yes,… it’s sad that France currently never wanted to make an AM.39 Block3, per comparison with the MM.40 and SM.40 block3’s (Sea-Sea and Submarine Launched variants).
in the meantime, the AGM-84 is clearly slower than AM.39, letting it more time to intercept (quite similar to the ASM-2 Type 93 in use by JASDF, no?)
Yeah it’s an odd choice, turbojet / turbofan certainly seems to be the way to go for subsonic ASMs. Just look at Sea Eagle:
The only drawback is that it has a marginally slower cruising speed than AM39.
See @Morvran : France don’t always do everything on top of everyone else (little jokes there)
there is quite 150km/h differences ^^"
at takeoff maybe, but in the end, after the booster ended, i’m not so sure about that,… (still mass = inertia)
(but this could still be classified , so i won’t be going further on that)
it does have a jet engine though. and if you think the harpoon is good you should check out the LRASM, its about the same speed if not slightly faster, stealth, 1000lb warhead, but it is about 1250kg
The Bug Reporting Manager is actually DS burner account, he’s playing some puppeteering here. Why would DS want to nerf his beloved Rafale?
/S
The Conspiracy of the Atlantis Royal Family or aliens
Sea Eagle cruises at Mach 0.85, I thought AM39 cruises at about Mach 0.9? If so that’s a 60 km/h difference at sea level (about 5.5%).
The point was to illustrate the inefficiency of using a solid fuel motor. The Sea Eagle is a smaller missile than AM39, but can carry a larger warhead (242 kg vs 165 kg) nearly double the range.
Air launched : AM-39 with around 50km. Solid propellant only. Basically the same as the one used back in the 80s except the seeker was gradually upgraded. I won’t lie to you : considering the range of most ships air defenses bubble today this thing is quite obsolete
Sea launched : MM38 (solid propellant) , MM40 block 1, 2 (around 70km), MM40 block 3 (180km), MM40 block 3c (200+km). Still subsonic, but at least it has a decent range
Submarine launched : SM39 (around 40-50km, solid propellant), SM40 block 3c, derived from MM40 block 3c (jet engine with around 120+km of range). Not that important tbh, Submarines main weaponry is torpedoes after all. That being said I hope it eventually gets replaced by something faster
The air breathing Exocets can be easily recognized :
Air and sea launched variants will soon be replaced by MBDA Stratus. Not too sure about the submarine ones however, since Stratus is more squary and therefore less easy to fit in a torpedo tube :
Ah that’s why, makes more sense now. Didn’t see the air intakes so I wrongly assumed
Made a topic on Exocet so this topic doesn’t become Exocet discussion X)
ooff,… my bad:
i took AGM-84, instead of Sea eagle,…
What’s the difference?
Should be lower fuel consumption allowing for less fuel to be taken for the same amount of time, making the aircraft weigh less in actual games which does translate to better flight performance for the same amount of fuel time you take.
But why would the Rafale M F3-R get different engines from the C F3-R? Do they really have different engines irl?
Both should have the same engine.
It could be possible that the C also gets it, this is just Gszabi’s predictions of what engine goes where.
So, even better engine for the best jet? lol
yep, apparently gaijin cant go an update without a rafail buff
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IWsp3j6dYjjw
My bug report got accepted and has been fixed on the dev server - the rafale will be usable again. Thanks for the upvotes on the report :)
