgium will be able to provide repair and maintenance of aircraft donated to Ukraine. As they say - the whole world.
Whether France will be able to provide maintenance for at least a hundred aircraft that ended up on the other side of Europe is another question. Most likely, somehow, but it can. Due to all sorts of "voluntary assistants" there.
Another question is that the Mirage 2000 is a very good aircraft for its time, but today it is frankly not suitable to withstand Russian aircraft. Yes, if we, like the Ukrainian Air Force, were armed with the old Su-27 and MiG-29, there would be no conversation, the Mirage would be in the court. But today, with all the discord in the Russian army, in aviation, the state of affairs is not so bad.
Therefore, if we talk about the fact that the Mirages will become worthy rivals, it is not necessary. However, it is better to have Mirages than to have nothing. It is a fact. But this worthy, but outdated aircraft will not win a victory. Do not delude yourself there, in Kyiv. Paris makes money, nothing more.