Thats one thing i dont like about the bug report site, everything gets closed without a solid reason or discussion with/from mods with almost no wiggle room
Yep reports usualy get closed without even leaving a chance to respond or bring additional evidence .
tell me about it
I’m used to it already.
I help people report issues with CN vehicles and they always come back as “not a bug” without them actually reading what is in the source.
Does anyone know if the Spirale dispensers are modelled fully yet? I’ve seen multiple people say it was supposed to have 224 chaff
Per MBDA SPIRALE chaff payload is 112 in the ICDs ( internal chaff dispenser ) .
Im on the fence on the 8x or 6x missiles for Rafale,
Having a historical loadout is a reasonable and fair arguement against having 8x MICA’s. The testbed argument of the Rafale F.3’s carrying 8x MICA’s so it shouldn’t be added is sound and fair.
But…
We have other examples such as the Mirage 2000-5F with its combination of export loadouts (such as the air to ground loadouts) being added to it. So if the export Indian Rafale F.3R can be equipped with 8x missiles it seems fair that the Rafale F.3R ingame can get a similar treatment.
In the end I just hope the MICA’s get buffed to their actual capability, especially in range.
9 Likes
Read up in the thread dude
@WreckingAres283, not sure what time zone you’re in so sorry if you’re asleep but can you back me up here. I’m sure you can explain it better than I can.
1 Like
-
A prototype is not the same a production, combat capable aircraft. It has likely been modified to a significant extent for this capability.
Sounds a whole lot like “your opinion is different, get out”
Not only static display :
-
2013 pic from Dassault official photographer showing pylons 2 , 13 occupied by MICA and mentioning new hardpoints being cleared for usage .
-
2018 MBDA MICA brochure mentioning Rafale can cary at least x6 MICA clearly hinting that the capability to carry more is available .
It is crystal clear that the capability is there. Even if we go with the assumption that it was only an experimental thing ( yet somehow official documentation hints more than x6 could be loaded just for fun i guess ) and not just a doctrinal limitation , what is the argument against x8 since the technical capability is there ?
Gaijin has set multiple precedents where technical capability has been used as the only argument to justify loadouts that were never used operationaly , so what are people even arguing about …
15 Likes
It’s frustrating that there are no answers from developers or moderators about MICA fix reports.
2 Likes
itd be too helpful
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MukHIh7TstEA
I Made AASM smokeless motor report
2 Likes
Why does aasm limit the maximum launch speed to 1 Mach? This is not a bomb. Rafale doesn’t have a speed bump, which is not conducive to launch
4 Likes
Rafale does have means to bleed speed, but they aren’t modeling it because reasons.
But if AASM doesn’t have a launch speed limit, feel free to report it.
Hey, let’s remember to keep this thread on topic going forward.
2 Likes
I like how they denied the 8 MICA bug reports. Now Gaijin confused themselves with the fact that F3R had 14 hard points, which means at least 6 MICA coupled with anti-ground munitions - and that actually proves F3R capable of installing MICA on outer pylon.
5 Likes
Hello!
I have a question.
I read in the article ( https://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actualites/siae-zoom-rafale-au-standard-f4 ) that MICA NG can be equipped with more air-to-air armament by running.
And in the first screenshot, it says that MICA NG is supported from F4.2 and it has 8 rounds.
And in the second screenshot, it says that SP3 pylons will be enabled from F4.2. (Source: https://omnirole-rafale.com/avionique/evolutif/ )
Do I have to wait for F4.1 or F4.2 to wait for Rafale with MICA 8 rounds? I just want to be clear.
3 Likes