Yes, it should be something mainly called “lead bias” as a term.
1 Like
CAMM has a separate booster pack. That also orientates the weapon. This does not mean that ASRAAM can do the same for example
"CAMM launch
2 Likes
Maybe CAMM isn’t the best example then cause I’m not sure if it uses the same autopilot as ASRAAM
I think the better angle to argue for would be to essentially remove any form of guidance delay from various weapons. Rather than specifically mentioning orientation for VL weapons
That way, they are turning off the rails.
It has a soft launch TVC system.
CroMD copied that from Dassault’s brochure.
It’s the same source you already had.
1 Like
10 Likes
Oh my, finally.
4 Likes
Maybe, but this is gaijin. You’d need 15 primary sources to make that happen for non Russian missiles. And it’s still take years for gaijin to change it. Even to this day the detonation activation delay for the Magic 2 is still way to high despite a 5 (?) year old accepted report. I also don’t think I’ve ever seen a reference on guidance delay for MICA. Orientation phase could just be “added” by doing just that however.
Thanks to Doggo and Oceanfish for the source and summaries.
Some interesting things were announced regarding the Rafale and the Eurodrone:
Very short summary of what was said :
- The official aim for the M88 T-Rex is 11 tons of thrust, 9 tons being capability Safran was already able to deliver 5 years ago
- Dassault didn’t come out of the Eurodrone programme but Airbus kicked them out because of the discussions over the DGA not allocating funds to procure it
- The NGF and UCAV for the Rafale F5 and more broadly the collaborative combat system already are in the works, the UCAV being close to completion
- Dassault is currently investing into different AI and small drone companies in order to fund the development of cheaper strike capabilities controlled by an AI combat cloud
- The UAE are indeed back in the talks for cooperation both on the F5 standard and possible « other programs »
Source: Avenir de l'aviation de combat
2 Likes
Not a typo btw,
Current Rafale (7.5 tons of thrust)
Original Rafale F5 goal (9 tons of thrust)
Updated Rafale F5 official goal (11 tons of thrust).
2 Likes
Surely that’s got to be some sort of FCAS risk reduction, 110kn per engine is slightly ludicrous a medium-small airframe.
I’d have guessed the Rafale would exceed the combat load for its pylons or drag would factor in, or fuel efficiency penalties before that level of thrust was even close to being warranted.
I would think it would be a reduction in cost for the future French NGF if they upgrade and implement technologies on the Rafale. Hopefully the new engines also means that more thrust will be available to power all the systems on-board.
1 Like
Can I ask?how to visually differentiate between Rafale f3r and f4?I would love it if you guys could tell that(this is so hard lol!)
Now the question is; which F.4?
Between F.3R and F.4.1, there is barely any difference visually. Mostly just the HMCS fiducials on the canopy glass.
The F.4.2 however has a flat antenna in front of the stabilizer.
I see. I’m not really sure about that (Cause I dunno), but if you want,maybe you can help me show the visual differences between the F3/4 variants :>
Figured I’d give you guys an update on things.
A former technical moderator/Gaijin staff is alleged to have had fakes in his reports. This former Gaijin staff member will now have ALL of his reports closed and was prolific in making reports as well as passing reports.
Leclerc S1 incorrect name // Gaijin.net // Issues
Here’s a comment that Gaijin has made on a report of his, a report from before his time as a technical moderator (the title that was given to him).
This doesn’t bode well for Rafale reports as he passed a non-insignificant amount of Rafale reports, and so it leaves questions as to what happens to all of the reports they had passed. If the reports he passed are all on hold until another staff member can re-review them, then that would mean most Rafale reports will not see implementation into the game until they have been reviewed again.
so uhhh
the system is working as it should?
if someone uses fake sources obviously all their reports need to be re evaluated or closed because there is a good chance they have fake sources too.
Would be willing to place money on them counting these reports reviewed, and flagged not to action them, instead of making re-review a priority.
1 Like