Short range land based systems also typically engage drones, low flying aircraft, and cruise missiles. We have no information available on what the reference target is that results in the MICA VL brochure claims.
Regardless I have already approximated what would need to be done to reach the values that he desires. It results in a missile that outranges everything in the game. (No I am not counting Fakour 90 because some goober up tiering it to top tier is going to get vaporized.)
The argument is that the currently best performing plane in the game has to have its one minor disadvantage removed while having most of its current advantages amplified. This is in regards to a plane that has been meta-defining for the past 7 months and will likely be meta-defining for at least the next 3 months. That is a bare minimum period of domination that spans 9 months and will likely span over a year depending on what the next major air-to-air patch entails.
For reference the MiG-23MLD was meta defining from Oct 21 to Jun 22 when the F-14 was added. That is an 8 month timeframe.
This is a screenshot from a reddit post when the MLD was it’s peak. It had 4:1 KD on the sample size that thunderskill.
The Rafale experiences a marginally higher win rate and a marginally lower kill to death ratio according to Thunderskill. I am using Thunderskill as the comparative because Statshark was not around 4 years ago so we have to use its flawed sample size to have an apples to apples comparison. For comparisons sake, the highest performing Eurofighter is the Italian one.
All of the other Eurofighters are even less effective in terms of KD. The Su-30 doesn’t do any better by the same metrics.
Basically right now, in terms of player performance, the Rafale is as overpowered as the MiG-23MLD was in it’s heyday. And it will have a period of defining the meta just as long.
The F-14A was added in Jun 22 and leapfrogged the MiG-23MLD. The Mirage 2000 was added around 3 months later. If we want to count the F-14 as meta-defining (multi-pathing radar missiles was already an established tactic by the end of MLD era iirc) then its period of relevancy ended in Dec 22 with the introduction of MiG-29 and F-16A. That is only a 6 month period where it was the best plane in the game.
MiG-29 and F-16A were the meta picks for the next 9-10 months. This period of gameplay was more or less balanced during the time period with the MiG-29 edging the F-16 out in relevancy due to R-27ER. MiG-29 and F-16A had more or less equal flight models once the goofy g-limit approximation was adjusted. If it had been entirely removed then the F-16A would have more easily won against the MiG-29. F-16A had advantage of sustained turns and IR missiles while 29 has better radar missiles and worse IR. Even if we agree that the 29 was the dominant meta choice then its period of relevancy ends after 10 months.
The Rafale at a bare minimum will be the meta defining plane for a 9 month long period. That period will likely extend further unless Gaijin introduces significant power creep and deliberately leapfrogs all of the current planes in game by an even wider margin than all of our previous jumps in capability. And in all honesty I do not see that happening.
What this whole entire conversation reminds me of is when former American turned Russian mains were begging for the R-73 when the MiG-29 was at the height of its relevancy all because the Aim-9L outranged the R60M and that 2 other planes in the game could technically out turn the MiG-29. Yes there were people that wanted to buff the MiG-29 because the sustained rate number at 400 knots was higher for the F-14A if it had its wings fully deployed. It never occurred to these people that you could win in the first few turns or use ascending maneuvers to energy trap it post merge. And yes I was there back in the day telling them that massively buffing the best plane in the game was stupid.
