Rafale rage

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
67

This is because the Eurofighter flight model is based on a clearly defined set of requirements and performance metrics. In-game it meets and exceeds those requirements.

The Gripen FM is also based on publicly available information that has been interpolated. For instance there is AIAA article with turn rate graph and no values except JA-37 for reference. There is actually reason to believe that developers interpolation of this graph was based on old JA-37 flight model which also indexed the Gripen turn rate to be 1-2 degrees per second too high.

Rafale flight model is based on snippets of airshow HUD footage and by trying to cherry-pick the best numbers possible that would benefit performance. The HUD footage that is used shows a STR of around 20 degrees per second at 400kts.

The same set of HUD footage shows a bleed rate of around 21 kts per second for 8.8G turn from 590kts down to 480kts. There is also no indication that cutting throttle and using airbrake is part of the 2018 Rafale demonstration; the afterburner is visible in pretty much any external view of the 2018 flight demonstrations for the flat turns.

Currently in game, even with max dry thrust and airbrake deployed and on 30 percent fuel (higher than fuel load at this point in the actual demo), the plane does not bleed speed at the same rate.

The most recent weight reduction is based on a crash report of 2 planes where weight is specified and based on French bug reporter making argument that the lower weight plane is the more accurate one even though both planes are identical. They hand waived the weight discrepancies between the two planes by claiming the pilot in the heavier plane was potentially the size of “The Mountain” from Game Of Thrones, the lighter plane was piloted by the Elf On A Shelf, and that France can’t make a drop tank with a consistent amount of unusable fuel. Oh and that live ammo is used for an airshow because it’s labeled as a “tactical demonstration.”

4 Likes
68

It doesnt.

In all but high alt and high speed STR. Its underperformimg

69

not as described by Bug report, but yes in some extend.

so i can’t inform myself on how the Brimstone works.

i found that one, considered not a bug (obvious because of how the author asked for it,…)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/40v3XAGUY7sR

it explains a bit better how the FnF should work, and i understand better the guidance MBDA spoke about:

Which requires the game to create a Radar seeker, instead of IR (like found on AASM SBU-64).
so the Brimstone could have been “ARH+IOG+Laser”, instead of the current “Laser+IOG”

but the problem is about how the missile works,… instead of going for the ground at Inertial point given to Brimstone prior to launch, the missile self destruct mid-air,…

it might be possible that Gaijin don’t want to make that happen, to avoid people becoming angry at Gaijin for FnF mode.

But i agree it should be introduced,… however, this requires to add things to the brimstone launch.

Prior to launch:
1- Set GPS point - open the map, and middle click on map // Pointing camera at target area with Laser being “Off”

Spoiler

Like this:
image
Or This:

image
image1590×820 174 KB

but not This:

image
image1425×870 146 KB

(note: Laser indication says laser is ON)

2- Set target Type - by having a circling slector button (for exemple, like the Weapon system)
“Artillery”
“Pillbox”
“MG”
“SAM”
“LRM”
“Tank”
Ect. and circling

then Launch Brimstone, which then perfoms as FnF (unless you activated Laser prior to launch)

So yes, i can definetly see this working in game.

70

The problem is. They wont add MWW. They refuse to add MWW. You can read why here:

Do note, that the reasons given are mostly wrong, its just hyperbole for sake of justifying not adding it.

But its overdue. Heck, the AH-64E likely never used JAGM-MR. But its been given it purely because it has IIR and the JAGM is MMW

71

It meets and exceeds them if tested at weight specified in ESR-D. Reports that it underperforms are based on testing at higher weights than specified in MOD documents and MOD documents make conscious effort to account for weight increases of the plane.

EF-2000 currently has the best flight model in the game from a pure 1v1 dueling / BFM perspective. This has been proven pretty consistently in RB and even SB. It also has access to pretty ridiculous “AoA button” due to how Gaijin has interpreted spin recovery function / manual pitch override function from IRL to in game.

1 Like
72

it’s already overdue as AASM SBU-64 already works with LOAL, as the IR lock is made only in terminal range.

so we can press on bug reports, with AASM as exemple to show and explain that FnF should now be added to Brimstone.

also the Tornado GR.4 was implemented quite long time ago, while the Rafale is much more recent in comparison.

i guess it should be enough to go through.

the only problem is that Brimstone is ARH, not IR

@Gunjob :ain’t this possible?

73

at the moment. SAL Brismtone 2 is gunna be a chore to argue for

74

Playing with my Eurofighter, I’ll fire a C5 at 6km from a Rafale, it turns instantly and makes a notch in my missile as if it were nothing, it turns quickly and fires a mica, I make every possible notch movement, mica still hits, once with a Su30SM R77 at 3-4km from a Rafale, it does the same thing to me that it did when I was in the Eurofighter, that thing must have been 14.7

1 Like
75

if cant’ make use of FnF, there is low interest of a brimstone 2.

76

In regard to defending in the EFT. That is entirely the fake BOL Nerfs

We have micro chaff in the BOL and it doesnt work at shorter ranges.

though defending against a MICA within 10km is extremely hard no matter what

77

Brismtoen 1, 2, 3 and Spear-3 all have the same MMW seeker.

But at hte moment Im just arguing for the SAL weapon with 200% increased range as MMW is unlikely to be added anytime soon

78

And FnF

79

Thats the MMW.

it probably wont be added for a while.

So SAL Brimstone 2s are probably the most likely thing we can get anytime soon

80

Isn’t MMW just a fancy ARH capable of hitting desired parts on a tank? They could just add a placeholder ARH that roughly hits the tanks

81

The FnF seeker is entirely ARH.

We tried and failed to argue for a placeholder IIR seeker for them. But apparently they dont ever add anything that is ahistorically modeled…

Looks at BOL

82

This isn’t only an Air RB problem.

This is good video explaining the situation in Sim. And it’s not by me.

83

Big 3 mains when a minor nation finally gets something competitive

1 Like
84

Victim card

1 Like
85

Rafale was introduced too early. This patch should have been for EF2000 exclusively, leaving France out. Even today Rafale is just too op with Micas, Aesa radar (lol), its unnerfed FM (turns like a Zero) and Hammers to torment GRB players.

Why? Just why?

1 Like
86

i found the loophole: Tanks Smokes could be used as Chaffs dispenser,… already done in many systems such as MUSS by Hensoldt in germany, Galix AOS from lacroix-defense, or SAAB in sweden.

we could give those Smokes an EM/RF defensive abilities.

in-game Smokes works for around 20 seconds, but chaffs are far more heavier, and drops much faster: we could expect to use smokescreen for a 7 to 10 seconds protection against ARH seekers. (and still 20seconds for IR seekers).

let’s add a an ability for SPAAM to defend an area around them by ECM, or massive radar emission (like 300m radius, forcing them to move up if willing to defend tanks from Air support)

like this, peoples in Ground battle could defend themselves
Brimstone become ARH or Laser (no change in flight, like AASM)
Ground target are somehow protected if people works together
to hit protected people Brimstone would require to be guided by Laser.

→ “job done”