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.
6 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.
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
We finally got somewhat of an update on the Rafale topspeed report, and you can read it here for yourself. We know currently:
-
UK requested some information from France and supplemented missing data by using open source information. Information from France supplied seems to be limited data, and could possibly be data on Rafale A or even Rafale C with F404 engine mounted on the F-18 Hornet that provides subpar supersonic acceleration. The report tries to suggest Rafale has subpar supersonic acceleration.
-
The open source information collected by UK would have been Rafale A or C using F404 engines, since in the 1990’s information on the M88 engines were highly secretive.
-
Later document shows that France declined to give UK information on the Rafale. It would not make sense for France to have given information on the Rafale C with M88 engine earlier on but then decline to give the same data. The likely limited data given earlier is on highly probable to not be relevant to what is in-game.
All of this is to say that the report didn’t have any proof that the supersonic data in the report is directly from Dassault or that it pertains to the M88 engine.
Rafale C Top Speed Much Too High // Gaijin.net // Issues
11 Likes
I hate to do this but if Fireball is gonna keep inaccurately reporting on the Rafale with faulty reports, might as well do an accurate report to correct Eurofighter’s MAWS.
Eurofighter’s radar-based MAWS should emit radar signature // Gaijin.net // Issues
If you guys can give this report a like, I’d appreciate the favor.
19 Likes
Not against you, but being petty is not the mindset anyone should have.
But yeah it’s important to make sure things are reported accurately and i do thanks everyone doing such things as it can be hard to find sources and end up still find yourself in front of a wall with the way the devs can handle things.
6 Likes
If the report is based on Sources from early '90s, its very likely faulty and based on partially incorrect interpreted Data. The information is very likely based on Rafale A or C01 testbeds; i.e. prototypes which have yet again nothing to do with service aircraft.
6 Likes
Correct, both the limited data and certainly the open source data would have been from engines/aircrafts that have nothing to do with what we have. It is likely even that even if the data was on the Rafale A, the information would be quite old compared to newer sources we have.
Random, but do you know if the Scorpion HMD on Rafale is the same Scorpion HMD that was put on ANG F-16’s, and tested on the F-22?