Dassault Rafale - Variants, Characteristics, Armament and Performance

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
6565

The MICA’s hard limit in-game atm is 50km flight range, which is more than enough for effectively all launches in WT if you want to have a pK% above the single digits with basicly any missile. Lying about how “bad” the range is doesnt make your argument seem more reasonable.

As for the R-77-1, this was already covered rather extensively, but the aircraft launching them is significantly inferior climb rate, time to speed, and just overall flight performance compared to the Rafale, and that was BEFORE the Rafale got buffed and the Su-30SM got nerfed.

Still asking for more after the Rafale just got a laundry list of buffs is actually insane.

1 Like
6566

The biggest problem of the M2K’s flight model is the acceleration/climb rate which should be hopefully rectified with this report: Mirage 2000s are lacking in time-to-climb performance. // Gaijin.net // Issues

Mirage 2000 should climb to 40,000 feet and accelerate to Mach 2 in 3.7 minutes.

In-game it does this in 4.3 minutes. That’s 36 seconds difference. It would be quite a nice buff.

If I’m not mistaken, it would put the M2K’s climb and acceleration over many 4th gens besides Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-15s.

8 Likes
6567

Even with the acceleration issue, the plane is still quite competitive right now. It’s just a different style of gameplay.

On the other hand, yes, indeed, with better acceleration the plane could fight more like a dogfighter and not remain confined to an interceptor role.

1 Like
6568

I’d say more than that. Currently the plane is relegated to being more like a low altitude fighter unfortunately, just because of lack of BVR capabilities. But the time-to-climb buff and MICA EM range buff would make BVR viable for it if Gaijin implements the reports.

6569

So personally I don’t play it that way at all, I generally go up to 4500 or 5000 and go up between mach 1.2 and 1.3 and that allows me to gain range on the Mica and above all it allows me to avoid multipathing because the missile generally hits vertically. At this speed and altitude, the Fox3s are easy to notch and the MAW protects me from IR missiles.(it should be noted however that I only play a simulation so my experience is probably biased)

6570

It used to be like that if you play War Thunder since Danger Zone update.

6571

You said it like it was something recent lol. That was nearly 3 years ago

6572

The AIM-54 was never broken. Its a pure skill check missile in-game, and always has been. What made it “seem” stronger back then was that the general playerbases understanding of BVR mechanics was significantly lower back in the day. Its always been relatively easy to outpull or to notch.

6573

I absolutely disagree. When the aim54 was introduced, the game still used extremely rudimentary RWR, and the missile was an absolute menace that you could not evade if you dared to fly more than 1000m high. I would go as far to say that the introduction of the AIM54 was even more game breaking than the R27ER which has dominated for almost 2 years the top tier meta.
When RWR mechanics got refined then it was more manageable tho, but it’s still a very strong missile. It’s time to hit is very bad, but it’s kill potency even against multipathing targets thanks to its large warhead make it a better fix 3 than even some other fix 3s in game (like derby) in my opinion

6574

You’re either misremembering or significantly overstating the capabilities of the AIM-54, particularly if you’re referring to the AIM-54 on release.

First off, regarding your comment on the RWR’s at the time, every nation had a jet with an RWR accurate enough for easy notching either before the F-14A was added, or within a patch of it being added barring Italy and sweden iirc, secondly, this point is largely rendered moot seeing as you could physically see the smoke trail for the missile for a solid 30 seconds post-launch. You could either notch off the visual cue, or you were simply an idiot for flying at a missile you knew was coming but did nothing about.

Secondly, the AIM-54 was pretty substantially inferior on launch compared to now. It had worse maneuverability, and significantly worse seeker seeing as it was released during the roughly ~12 month period in which all radar missiles were brutally nerfed with massive notch widths. It was incredibly easy to decoy, to the point where quite a few ppl did it entirely by accident every game.

Thirdly, as I pointed out, it was very easy to outpull the missile. Case in point..

The missile has never been that good in-game, people who had a good understanding of BVR back when it was added flew to altitude just fine. The fact the average player doesn’t know what they are doing, and were even worse on that front 3 years ago doesn’t mean a missile is broken.

Also, your comment about it “being more game breaking than the R-27ER” is laughable. The R-27ER crushes the AIM-54 in every respect in-game barring warhead weight and the fact one is a fox 3, but even then, the R-27ER also has a datalink which allowed for it to be shot, guidance to be lost, then to be reacquired for terminal homing. There was literally nothing in-game that came anywhere close to the R-27ER until a year and a half later when the “modern” fox 3’s were added. For comparison, the AIM-54 was added in June 2022, radar missiles were unnerfed sometime in sept-oct 2022, and the R-27ER was added in december 2022.

