I don’t think he has a hate
5 Likes
C01 was a prototype platform owned by dassault, not an actual C. It’s not a complete platform that is intended for the Air Force. It did use G404 at the beginning.
Also, just so you know, G404 and M88 aren’t so different that they could be impossible to mount in a m88 engine bay. The rafale A did carry both at the same time at some point to make the initial tests of the M88
Also in general, jumping on @Panther2995 remark.
First fireball and flame are two different people.
Secondly, they both source the British MoD for their source.
Thirdly, as usual with British info, I take their claim with a mountain sized grain of salt (they are very adept at distorting the truth or outright lying).
Visibly, their claim that they have received access to actual Dassault datapoints for the rafale is untrue. They apparently have asked, but dassault denied after asking the French MoD if they could.
But since they « asked », they pass their open sources research as if it was actual data.
Anyway, this is still unclear at the moment, some information needs to be confirmed and sourced.
But if it is indeed open source data, then they probably got information about the G404 equipped rafales, as the M88 data wasn’t made available until a few months/years after fireball claimed MoD statements.
This is untrue the info was given as there were backup plans to buy the Rafale if the Eurofighter hadn’t worked out and where given the info from Dassault
There is no proof that they made fake performance documents on the Rafale
1 Like
Yea it could be but as you’re said i’ve take those claims with grain of salt.
As for the confusing their names my bad on that part.
And there is no proof that their sources about Rafale’s performance is hundred percent accurate, cause if we take it their source as the main one we should also reduce EFT’s top speed to 1.8 due to RAF’s official web page.
I did not say they were fake.
I say that the MoD probably did not have access to infos straight from Dassault. They claim that they have asked for it, and then make a comparaison using data.
If the fact that dassault was not allowed to share them data is true, the only data the MoD would have had access would have been the only data known at the time which would be of G404 equipped rafales.
1 Like
This source isn’t a web page (Eurofighter website says mach 2) it is a MOD document with SEP diagrams the only issue i see with it is that it could be the Rafale A which has slightly different airframe and different engines which would make the info useless
What a ridiculous statement…British MOD lie, but French sources are so accurate and 100% true…
Friend you either trust all official sources or none.
And RAF’s Web page claims its Mach 1.8, so should we take that info and change EFT’s top speed?
Thats why i’ve said that we cant be sure if British MOD documents are hundred percent true.
And in the case that dassault did not give them M88 rafale C01 info, that would definitely be the case. To be determined.
But to me just looking at the fact that those documents would infer a max top speed of the rafale under Mach 1.8, when it’s known to do quite a bit better with (at the very least) Mach 1.9, I would assume that it is the case
I prefer to trust Dassault who makes Rafale and French Goverment rather than some British documents about Rafale, just like i dont take RAF’s information about EFT’s top speed which is listed as Mach 1.8 seriously.
1 Like
Thats the RAFs operational speed, they do not (generally) exceed mach 2.0 it doesnt mean the airframe is limited to that speed.
The RAF have a history of downplaying aircraft potential to prolong the lifespan of the airframe.
Just like every other Nation.
For example Rafale’s top speed is also downplayed in order to increase lifespan of airframe and RAM coating.
RAF isnt special in this case.
No one is saying they are.
Then what makes you think some British MOD documents its hundred percent accurate about Rafale’s true flight performance?
According to Dassault Rafale can achieve Mach 2.0 while bug report suggest or should be reduced to Mach 1.7-1.8 due to some British MOD documents.
Why wouldnt they be?
Why would Britain lie about the capabilities of the Rafale?
Data is likely from French sources or export customers who have tested or procured Rafales.
Defence companies talk and while 90% of arms procurement is political they are still going to be aware of testing data.
The same with the various data we use for armour values came from Swedens evaluation.
Rather than lying they might have information about GE404 engine performance on Rafale that was tested before.
And main data suggest that Rafale’s top speed is Mach 2 which means British Mod has most likely have information about G404 engine performance rather than M88’s.
Maybe, Gaijin have modelled the correct thrust in game for the M88.
In all seriousness no one is ever going Mach 2.0 or above in the game right now.
Maps are too small
I believe that is the case, but still lacks top speed on the deck.
According to first bug report top speed should also be 800knots which means with 5 percent rip limit it should reach 1500+km on deck.
I’ve managed to get Mach 2 on one match and that was 2 years ago, i was chasing enemy Mig23 in my Mig23MLD at very high alt and didnt even realized i was crusing at mach 2 until game told me to reduce my speed :)
Agree, If Gaijin wants to introduce more sophisticated weapon systems and Jets they should increase the size of map and redesign the objectives.
1 Like
Crusing at mach 2.0! Love it
I dont think Typhoon or Rafale fms are finished with I see future changes for both just have to see how it all plays out now :)
1 Like