Thats it?
No it’s completely fair, they stopped accepting any kind of empty weight reports around 1 month ago which is fair imo, as empty weight standard changes from institution by institution, which make these kind of reports meaningless
These two units are essentially identical. The M variant has been modified with an arresting hook and main landing gear for carrier operations. It would be great if air-to-air missiles could be implemented on the Rafale, which still lacks them.
Air-to-air missile → Meteor, MICAIR
Not even, all Rafales are compatible with that. The only difference is the Rafale M isn’t cleared for as many loadouts because it can’t land on a carrier with a too asymetrical load so to avoid waste it doesn’t take exocets and scalps under the wings (though it could technically)
1 Like
thats not why they stopped
they stopped because they decided to consider every method you can use to get in game empty weight datamining, and that they wouldnt accept reports using datamined information
but you can find planes current weight using the very tools they provide themselves (local host)
It’s different, previously they stopped accepting weight reports using any sort of datamined information.
Then they went further and then stated that they no longer accept local-host info being used after the Rafale report got implemented (Rafale report used local-host info).
Then they now changed things around last minute and stated they no longer accept empty/base weight sources implying that they will instead take reports that look at weight of aircraft measuring them based on loads/fuel and etc rather than empty weights.
nope they completly stopped accepting empty weight reports a month or 2 ago
Where did they state that?
This thread iirc, might be this post that is most relevant but Gunjob did some explaining too
4 Likes
They even could have done the SLAM for the A an C early and SLAM ER for C late and E, on top of Rafale Expect. Btw, there are different version of the Exocet right?
1 Like
My question just being… why?
There are quite a lot of versions of the Exocet, but most of them are sea-sea not air-sea.
First the Exocet MM 38, sea-sea with around 40-45km of range. It’s the OG variant and the 38 stands for the initially desired range (which was exceeded)
Then there’s the MM40 family which are the newer sea-sea integration. Comes in different blocks with the last one claiming around 200km of range.
And then, what interests us is the AM39, the air to sea variant. I believe it’s derived from the MM 38 without the initial booster that was used on sea platforms to get it up to speed. It does get more range than the MM38 due to being launched at speed and altitude tho.
Seems like there’s 2 main variants with the mist recent one being the Block 2. Rafale only uses the Block 2 variant since the F3 standard.
Edit : corrected range of MM38
3 Likes
Based upon Smins comment, it sounds like they want to have this information displayed in-game somewhere, but why they have stopped accepting reports before that has occured is wierd
Thank you for the clarification. From what I read the Harpoon has quite a bit more range and a bigger warhead but the Exocet has a higher top speed
I don’t know much about either missiles, but surprisingly the Exocet is claimed to be as heavy to quite substantially heavier than the harpoon in all its configurations (2 minutes Wikipedia search). The range between sea launched and air launched are also flipped which is interesting. I don’t know much about their warhead, but seems like the Exocet can (could) deal with relatively small targets like the Sheffield but not so easily that it would guarantee a sink (like the Stark).
Yeah I found the weight difference a little baffling
It surprises me that the harpoon can have both a larger warhead and more than twice the range in air to air configuration while also being slower (but similarly rocket boosted) and as heavy if not lighter than the air configuration of the Exocet.
Kinda makes me think either at least one of these Wikipedia pages is incorrect.
If it had a more efficient air breathing engine, I could make sense of the lower speed for lower fuel mass needed for the same effect, but it doesn’t seem to be the case
Harpoon uses a jet engine which is far more efficient than AM39’s solid rocket motor.
1 Like