(First of all, I want to clarify that this discussion is not a complaint about the Mirage 2000-5F, which I still consider to be an excellent aircraft. I simply want to gather your opinions regarding its current Battle Rating.)
I would like to start a discussion about the current Battle Rating placement of the Mirage 2000-5F.
This aircraft remains a very capable fighter, especially in close-range combat thanks to its excellent flight performance, Helmet-Mounted Display (HMD), and MICA missiles. However, with the recent introduction of more modern aircraft featuring more powerful radars, higher missile capacity, and better BVR capabilities, I wonder if a BR of 14.0 still accurately represents the overall capabilities of this aircraft.
The main question is not whether the MICA is a weak or ineffective missile. The MICA is an extremely capable missile (this should not be denied), but it is also important to consider the entire platform carrying it.
Compared to some current aircraft at BR 14.0 and above, the Mirage 2000-5F has:
a more limited missile loadout,
weaker BVR capabilities,
a radar that is less effective compared to the newest platforms,
less endurance and flexibility during long-range engagements.
At the same time, it remains an extremely dangerous aircraft in close-range combat when properly mastered. Lowering its BR too much could therefore create balance issues as well.
The question is therefore the following:
Would a BR of 13.7 better represent the overall capabilities of the Mirage 2000-5F, or do you think the current BR of 14.0 is still justified because of the MICA performance and the aircraft’s overall strengths?
I would like to hear the opinions of players who use the Mirage 2000-5F, but also those who regularly fight against it.
I’ve already pointed out in my message that the MICA is a very powerful missile, so I’m not questioning that.
What I’m wondering is whether the BR should be based primarily on the missile, as Gaijin often seems to do, or on the aircraft as a whole.
For example, shouldn’t factors such as radar, BVR performance, range and the aircraft’s overall capabilities carry just as much weight in determining its BR?
I’m genuinely curious to know which factors would be most important to take into account.
a br increase would make it worse considering how bad the radar is at 14.0
the f18c late performs better compared to the mirage 2k 5f
more fox 3 comparable fm and a better radar
Can you provide an argument, please? The Mirage 2000-5F regularly faces opponents superior to itself—specifically at BR 14.0, though encountering them is quite rare; that is the reason for this discussion. So, if you don’t have an argument, please refrain from commenting.
The platform is not bad. Are there better radars, sure, but its a usable radar, especially when coupled with HMD and MICAs, you dont even need a good radar, just point and shoot with HMD.
The FM is fine, it can hold its own in most dogfights.
It doesnt have a weak RWR iirc
its CM count is fine.
There is nothing bad about the platform, if the MICA were replaced with AMRAAM, it would still be a decent 13.7.
But with just how strong the MICA EMs are… 14.0 makes sense
Sure it cant engage in long range BVR duals, but… given WVR performance is pretty much always king in War Thunder at the moment… Its just not that big of a deal.
My argument would be that the 5F sits at a watershed in aircraft capability and playstyle, which makes it amazing in downtiers and painful in uptiers (so another compression issue huh, like the five millionth one…)
Below 14.0, missile count is limited and flight performance is low, so the standard tactic is to draw enemies within 20 km or even 10 km to guarantee a kill. Close range notching battles are common, and you’ll find yourself using the HMD more often than your radar. The 5F shines in this environment. MICAs are king at these ranges, its high instantaneous turn allows rapid notching, and its weaknesses in radar and energy are hidden.
Above 14.0, high performance airframes greatly extend the NEZ, and high missile counts allow players to “waste” some to suppress enemies. The standard tactic changes to throwing copious amounts of missiles from BVR to suppress and overwhelm enemies. Here, 5F is disadvantaged, since its TWS is basically useless, it doesn’t have enough speed and energy to give MICAs enough range like the Rafale, and with just 6 ARH missiles it really can’t waste any. Of course, if it manages to get within 10 km it can pose a threat to even 14.7 aircraft, but you’re going to have to play defensive throughout the majority of the game and barely get any kills, which can be quite frustrating.
because of the mica mostly since you can force people to get close and since its hard to chaff they die most of the time
though the f18c late the Finnish one in my case can give it a good run for its money mostly because you can put a lot of pressure with the amount of fox 3 plus if they get to the merge f18 still has a good chance to beat it
MICA would be significantly less effective if people didn’t keep choosing to knife fight aircraft with a missile you lot supposedly respect for its short range efficacy.
Yeah, agreed. But doesnt change the fact that longer ranged weapons are just… not effective to use at longer ranges due to how easy they are to defend against.
Even under optimal conditions (good alt, like 15-20k ft, high speed, like mach 1.5+), an AMRAAM fired past about 20km is usually a waste of a missile.
Few can actually achieve that, so using an AMRAAM at the same kinds of ranges where MICA is really strong… is just… innevetiable
AMRAAM consistently connects at 20km from low speed launches if not launched at someone who is already actively defending. MICA consistently fails to secure a hit past 10 (even on platforms presenting minimal defensive activity). MICA does not perform remotely adequate to be used as a deterrent, AMRAAM does.
AMRAAM also maintains adequate agility for 6km launches, whilst retaining enough energy not to fall from the sky, unlike MICA. Under the vast majority of circumstances, AMRAAM is the more useful missile. Even under the circumstances MICA theoretically is the better missile, it will fail more often than not to secure a kill.
