Someone said its best at dog fights again after buff, lets hope not.
As long as there is a way it can be beat then I can live with it having best radar and missile
Doubt it, eurofighter is fairly far ahead over everything that i don’t think anything will beat it
1 Like
The Rafale now has the TWR advantage that the Typhoon use to hold over the Rafale. Though the Rafale was always stronger in WVR due to HOBS IR/ARH missiles. In a close range dogfight, the only thing the Typhoon could really use was its gun (which doesnt even get the correct ammo belts)
imo it’ll be comparable to the J10 now.
French bug reporter just found crash report between two planes and basically backwards calculated lowest possible value.
2 Likes
The way you explained it to me made it seem like there was no way gaijin was gonna accept it, f-22 million to one thrust to weight shall happen now
1 Like
Topic
Spoiler
It shows it in the diagram dude.
At this point you’re just spouting nonsense. What’s the point of jamming them if they break at the same speed? The current break speed in when they jam. So making them jam would have to increase that threshold to allow for this feature thats not on any other jets btw.
I’d rather just break my flaps and go back to base than purposely fly with them locked down anyways… Once again, you’re arguing for pointless things to be modeled for your pure (hatred?) for the F-14. Not to mention the flaps jamming is fixed with the F-14D anyways.
I guess the F-14A and B’s flightmanuals with procedures on how to get out of all flatspins except those two are wrong then… We got a smart alec here guys.
When every bottom surface of your aircraft (that’s 60 feet by 64 feet btw) besides the nose generates immense amounts of lift, it makes sense that it’s easy to get that air trapped underneath you at low speeds with help from a big loss of power/lift from one side of the aircraft…
?? And the F-15 won’t take 14G. The Rafale won’t take 17G. The F-16 hasn’t even seen above 10 before.All jets have a 1.5x buff to them. This is not an F-14 specific issue.
Of all places to say that, it’s when im talking about the stability problems of the F-14A. Maybe don’t use decade old talking points propagated about the Tomcat A model and you could see how badly i can speak of the F-14.
You were told to bring it to the Tomcat thread. You did not listen. I’m putting my responses in spoilers to not clog up the thread. You haven’t done any such thing. Lets also remember who started this with the misrepresentation of why I was saying…
1 Like
Tell me me if I’m wrong but doesn’t in “simple ways” Rafale be better at low speed and EF be better at high speed bcause of their respective canard configuration ?
Dont think so. Though at the moment the Rafale is better at every alt and speed .
The worst part being that there are major historical nerfs it could be implemented tomorow with very little work on the devs part (for which the french mains are violently against).
- Removal of the HMD would significantly impact the Rafales ability to abuse the MICA’s HOB capability, the HMD never having been used on French Rafale F3R
- Dropping the missile count to 6 from 8, which would not make the plane itself any worse, but would limit its match impact/combat endurance.
This is ignoring the other bug reports for the massively overperforming FM the Rafale has enjoyed for a very long time at this point due to nefarious bug reports.
Its actually kind of incredible that the devs have not decided to revert the missile count buff at the very least at this point, as that is by far the quickest and easiest band-aid fix to the Rafale problem, and is how the jet originally came to the game in the first place.
6 Likes
right there → F-5C US getting Flares / Yak-141 getting some of it’s weaponnary and avionics / Ect. Ect.
there is a lot of instances that makes the HMD possible
1st because it have been tested onto a F.3R in DGA trials (and DGA is French, doing trials on French Rafales, which at the time was a F.3R)
2nd because Gaijin is the one sayin that we can implement the same weapon/system to anyone because another nation capability made it possible.
Have been documented, and is possible thanks to Gaijin choices they’ve made in the past( similar argues than previous point).
We’re playin with what Gaijin gave other people.
Yet, i still agree on the fact that Gaijin went to fast to late models of Jets,… we could have seen earlier models, which would have been far more balance like EF-2000 Trench 1 and 2 instead of 4, and Rafales M.F.1 and C.F2.2 instead of C F.3R
3 Likes
Yak-141 not getting R-77 is perfect parallel to Rafale potentially not getting HMD. Or F-15A not getting AMRAAM.
As far as i remember that is because gaijin want to keep some planes at their current br, that is why one of the su25 or whatever doesn’t get r77 too.
Then let’s remove entire radar and RWR,IRST and HMD from Yak-141 since they never installed on airframe.
So how hypocritical your logic is?
1 Like
What is hypocritical about it? The example literally shows that developers can pick and choose what weapons and features to implement.
I don’t think you get it, for the yak 141 that is a proto aircraft, those are not the same rules for aircraft that are actually manufactured anyway.
Yet you’re insisting on removing both HMD and two extra MICA’s on Rafale because you can’t stand it.
Might as well we should remove double aim-9 pylons from every single EFT and brimstone from German model since they never used it.
As you can see it’s pretty hypocritical when it comes to applying to different aircraft’s.