Fact of the matter is, the AIM-54 was such a non-issue in fact, that some people back then didn’t even consider it useable or a valid strategy to be used until it was buffed, as seen here (referred to as “actually useable now” by Seek following the buff) and here (referred to as “not that potent” by Defyn following the update going live, well before it was buffed), and the largely accepted upon “best” weapon load for the F-14A AFTER the AIM-54 was buffed was to carry 2/4/2 9H/7F/54A’s. 4x AIM-54 was also considered viable, though not as common, and 6x AIM-54 was considered a “meme” loadout (and still is).

Off topic enough at this point, if you’d wanna continue this discussion, we should do it in the AIM-54 or F-14 thread.

6575

Calling the AIM54 non usable when it litterally forced every people to change their gameplay to play down to the ground

1 Like
6576
  1. Unusable was likely a hyperbole, thats pretty basic reading comprehension
  2. He was referring to pre-buff, pre-radar missile fix AIM-54
  3. Vast majority of the playerbase has been mowing the lawn well before the AIM-54 was added, and the AIM-54 was added well before the larger community even figured out multipath was a thing in-game. It was generally done cuz 90% of players had no idea how radar missiles worked and didnt wanna bother learning, and back in the day before PD radars were added, being close to the ground made it hard for radar locks to even be acquired. The habit just continued afterwards because very few ppl had the forethought to actually look into radar mechanics.
6577

The issue you’ll have is that sure, on paper, MICA might hit that range. But as you’ve not used it, I’m sure you are only misinformed on the capacities in which it will reach that range, instead of dishonest because that just wouldn’t be like you at all. Namely, on a straight flying target at incredible altitude. At anything other than space? It will bleed itself of energy by 10km, or 15 if you’re incredibly fortunate and the target decides that maneuvering is merely a suggestion.

Compare this to the Su 30 which is quite comfortable launching at ranges of 30km and hitting targets, even in substandard launch positions against the maneuvering foe, the 77-1 does demonstrate MICA’s range is incredibly lacking compared to the competition. But you wouldn’t know that, because you haven’t used either. But carry on, because you will.

After all, “You just got buffs” and that surely resolves the limited range capacity.

1 Like
6578

I have used it lol?

Its really not that far off other missiles in terms of TTI and velocity at impact, even going all the way back to Dark_Claws original tests way back when they were first added. Couple that with it being fired by one of the top 3 fastest jets in-game now in terms of climb rate and acceleration, and you REALLY shouldn’t be struggling when using it with the Rafale, nor have I ever heard much complaints about it back when it was only on the M2K, aside from a few of you ppl in the french thread lamenting how “unusable” it is.

You are correct in saying I dont have the R-77-1 yet, I’m not terminally online and seeing as there was an event going on recently for a BB I liked, I was playing naval when I was playing WT. Still not sure where you got the mistaken idea I dont have/use the MICA tho, thats blatantly wrong.

Once again, you’re just massively overstating how “bad” it is at range, its obviously not the longest ranged missile, but its more than fine, particularly when fired from the Rafale.

I love how in this thread, the immediate reaction to anything which doesnt match the general narrative of this massive echo chamber is “you just hate france cuz you dont play them!!!” which, first of all, wild claim, very low effort, and second of all, nobody even bothers to actually check if me “not playing france” is a fact or not, when its pretty easy to do. For example, I know DirectSupport doesnt have a single top tier jet other than french ones, which is why it was hilarious when he accused me of being a single nation main that didnt know what using the MICA was like, seeing as for top tier aircrafts, hes a single nation main that only knows what the MICA is like.

2 Likes
6579

Tell yourself whatever you need to, that seems your goal in this thread every time you rock up anyway.

4 Likes
6580

Tell myself I play France?

If anyones trying to convince themselves of something that isnt true, its pretty obviously you in this case lmao.

1 Like
6581

Croatian Rafale C F.3R has some nice livery

grafik

grafik

12 Likes
6582

Theres a very small chance that Canada might end up going for Rafales following the threats from the US. Our PM was allegedly discussing with both Britain and France the possibility of building EFT or Rafale in Canada, not sure what the answer was regarding that though, but seeing as the Rafale has the least US components, its arguably our best bet if the French allow us to produce them under license. Could get some gorgeous liveries if Canada went that way :3 The Canada 150th legacy hornet livery is to this day probs my fav one out there for example, but we’ve also got some really nice low vis ones imo. Would love to see what they could do with the Rafale

6 Likes
6583

Mythic nationality reveal

7 Likes
6584

That got me thinking

If Canada buys EFT or Rafale or both … And then loses the war and gets annexed by the US … We could have those aircrafts in the US tech tree …