Always :)
At that time there was no export. The sole tester of the rafale was Dassault and the French MoD (DGA) (document from 1992-1993).
So it’s either GE404, which had public information, or the DGA authorized dassault to send more precise documents on the m88.
You might tell me France would have given its best performance value to get the market, but I just want to point out that during that time France had tried to export the Leclerc while not providing actual armor value (and thus many testing countries had to downplay its actual armor, sometimes even implying that they would treat the armor as if it was an AMX30).
France at that time seemed to have been keener on keeping its values secret rather than insuring export sales
Also France MOD is so keen on revealing data points that so far almost all Rafale datapoints were found through tests and trials ran by many countries but France so basically a lot of clear documentation available on Rafale today is not even 100% French so i doubt the MOD kindly would reveal the true requirements of Rafale to a country which thhey don’t work with and even worked against in that case.
After looking at it i think the British got the Rafale A performance data with F404s but when asked for further data on M88 Rafale C that was denied. That is what i hatve gathered so the top speed report will be props be denied
I mean it’s kinda logical MOD wouldn’t give all data about latest tech in development. Would you give your homework to a rival of yours?
I didn’t submit the report about Rafale speed.
And if I did not submit a report about the Gripen using that document you would be accusing me of withholding information in order to protect the British Tech Tree. I can’t win.
Can you point to any other instances of my trying to nerf Gripen / Rafale?
8 Likes
IF anything he is the one person i see trying to understand the Rafale sometimes even better than Rafale enjoyers also the Gripen kinda had it coming it’s overperforming since release and many people tried to “nerf” it nothing new there.
It sure looks like the request for information was denied…
What you’re referring to came from a later document about a different British information gathering exercise.
That other document was not something I was aware of until someone sent me an image of it late last night (because apparently people message me about other peoples reports as well as my own now). I’ve not had time to properly look into the situation with that new document yet.
I’m not trying to hide stuff I posted the performance data graphs & information I had about them at the time in the French Tech Tree discord server. How they get used after that point is not really under my control.
8 Likes
In order to protect British Tree huh? Safe to say I don’t care about worst Gripen model considering I already have domestic version and Thailand one (even tho I have British one as well). What makes this interesting is that you only decided to report this once EFT came out which makes me believe it was intentional from the beginning.
Safe to say I have zero reason to believe you have good intentions.
1 Like
I don’t think this whole personal grudge thing should matter, nationalism should be dropped for a more accurate and better game
7 Likes
You can distrust me if you want. I do have a long history informing the French community when I find stuff that might interest them though. For example:
Mistral:
Rafale:
6 Likes
Good for you but that doesnt change anything in my eyes, especially about you.
The Rafale data was used to supplement open publications available within DPTCAn
DPTCAn is a UK agency, no? So to what extent was the UK’s data (outlined in Fireball’s report) based on information (estimations) from DPTCAn rather than information provided by France? To rephrase: concerning the UK’s information on Rafale’s performance, is there a clear definition of what data has actually been provided by France, and what has instead been estimated using DPTCAn’s “open publications”?
1 Like
Completely off topic, but this is what i might just need to finally report Mistral’s incorrect deceleration.
If you appear to have the documentation and if it is in fact not confidential anymore, could you please share it with me in PM ? Unless of course that screenshot is all there is
1 Like
Again, what data was given ?
It seems that the report made by fireball conforms* really well to what a rafale could achieve with the F404, not the M88.
So, during that exchange, what data was shared ?
Especially since when asking for more data, Dassault was denied the right to share them. It just doesn’t add up that they’d share accurate M88 equipped rafale infos just to later not give them because the DGA refused it.
If possible could you please send me though the the “Mistral” page excerpt with the cover page of the document as it further supports a few reports that relate to the Stinger Basic, ATAS & POST seeker variants.
As they further support a 5~6.5km Lock-on and engagement range for said systems.
1 Like
Juts so you know Flame is actually a really active member of WT community in the shadows he gathers sources and materials that helped people reports various things about French vehicles and afaik he never ever reported for a nerf to Rafale or French vehicles in general. You should rather look at Fireball_2020 for that.
1 Like
Damn so it is Russian bias because the f15, Eurofighter and the Rafale can all do that?
1 Like
Context is important:
British documents concerning the Leclerc’s armour is valid insofar as a few considerations are recognised:
- Data concerning the Leclerc’s armour was provided by a French government establishment, this being ETAS.
- The French were genuinely interested in cooperation with the British. If we refer to statements from Giat’s president at the time, the French found that the British were the only country in Europe that could actually bring something to the table in terms of technology.
- Leclerc was still in the prototype phase.
The Rafale is a different story, however:
a. There is no clarity as to what information was actually provided by the French government. Dassault itself was restricted from providing “capability data” without government authorisation.
b. I’ve yet to see information to suggest the French were actually interested in cooperating with a foreign partner for the Rafale (unlike the Leclerc). Albeit I’m not very informed on the Rafale’s history. Which brings us back to 'why would France provide capability data to the UK when the latter has its own possible competitor; and therefore, how much of the UK’s data is based on their own estimations which (at least when it comes to France) have known to be incredibly pessimistic estimations?
7 Likes
Gripen was on parity with available credible sources regarding its fm (and very little else, as most other features were and are subpar compared to documentation) after the first few nerfs with the exception of energy retention which was overperforming, and now is well underperforming even the least credible sources. It is irksome that people insist that it is overperforming in the face of it quite blatantly not.
Disliking running into it does not make it overperforming. Otherwise following that logic Rafale overperforms by orders of magnitude from the bickering about it in other threads. Just a little irksome.
1 Like