Same with the Rafale A.
It is a test flight demonstrator/prototype. Unless you can prove it can fire missiles and has combat avionics it is the exact same as the EAP.
As you can see there were some mockups too (the Micas) but the magics II are real, an also you can see the gun
Here’s a very real Magic I on a biplane, just because it is mounted doesn’t mean it has the avionics necessary to fire it.
1 Like
Yes, I am aware of that beaut.
You can go on the musée the l’air et de l’espace website and have à 360° cockpit view of the rafale A if you want to check for yourself
The Rafale A is not capable of firing any missiles and has 0 combat avionics. Believe me I have looked into this more than I would like to admit. I can assure you it is not capable of anything other than flying around and looking pretty.
Well I would apreciate a source, because I’ve seen the Rafale A and I know at least a gun is installed, so it’s quite strange to see a gun or a missile that isn’t working on an aircraft. Usually it’s either mockups or nothing
woah what document is that?
seems to be american due to english and referring to rafale, gripen, EFT, and lavi as foregin
is it about ATF program?
No, it’s regarding other nations using prototypes in their development.
1 Like
started project in 1987, finished in 1989 huh.
YF-22 from 1990, maybe some influence? regarldess, lockheed chose the FSD missionized test vehicle approach
1 Like
Well you can see that the rafale A was partially equiped at least so I’m not sure we can trust this article on this point
Believe what you want to believe I suppose
I’m still wondering to when the 2S38 and yak-9’s are going up in br.
Why would the 2S38 go up in BR? It’s fine where it is.
1 Like
I don’t think Iowa will be extraordinary ingame, to be honest.
Its armor was designed to be effective at ranges well beyond those seen ingame; 16,000m to 27,000m.
In War Thunder, engagements take place at point-blank ranges; Ships spawn 15,000m away and the average engagement ranges are 7,000-11,000m… which means that Iowa’s armor will always be pennable.
Not to mention the crippling weakness barbette shell rooms are in War Thunder, since Gaijin decided to artificially nerf them to be a weakspot they weren’t in real life “for gameplay purposes”… so Iowa will be barely any better than the current American BBs, if at all.
+this @ april fools
Boeing 747 CMCA or Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft
2 Likes
i mean itll have decent firepower.
seems like W23/ Mk 23 justification to me lol
I think the Queens of Naval will be H-39, Bismarck, and WW2 refit Nagato…
Not only do these ships have the best kind of armor for the ingame engagement ranges, but they also have the quickest rates of fire- 24 and 25 seconds, respectively.
The way Gaijin treats American Battleships, we will be lucky if the Iowas get a 35 second reload… and even if we were fortunate and got a 30 second one, the German and Japanese ships will still have a significantly quicker rate of fire.
And, when everyone can lolpen everyone, what defines meta is the rate of fire.
So… yeah. Iowas will be mediocre at best. If Gaijin at least fixed shell rooms, they would be MUCH better… but it doesn’t seem to be going to be the case. They WANT shell rooms to act like magazines. So… every time an Iowa is hit in the barbettes, it will blow up just like any currently ingame Standard BB.
3 Likes
yeah, like you said if they fix shell room/barbette thing it would be good, but they might not.
it would be REALLY REALLY funny if they added its IRL nuke shells though, would give it something to make up for lower RoF :)
1 Like