Thankfully developers doesnt share your logic.
2 Likes
and recieved a radar it never carried.
F-15A suffers from F-15C(MSIP), and from 13.0 BR placement, yes.
but F-15A is F-15A and not F-15A(MSIP) → only the MSIP enhancement give the ability of AIM-120.
so gaijin is right, considering the F-15A is a Pre-MSIP F-15A
F-15C(MSIP) is the in-game name in differences with the F-15A → so it is clear that Devs made the Pre-MSIP F-15A to give the F-15C(MSIP)
therefore your logic fall, HMD and Hardpoints are given following Yak-141 logic and F-5C logic (as many other aircrafts being enhanced by the same logic)
You’re obviously confusing several things, so let me try ta address a couple of the fundamental things while trying to keep it all very brief and super simplified. I mam sure you (and others here) pretty much know and somewhat understand some of these terms, but the differences between them are important so let me just briefly address them all:
-
Instantaneous Turn Rate depends on a lot of things including the speed and the altitude and g rating of the airframe. - In other words this is basically the maximum turn rate at high speeds and at the beginning of a turn.
-
Sustainable Turn Rate however primarily depends on thrust and drag of the airframe (when turning) as well as the wing loading. This is so to say the (maximum) turn rate which a jet/fighter can ‘sustain indefinitely’ with its engines at full thrust once it has slowed down somewhat during a turnfight.
-
Turn RADIUS is again something completely different from these two types of turn RATES. Turn radius simply defines the size of the circle that a fighter can turn around on. Typically this is used to compare the smallest possible turn radius achievable. This is at near stall conditions and typically at very slow speeds and this will NOT be when flying at the maximum turn rate or maximum sustainable turn rate.
(The turn rate tells you how long it takes for the fighter to point it’s nose in the opposite direction or once around 360° etc. - Just to emphasize this for those who like to confuse turn rate and turn radius.) -
Stall speed is of course how slow a fighter can fly before the airflow over the wing detatches in a stall. This is important for landings on short runways, and of course this also influences the smallest possible turn radius as well.
-
Nose authority basically just means how good quick and fast a jet can turn the nose towards something to fire at it.
As you can see, these are all separate and very different things, although some of these of course also influence other ones.
With all that out of the way:
The Rafale has a so called “close-coupled canards” delta wing configuration, which gives it additional lift (due to clever use of vortices) at slow speeds in near stall conditions.
In other words the canards being close to the wing this are helpful for the Rafale when landing on an aircraft carrier and whenever flying very slow, and this will therefore help improve the smallest possible turn radius.
The Eurofighter Typhoon on the other hand has a much longer distance between the wings and canards placed far forward on the nose.
This gives the canards a longer lever and therefore generates greater momentum.
This in turn helps the Typhoon with quick instantaneous reactions, but more importantly it also helps reduce drag when turning.
So with the reduced drag then again of course also helps improve the Typhoons instantaneous turn rates, and most importantly the maximum Sustainable Turn Rate, combined with the more powerful engines providing greater thrust.
(As a side note: both of these delta canard configurations are more efficient during turns than conventional fighter jets with tails are, because the canards actually push the nose of the jet up and generate additional lift, whereas the tail elevons push the tail down and require the wings to generate additional lift to compensate for this down force resulting in increased drag. they also help with super-maneuverability as the canards always operate in undisturbed airflow. However they come with the downside of a nasty nose up stall behavior. This is because the delta wing is in the back and when the wing stalls the back drops and the nose points up worsening the stall condition, whereas a conventional jet with a tail will display a nose down stall behavior that to some extend helps correct itself and helps with stall recovery. This is why civilian aircraft are not designed like the Typhoon or Rafale are.)
The Typhoon of course also has a better thrust to weight ratio and a higher sustainable climb rate than the Rafale does.
In other words:
Aside from weapons and weapon loadouts (where especially the Rafale’s centerline mount provides a significant advantage over the Typhoon’s centerline mount) and the Rafale’s capabilities for carrier based operations, the Typhoon practically does have all of the combat relevant (aerobatic) performance advantages over the Rafale.
The Rafale’s advantages in the slow speed regime are only really relevant at takeoff and landings on carriers as well as some stunts at airshows and in some rare situations when flying at very slow air speeds, slower than the jet’s sustainable turn rates. This can be useful in some few situations during BFM encounters with guns only, but in modern combat with extreme off boresight missile firing capabilities up to 360° all around the way the Typhoon and Rafale both can fire their missiles this slow speed handling is really completely irrelevant for air combat.
There may be a few situations where it can be advantageous during ground attacks with high bomb loads, but with all the stinger missiles on the backs of every other grunt and all those mobile SAM systems everywhere those types of attacks are also really a thing of the past ever since the war in the Ukraine taught us all how extremely suicidal these types of close range ground attacks have all become.
The frogfoot at 11.7 for no apparent reason should get the 77’s