Things to note in regards of AASM; all variants share the same performance (currently underperform, but already reported), only difference will be guidance method.
1 Like
It was, don’t know what you’re on about, given I spent almost the entirety testing rafale’s air to ground capability on Dev and it functioned this way consistently. If the seeker couldn’t see it, it didn’t acquire it, but if it did then it began to track. Very similarly to most other AGMs with an IR seeker including the PGM.
Thanks to the individual for reminding me, but it behaved very similarly to how KH38 re-acquires a target, but with a far easier designation of target area.
According to this logic LOAL capability should be present on Kh-38MT … guess what it isn’t so yeah i don’t know where you are going with this .
Regardless imo F3-2 standard whould had been the best choice considering it integrates everything Gaijin was looking for except for the AESA radar which was not needed to begin with .
As for the x6 or x8 MICA as it has been proven the technical capability has been there way before the F4 standard was even a thing . Operational service is not required in War Thunder so there is nothing to add to it . If x8 MICA are required ( in case Typhoon gets double pilons seen in the files ) then Gaijin has all the means to add x8 MICA .
Rafale were equipped with IRST since at least F.1. F.4.1 got an entirely new IRST, which can also be clearly seen on close up pictures.
IRST is not installed on every single Rafale cause of multiple reason; Budget, Stock, Safety. Especially during peace time and Airshows (not counting Demos) it wouldn’t be equipped as its electronics are quite sensible and can be damaged during a rough landing.
I absolutely agree with this.
3 Likes
Should not have talked about this when WreckinAres is reading the thread. Now we’ll hear about it lol
I’ve talked about it often enough, as with Tech Mods. I’ll ignore this topic unless smth changes ingame.
2 Likes
The IR channel was removed early during the F3 standard production. It might be due to the sensor not working properly (Bruno Clermont on LinkedIn: Caroussel_100eme IRST_Thales.pdf), but it can be easily discovered, either through looking at the new capabilities of the F4, “bringing back an IR channel” thanks to the OSF-IRST, or talking to mechanics/pilots who confirm the removal of the IR channel on all F3 standards.
You can go through all pictures of rafale with a working IR sensor (except f4 obviously), they’ll be missing the DDM-NG system, having the older DDM. DDM arrived with the F3 version around 2013.
I have yet to find a single counter exemple as of now
Edit : The OSF system arrived only on the F2 standard. It’s usually coupled with the IR sensor. The IRST has definitely not been presenter since the F1. As can be easily seen googling Rafale F1 missing both sensors on the nose
You claiming that IRST should be installed from F1 to F4 is precisely identical to people claiming 8 missiles is possible for the F3
1 Like
Because it means a lot of QOL updates to stay on par when future stuff comes out
And i personnally think these tend to arrive too late (when it doesn’t matter anymore, in other words).
Rafale F3.2 would have been far enough if modelled correctly imo
1 Like
The picture shows a Rafale M LF.1, which lacked OFS entirely. In case of F.3+, only the IRST was replaced with a mockup, the TV channel mostly remained.
But, if we already have them now, we won’t have to wait for them
And that point would be pointless
Yes, that’s what I mean. The IR channel was removed, and only added back on the F4 with the new OSF-IRST
guys shouldn’t we all be grateful that the frkin rafale is added and just bug report what is missing and underperforming and move on be happy 😊
8 Likes
Which would create quite the unbalanced situation. A Rafale F4.1 with all its bells and whistles modelled correctly would basically render any other aircrafts currently in game obsolete
as for the “if we already have them now”, i suppose we’ll see what they do with DirectSupport’s MICAs reports. If they act on them quickly, then there’s a hope future QOL updates will arrive in due time. I have a feeling it won’t be the case however
The rafale F4.1 would be on par with the EFT in game. Currently the F3R in dev server was just a side dish for the EFT, which had better overall FM and better weaponry. (10 missiles + 12 brimstone, vs 6 missiles OR 4 missiles and 6 AASM isn’t even close). We can expect some buffs -FM should be closer- and the radar will be modelled correctly -not that it would matter much considering the range of the MICA. F4 would bring some much needed missiles, and solidify the use of an HMD and IRST. Compared to the F3R, or even the F3, the difference in game aren’t massive aside from weaponry.
There apparently was a buffed to TVC in dev. I haven’t had the time to test it. We will see. There are many reports that would significantly improve the missile*. (edit : and just like the Magic 2, we can expect them to arrive slowly. I’m not a fan of that, but that’s how devs prefer to do it)
1 Like
The problem isn’t TVC but range
We wouldn’t necessarily need more missiles if they were actually capable at longer ranges.
i love this concept, unfortunately there are some people that get really pissy when the jet isnt 100% historically accurate in their totally historically accurate vehicle combat game where there are totally not planes and tanks that literally never existed !!!
6 Likes
Fixed MICA would have the range that the AIM 120 currently has. When other vehicles will get more potent C or even D variants, we will be back to square one. We have to accept that we are not going to have longer range missiles than the competition until the Meteor. And while the MICA IR is still not planned, we are going to need all the missiles we can.
Anyway, I think I’ll stop here to not clog down the thread on dry exchanges. We clearly haven’t the same vision.
I know right. Some prefer to have the worse version possible, the most accurately possible, not considering what they’ll face. I just want to have a competitive jet that is fun to play. Anyway, I’m ending here.
4 Likes
but but but! this is a study simulator and needs to be as accurate as possible [!]
1 Like
In reality, there is such a thing
yup pretty much
Agreed to disagree then