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.
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Some of my own reports have been closed “because some obscure British document using outdated or poorly-sourced information about a weapon system that Britain didn’t even operate says otherwise”.
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 …
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
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.
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 …
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).
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.
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.
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.
@k_stepanovich Currently Praetorian MAWS which was changed to a radar based type, has no radar band assigned to it, making it undetectable by all RWRs.
There is this secondary source (and the author seems to be a highly regarded subject matter expert) claiming that the radar-based MAWS operates in the Ka (K) band.
Meanwhile all of the Praetorian systems in service, and awaiting construction, include a Ka-band (32GHz to 38GHz) radar-based missile approach warning system
While not enough for a bug report, surely this could still be acted upon on a “common-sense” basis …
It is understandable that you wouldn’t want the MAWS to be detectable to “every RWR” without having a proper source for it.
But common-sense dictates that as a radar it should be emitting at least something and be detectable to at least some RWRs …
Currently the Ka/K band is the band that is detectable by the least number of RWRs in the game (only the most advanced ones, found on aircrafts such as Rafale and the EFT itself).
So it would make sense to make it detectable, at least to them …
Yeah apologies it’s late and I mis-interpreted what you were aiming at. Also I have indeed seen certain people suggesting the Eurofighter should light up like a Christmas tree on basically every RWR.
That would be a solution but there is still no way of knowing how accurate that would be. I’ve been looking (a lot) and not found any information on the MAWS band that amounts to more than speculation. I’ve seen speculation ranging all the way up to M-band for what the frequency could be. I personally consider that unlikely, but like I say all I have been able to find is speculation.
I notice the report chooses to omit this part of the brochure despite using the brochure as a source. Surely it is at least worthy of a passing mention in the report? @DirectSupport
Such a reliable subject matter expert that he got basic details about the RWR wrong…
