If i remember correctly, that drag is only applied when the weapon is launched, not when it’s still attached to its mothership.
At the end of the day, yes a Rafale shouldn’t reach mach 2 with so many bombs, what i meant is that the problem exists on every aircraft in the game
Me wanting Gaijin to model pylon mass and drag already so all aircraft get slower.
That’s a really cool camo
that seems a tiny bit incorrect
Mirage 2000 also suffers from this problem too, it shouldn’t go that far flying Mach 1.2 on deck with 8 missiles lol
Have you found / reported anything regarding combined air to air and air to ground modes for the Rafale?
Yes, Rafale’s missing air to surface modes were reported. If it doesn’t come with interleaved air to air and air to ground modes then that will be reported right away. ESA radars should be capable of interleaved radar modes for simultaneous operations.
Haven’t played it in a while, and I forgot it doesn’t even get the ground modes yet …
BTW, the picture you posted mainly talks about terrain following modes
Does it actually have ground / sea target detection and tracking?
I would be really surprised if it doesn’t …
According to wikipedia even RDY should have air to ground / sea targeting modes.
iirc, it used to have that mode during the first phase of Dev Server, that’s also included the normal deck speed unlike current Live Version.
It’s good new, thanks for the report, It will help for sure!
There is still a problem with detection in TWS.
The detection with AESA is problematic. There is clearly something wrong about target detection in TWS. I have more succes to detect a target at BVR but it become problematic at WVR distance.
Video proof:
Go grab the sensor view replays of the situation so we can actually figure out whats going on, but in the meantime, first clip looked like you were scanning above the target until it got very very close, at which range the PPI indicator doesnt do a very good job displaying threats (hence why B-scope exists), second one mightve been the notch, but its a lookup scenario, so shouldnt have been, still not sure why you didnt just use ACM in either tho…
At that range should the AESA be defeated by a notch?
i know that every ARH missile has the same seeker, but i saw somewhere say the MICA’s is different. is this true and if so what is the difference?
That’s right, the difference is that the Mica’s seeker is slightly narrower, which makes notching slightly more complicated.
wish the Derby got that, i find the Derby to go to chaff like early IR missile to a flare
Its not slightly narrower, its less than half the beamwidth of the other fox 3’s, 7° for the MICA vs 15° for all the other (top tier) fox 3’s. Its narrower than the current seeker implementation for the 120C-5 (7.5°).
It also has a marginally higher sidelobe sensitivity (-29 vs -30 on the other missiles), tho I’m not sure exactly what impact that would have.
