I’ll probably play 13.3 more often now, hopefully I get to farm these mugs often and uptiers are still doable
1 Like
Multiple Rafale variants are shown in the presentation.
All weight figures given for Rafale are generic. Specific turn performance numbers correspond to land based fighter. The sea level figure also correlates to airshow demonstration.
Please explain why a country without an aircraft carrier would want the additional weight and expense of a carrier fighter.
None of the other Middle Eastern countries have bought the naval Rafale either.
1 Like
-
Yes, multiple variants are shown but only the carrier variant was in pre-production, that is the only one available to offer at that stage. The other variants are prototypes. Selling naval fighters for land use is nothing new, ask the United States which has sold Hornets to Switzerland, Spain, Kuwait, Malaysia, and Finland despite those countries not using them as carrier aircrafts.
-
We already have primary sources showing performance standards that have been generically applied to Rafales as a whole have been specified to Rafale M in another primary source (see the 2 minute climb sources or Dassault’s weight claims of Rafale).
-
Still haven’t explained why current Rafale C which is configured to developer’s assessment of prior evidences, and then adding the weight difference of the Rafale M lines up with the chart unless it’s a coincidence.
1 Like
you forgot Spain ^^
1 Like
Ah okay, nice, forgot about that.
These are modified, usually with some carrier specific equipment removed. They are still rugged, cost effective multirole jets after all
hold a beer on that Hook
Tail hooks alone dont denote a carrier aircraft.
Both the Tornado and Typhoon have tail hooks for emergency run way landings
Other common traits with Carrier aircraft, like reinforced landing gear, are also very useful for landing on less than ideal air strips (such as motorways or temporary runways). I imagine this probably interests countries like Switzerland quite a bit.
1 Like
then, keep an eye on the landing gear:
US one:
Spanish one:
finnish ones:
the whole Catapult system is on the front gear, and it doesn’t change from one to another.
those are Carrier capable aircrafts, in countries missing Aircraft carriers.
Wait Rafale c actually matches up with rafale m charts if it was 1.2k kg heavier? So the fm for the c is actually accurate?
Yap. Even F-16s have a tail hook in-game, and they are surely not naval. But in-game they work well to land on carriers
1 Like
Yes that is what I’m saying for low and medium altitude charts, although overperforms at the highest altitude and highest speed by what some could call significant amount.
1 Like
Dassault is not McDonnell Douglas. A land-based Rafale was planned from the very beginning and no country has purchased Naval Rafale variants for use as land based fighters. There is no reason to believe that Dassault would not already be marketing a land-based Rafale in the early 2000’s considering the variant was always planned.
There really is no performance standard that is generically applied to the Rafale. The plane blows the under 2 minute time to climb claim out of the water by wide margins. You hand-waive it by saying that beating it by wide margins still technically qualifies as under.
It doesn’t line up though. I have already tested STR in game in multiple configurations.
The higher and faster you go, the more it will not line up. For instance it will match the stated Mach 1.4 STR performance in-game with 50% fuel, a full load of MICA, 2x1000kg Paveways, and a full centerline fuel tank. In any other lighter configuration it will blow the stated value out of the water.
2 Likes
There is also no reason that Dassault wouldn’t market all variants of the Rafale for whatever reason the operator country may want them for, even if they don’t operate any carriers.
There are two notable statements given to the Rafales that is generically applied to the Rafale.
- Dassault states on their website that the Rafales (without specifying the variant specifically), weigh 10 tons.
But as we know this is only really applicable to the Rafale M (carrier variant), not the Rafale C which is ~9,300kg empty weight.
- Snemca stated that Rafales can hit 40,000 feet in under 2 minutes.
However you might falsely assume this is for the lightest variant the Rafale C, when this is for again, the Rafale M which is the heaviest variant.
Spoiler
It is clear here that French sources are conservative in their claims rather than what previous false claims have been made.
The source you’re describing states that the Rafale is 10 tons. There is also no reason for the STR to not be the Rafale M which is considerably heavier, given the proven track record there is that can be demonstrated to the developers should you choose to make a report. You’d also have to explain why:
- There’s a large discrepancy between current performance based on historical evidence and the documents
- Why the STR charts should be used for Rafale C when previous given track-records show that the heaviest variant is used when a variant is not specified.
- Why the STR charts should be used for Rafale C when it has not even hit pre-production and its performance couldn’t really be known unlike the existing Rafale M pre-production variant.
- Why the STR charts should be used for Rafale C when the STR charts line up miraculously with the Rafale M at low altitude further cementing the current Rafale C performance.
I already stated the highest altitude chart probably has some work to be done there since that aspect has not been properly reported compared to lower altitude charts. I’m not going to defend that aspect of performance.
4 Likes
-
The STR doesn’t match up to the Rafale M at Sea Level. At 50% fuel and 2 missiles it will match the sea level claim. This is in line with the airshow demonstrated footage which have a known plane weight and a known fuel weight.
-
The STR chart lines up with the demonstrated sea level performance of Rafale-C; ergo it is logical to assume that other values are also for Rafale-C.
-
Adjusting for weight differences when calculating STR is trivially easy.
-
The charts are comparing other land based fighters and line up with values we already know for the land based variant.
4 Likes
I may have initially misunderstood you then.
Anyway, metadata of the presentation shows Alain Martel, a Dassault employee, created the presentation. He has a LinkedIn profile where he can be messaged although I don’t have a subscription so can’t be bothered to message him myself. He may respond quicker and more informatively than Dassault.
1 Like
this thread is so amusing.
please don’t stop.
1 Like
One of the Main problems with the rafale Is that not only does It keep getting buffed unnecessarily, (especially when considering Gaijin’s own past actions It should actually be nerfed due to it’s current statistics), but also how It benefits from buffs and improvements of the MICA and certain game mechanics.
Just to name one, the rafale Is currently the only plane in the game that can lock and fire while staying in a perfect notch.
This Is caused by a number of reasons;
• the rafale Is currently the only plane whose IRST has a gimbal limit of 90° on each side, (Eurofighter had It as well, but was nerfed not too long ago to 70°).
• the Mica EM Is one of the 2 missiles that can be fired without any launch restrictions (R-77-1 can do this as well, but due to the Su30’s own gimbal limitations It isn’t as effettive as the rafale).
• the Mica EM Is the only top tier Fox 3 missile that has a different seeker, which makes it’s beam narrower and more precise in tracking than the rest.
• Gaijin made so that when you lock a target with HMD, even if It was for a fraction of a second, you could still fire a missile, enabling you to defend in a shorter amount of time.
This goes to great advantage to the rafale, as this paired with the points mentioned above, make It capable of firing micas while notching simultaneously.
Lastly, due to how incredibly easy it Is to evade Fox 3s launched outside 20km, any BVR engagement between 2 competent players comes down to Who can fire and notch first all while they get closer and closer to each other and you can see how this greatly benefits the rafale.
3 Likes
Doesn’t mig 29 smt also have this feature? If it gets r-77-1 then it would also be able to do the same trick the rafale does but even better due to its 90 degree irst limit and 85 degree radar limit.
Ofc with only normal r-77 it’s unable to take advantage of its great gimbal, similar to j-10
I’m not sure, but even if It did It can’t take advantage of It
And R77-1 would instantly bump It up to 14.0
I also don’t get Gaijin’s reasoning behind this like;
yea let’s remove gimbal restrictions to the thrust vectoring Fox 3 which was already the best at short ranges, and give It a better seeker compared to everything else while we’re at it for no reason
2 Likes