ASRAAM lmao
that list is pure bs
it looks to be intentionally misleading though by making it look like a photocopy of a manual with the low quality text and just overall look
2 Likes
Bu hasn’t F4 Standard fixed this issue as MICAs are super close to wing tips?
Can someone provide me with an image of Rafale with 4 meteors please?
Issue isn’t place not weight or anything of the sort must be a computer issue or unsupported wiring that prevent 4 METEOR/4 MICA or the loadout is just totally possible and eventually wil be an option in game
True, as said before; there is technical limitation for a 4/4 loadout - Such a loadout was only shown once in ~2015 on Rafale M testbed with dummy Meteors and SP3 pylon.
SP3 however just entered service with F.4 and said 4/4 config has not been spotted yet.
2/6 config has been spotted at least twice on F.4 iirc. Pictures on that are in my suggestion(s).
is there other angles of the photo?
its really tough for these newer jets. they typically have no limitation for carriage and mostly also not for electronics and its JUST a clearance issue which happens because of money.
it’ll be real interesting to see how gaijin handles this, especially with different versions across different nations which have different weapons.
Both the mechanical and electrical interfaces are standardised(at least for NATO aircraft) and you can find them on quicksearch.dla.mil (MIL-STD-8591 for mechanical interface and MIL-STD-1760 for the electrical interconnection system)
Not the exact same airframe but this picture was taken in 2017 during Emmanuel Macrons visit on the Paris Air Show, same loadout as Rafale M 37.
That’s why I only stick to what I can find - it is plausible that more pylons in theory can also carry other/more weapons; maybe they have reasons to not to implement these options but who can say that with certainty ?
1 Like
typically its just cost. its expensive to test. you need carriage, launch and jettison tests throughout the whole flight envelope to certify a weapon on an aircraft. and thats for each station. its not just time consuming its also expensive in terms of engineering, equipment and fuel ofc.
you just cannot afford to announce that a weapon is fully integrated and then have the aircraft blow up because the pilot was pulling too many Gs or was going too fast or was flying too low or bla bla bla, you get the point.
so the companies responsible dont do this because they wont get funding from the gov which does not deem it a necessity.
during war time though that might change rather quickly
1 Like
If you study doctrine of country the answer is usually logic for example for france more than 8 missiles is not a priority as we usually make multirole aircrafts than can do long operations so usually middle of the plane is most used to carry fuel tanks/ASMP and wing pylons for AASM/SCALP EG
Just learned that the Rafale is certified to land on american aircraft carriers and is the only foreign aircraft allowed to do so
That is usually where is see the most Rafale footage tbh.
Have you seen on how little French Rafale M pilots lands on?
The Carrier Charles de Gaulle is way smaller than any US CVN, that’s why they have been authorized to operate on those CVN’s anytime anywhere. ^^"
Also, french pilots starts their formation by having part of US pilot program in USA.
Even US pilots considered CVN CdG to be unpraticable for the mighty F/A-18 until “recently”, and Called french pilots to be crazy as hell ^^"
he meant that Rafale is the only aircraft able to land on US carriers
1 Like
Outside of US aircrafts : yes
the only non-US CATOBAR aircraft
1 Like
Indeed
Also isnt the carrier that is CATOBAR, not the planes?
Since both French and US CVs are CATOBAR, they can land their planes on each other, not the planes that are CATOBAR afaik.