If I had to guess, would be a non-afterburning version like what LM did for the F-117
If f5 Rafale can be retrofitted, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see original m88 being repurposed to power the drones
But an eye for an eye make the whole world blind 😿
Though at the same time, seeing the EFT brought into line with something resembling reality would be nice. Though would be more keen on bringing its agility on par with the relative performance differences between EFT and Rafale in reality.
What do you imagine to be the “relative performance difference between the EFT and Rafale in reality” tho? Cuz my understanding of it is Rafale has better low speed and 1c performance, and EFT has better high speed and 2c performance, but what im getting from Rafale fans is “Rafale is the greatest aircraft in the history of the world in every way possible and the EFT should never have even been made cuz its totally worthless”…
1 Like
I thought it was an EFT thread for a moment lol
I am almost certain that someone’s already done you the courtesy of explaining the ways that each platform holds advantage or disadvantage IRL as compared to the ingame representation far better than I can/care to, presumably for every conceivable metric under the sun with how you carry on. If you insist on ignoring them unless it suits your narrative there’s nothing I, nor anyone else, can do for you.
3 Likes
Right, so I ask you what in your opinion should be the relative performance differences between the 2 aircrafts, and your answer is “read the thread im sure someone else said it somewhere” Solid answer.
I know what the rest of the thread thinks the relative flight performance differences should be (as well as what they think of any source that suggests the Rafales flight performance is inferior in some flight regimes to the EFT’s), which is why I was curious to know what you specifically were refering to.
1 Like
like what is wrong with some of these people :sob:
its such a petty thing to do
Much of the inaccuracies in this game are due to reliance on second hand British accounts and documents as if they were primary sources.
Some of my own reports have been closed “because some obscure British document using outdated or poorly-sourced information about a weapon system that Britain didn’t even operate says otherwise”.
Case in point: AGM-130A-12 is missing GPS/INS guidance
Which was initially closed using some British documents … Forcing me to dig even more primary sources to show that the British document is inaccurate …
Or my reports on AMRAAMs weight (which should be heavier, based on primary American sources) which were ignored and closed because some old British document from a time when the missile wasn’t even fully developed yet and certainly the British didn’t operate it yet, with figures most likely based on the initial marketing proposals and estimates by the contractors, says otherwise …
11 Likes
You Rafale guys are ever the victims.
If the 120 weight is incorrect there will be 100s of sources from the US alone.
Blaming Britain for it is ridiculous
HOT 2 penetration enters the chat.
Same old. Some British document comes up with some inaccurate data on the missile during its development (which they had no part in whatsoever) and gives a pen value of 700mm when primary state 1200+mm, which is what we have in game.
And they don’t even get the diameter of the missile correctly in the first place.
Also don’t mind me, I’m totally stealing your meme
14 Likes
A lot of British ‘estimates’ are based on what they think their industry can produce. Considering how lacklustre British industry is compared to French, it means you get underestimations all the time.
The only overestimation they made is how much vehicle they would be able to put CTA40 cannons on.
And now they have a few hundred spares
6 Likes
I will not stand for this British slander
I shall sit and watch instead, enjoying my Rafale to keep my morale up between grinding for J-11
1 Like
LOL
I play both FGR4 and Rafale.
And I’m not French either.
Funnily enough there are many sources from the US.
But they ignore them because of course the British document on a missile that wasn’t even fully developed yet nor was in British service, is more authoritative …
1 Like
with missiles, at a particular altitude and full fuel… yes
2 Likes
They can of course make it work as a radar without knowing the band.
But they can’t make it emit anything (as a radar should) “because they don’t know the band”.
This article should count as a secondary source (and the author seems to be a highly regarded subject matter expert).
https://www.armadainternational.com/2019/10/deep-dive-on-the-dass/
Meanwhile all of the Praetorian systems in service, and awaiting construction, include a Ka-band (32GHz to 38GHz) radar-based missile approach warning system
Spoiler
Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc. At least two unrelated sources required.
So one more secondary source is required …
2 Likes
Interestingly, they add radars all the time and give them the default I-Band without having specific sources on their band all the time, so that isn’t really a good excuse.
Thanks, I should be able to find the magazine version of this.
Nothing the British document says is incorrect, the tech mod just didn’t understand what they read and made a mistake. They could just have easily read the AGM-130 sales brochure and drawn the same conclusion.
The AMRAAM mass situation is a tad complicated in that it was indisputably 148 kg at some point in development, with mass growth occurring at some point late in development. IIRC Gaijin’s statement was that they would be retaining the early mass because they had primary source firing envelope information (both from Hughes and British simulations) for that version and wanted to keep consistent. Questionable decision but they seem unwilling to change their
How? The whole basis of the report is “the MAWS should trigger RWRs” but without knowing the band you can’t tell what RWRs it should trigger. Making it trigger every RWR is likely even less realistic than making it trigger no RWRs.
That article claims that the RWR coverage tops out at 10 GHz which is blatantly wrong. If they cannot get the RWR frequency right then it is questionable how accurate their information of the MAWS is.
2 Likes
Gaijin already routinely implements radars in-game giving them the default I-Band which triggers every RWR already, even when they do not have sources on the radar’s band. This would be no different.
If an aircraft’s radar came into the game without a band, a bug report would be accepted pointing out the lack of band even if the report did not contain a source on the band itself.