Yes its used for all ARHs.
Ok good. I was trying to tell the person I replied to that the thing that he was nitpicking on was wrong
technically it is for the “Launch” of ARHs but unless you wanted to clutter comms by calling out your exact missile name then most pilots would simply use the FOX 3 brevity because well all pilots know FOX 3 refers to ARHs in some capacity.
I mean different players have different preferences.
some want small cqc maps, some want big maps
1 Like
Let’s say i’m on the ground and something flys over me and I say oh that has fox’s 3s would that make me wrong even if i don’t know what exact name of ARH it is
Depends how we look at it, Gripen is ‘compatible’ with a ton of different missiles like the AIM-9X, Python 4/5, Derby, A-Darter, Iris-T (I remember reading ages ago about Mica too but would need to look it up)
Picture from SAAB https://www.saab.com/globalassets/products/aeronautics/gripen-c-series/gripen_c_packing-iron
‘Picture shows load options for the South African export-version’. from a book
Seems like it’s just a render from SAAB but at the end of the day it all comes down to if Gaijin allows vehicles in-game to use the missiles that nations actually used, or if they also want to allow missiles that are ‘compatible’.
1 Like
Granted if your on the ground I think even a trained eye would struggle to tell ARH and SARH apart from a rapid fly over. if you knew what Jet it was and already knew based on the shape of the missile and what type then yes you would be fine saying it has Fox 3s or 2s or 1s. your not required to call out the exact name of missile.
tbf your average joe might not know what a “fox” brevity is but either way you would be fine saying either if you knew “roughly”
1 Like
I am wrong
I literally said this but you also wouldnt call out in comms to your wingman “switching to MICA-EMs” or “R77s” you would still say I’m switching to FOX whatever missile you want to use or they might not even call it out to prevent confusion in comms if the wingman mishears “switching to FOX 3s” but instead hears “FOX 3”
But anyone knows what a FOX 3 is as it specifically only relates to one missile type (ARHs)
Its a pointless debate anyway, FOX 3 is ARHs so its fine saying they are introducing FOX 3s because well they are :D
1 Like
I apologize for misleading people. I generally thought fox-3 is something you could call a ARG in any scenario, but I was wrong thank you for helping me understand. I apologize to the person I was trying to correct
Guys is multipathing the same between the new Fox 3’s and older Fox 1?
People are saying so
We need smaller teams
1 Like
The Mirage 4000 latest charts was talking of 14 Advanced AAM potential
→ that’s MICA’s
It’s not wise to add the triple racks, for MICA’S, yet double racks are possibles, still making the total up to 10 MICA’s for a M4K → per plans of course.
That way, it would have nothing to envy to the Su-27 10 missile loadout.
But first of all, if we could get MAGIMP-2 fixed in 1st place, it would definetly get better.
2 Likes
er, i don’t actually know, I’ve been trying to use them as design intended (they work, but people are still running that stick to the ground like glue meta)
I believe thats actually Magic 2s because it labels “4 long range missiles” which are also the 530Ds and MICAs are larger than Magic 2s on the pylon/rail so i doubt it can hold 14 they also limited the Magic 2s max loadout cz balance more than likely
The “courte portée” or Short range combat missile in english, are the Magic’s
hmmm wonder where they get the 8 magics from then in the current game because thats what confused me
The eight they got, are from the pylons that was tested afterward.
The charts is not from dassault official in first place.
Also notes we still miss the 250kg Laser guided payload.
1 Like