The idea is that you’d have smaller ASRAAMs for WVR (shrunk so that twice as many could be fitted) , these longer ranged ARH ASRAAMs for short-medium range and then Meteor-MLU for long range. The point of the ARH ASRAAM is just to fill the gap without the size or weight of a full BVRAAM
isn’t that just camm
Essentially, though this talked about an increased calibre, so it would be different to either CAMM or CAMM-ER
1 Like
They also use AMRAAM because they have stocks of older missile that are near their end of life cycle. As the Meteor ages, we will se more of them being used in training as well, but as of now a majority of the produced missiles are barely a decade all at best
2 Likes
Most humble Frenchman ever interviewed
6 Likes
Yep, I’ve also read Typhoon, and wholely agree, there are plenty of demonstrations of the EFT’s sensor fusion and operational capability during the missions over syria (as part of Shader) and his experience operating in hostile enviroments was a testament to how capable the EFT is as a modern multirole.
Plus he graduated from flying jag gr3s iirc so going from one generation of RAF multirole to the next was nice.
One final point, wasn’t sutton (and his colleagues) vital in creating operating standards and doctrine for the ground attack side of the EFT, while members of the tornado F3 force handled air superiority and QRA
2 Likes
Certainly has that typical sense of superiority doesn’t he 🤣
4 Likes
Yes. they he was one of the main pilots responsible for literally writing the book on how to fly and fight a Typhoon, being a mud mover, he handled those aspects.
Though the nice thing about entirely new airframe, and writing it with a non-mud mover, they were able to challenge tradition and develop new strategies instead of just C&Ping the tactic used in single role aircraft like the Jag and Tornado
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uM50xadDrBYA
Here @Metaltank1990
It says here the EFT is configured for full missile loadout, Mach 1.3 at 9,000m which is a lower altitude, can you confirm this is configured in-game?
That’s what the devs ‘believe’ to be possible and have modelled in game, it’s not reflecting of real capabilities though, because as stated, it’s their discretion instead of manufacturer info
Earlier discussion though on the Rafale thread was regarding a claim that the EFT and Rafale have the same supercruise performance in-game when by developer’s own admittance isn’t actually the case. Another claim was that the Rafale was closer to its claimed supercruise performance than the EFT’s.
1 Like
Following this patch, I’m under the impression that the Rafale will have a higher TWR (and by extension higher supercruise ability) than the EFT, which is factually and literally incorrect
4 Likes
Just tested it, with 4+4 weapons fit and about 60% fuel load, it just barely makes it to 1.29 at 30k ft (9000m).
1 Like
it’s much cheaper
Do we have installed data for either engine?
Current tuning is
Rafale
EF
These values are both correct when compared to the game (see what morvran said)
This means by the developer’s statement the Rafale currently marginally exceeds the eurofighter in supercruise capacity.
Going off of the relevant reports:
Rafale -
Mach 1.4 + a tiny bit accounting for weight disparity
EF -
Mach 1.5 (as per eurojet)
My point mostly is that 1.5-1.3 is a bigger gap than 1.4-1.32, they’re both underperforming unfortunately.
1 Like
TWR wouldn’t be the determining factor of whether or not an aircraft has superior supercruise.
Weight difference would have a marginal effect as it would reduce the necessary AoA and therefore reduce drag (improving supercruise), but yes saying it’s the TWR specifically is wrong.
1 Like
Can you do 2 missiles, 50% fuel and 11,000m? That is what the Rafale was configured with.
You’re ignoring that the Rafale ended up being configured with just 2 missiles rather than 6 at Mach 1.32 while the Eurofighter was configured with its full missile loadout.
Do we know under what conditions the rafale was tested? air temp apparently makes like a ±0.1 mach difference lol
Under optimal conditions (desert) i get:
1.38 at 9km w/ 2x 9M
1.36 at 11km w/ 2x 9M
both ±0.01 because i cannot be bothered to wait like 15 minutes each until it settles