F35 too
as US F35s were the first to test both it and meteor
canards give you more lift and control over pitch, if your aircraft is fly-by-wire it can be computer controlled and give you control canards that cant counteract stall pitch, that’s partly why the Su-30 in WT can hover for no reason and anything with canards seems to be able to do whatever it wants (aside from the viggen, no FBW there) most modern aircraft find some benefit in canards because they have modern computer control systems.
aim120d would be enough for it not to be worthless
afaik that is a concept, and im pretty sure its something that rtx is pursuing on their own.
The right wingtip pod has two towed decoys (the red things):
The main post of the Rafale thread says the X-Guard is only “technically possible” on F4.1 and newer, which we don’t have in game.
Also Eurofighter’s ARIEL TRD has couple of significant advantages over Rafale’s X-Guard:
- Two TRDs are integrated into the airframe on Eurofighter, the Rafale has to give up one missile pylon for each TRD it wants to carry (so Rafale gets 2 TRDs + 6 missiles and Eurofighter gets 2 TRDs + 10 missiles).
- ARIEL is cleared for deployment over the full flight envelope of Eurofighter (Mach 2 & 9g turns). When X-Guard is deployed you are limited to Mach 1.6 & 7g turns. I expect that Gaijin will attempt to balance TRDs by making them break off if you go too fast or pull too hard.
Plus if we compare general ECM the Eurofighter can carry up to 32 BriteCloud active decoys. I’m not aware of the Rafale having the ability to use those, or other active decoys?
I don’t think they will limit all IR missiles with LOBL. It’s likely all missiles with over the shoulder capabilities will be given at least MADDOG, and those with datalink proper LOAL.
Even if we assume only LOBL, in my opinion, the lackluster gimbal of the MICA isn’t the biggest deal. While it would be detrimental in the 3-7km engagement distance, this can be covered by the EM which does have LOAL, and usually garanties kills in that range if fired properly. Outside that range, and the good AOA of the rafale allow for a quick snap to fire the missile in its gimbal. Inside that range, and :
- ASRAAM would not turn tight enough in a dogfight situation to get a kill with that much gimbal (Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion - #8159 by Macron-Spokesman)
- IRIS-T and AIM9X would still blow the MICA out of the water in turn performances.
It was tested on F3R standard for French ones because the Indians wanted it on their Rafales (they don’t have F4.1 or newer). I’ll have to confer with Ares.
But everything else you said in your post is correct.
Worth noting that CAMM appears to be massively under performing in terms of G-pull there (a 50g missile never pulling more than 20g). I wonder if the person who did that test left the surface-to-air time-to-gain values in there, which would significantly limit how much the missile can pull shortly after launch.
As far as I’m aware CAMM/Asraam is supposed to also pull even better than AIM-9M yet modeled in-game it performs even worse than AIM-9M
I don’t think the G LOADS are to be trusted in the replay since the past year or so.
For example, in the same video, when people mention the CAMM/ASRAAM missile never pulling more than 20G, the Magic 2 also does not show pulling more than like 11G*, when its turn is twice as tight. If ASRAAM still underperforms (which is likely), it still would turn worse than the Magic 2 from similar launch parameters due to being rated to the same G load but much faster.
It should indeed perform better than AIM-9L/M, completely outclassing Sidewinder was the whole idea of the programme. The original design requirements for ASRAAM have been declassified and the minimum range values required are seemingly shorter than the minimum range of AIM-9L under similar conditions. So yes, CAMM currently appears to be under performing in game.
Perhaps not. But CAMM definitely seems to be under-performing in that video.
IIRC it was initially raytheon on its own, but there has been interest in it and similar missiles from USAF
do you think the proxy fuse delay of 1.8 seconds was carried over, or that it was made shorter to accommodate the shorter range?
It’s a completely new missile so I don’t see a fuze delay of 1.8 seconds being more likely than any other number. There’s no reason to suspect it would be retained.
Also of note is that ASRAAM is accurate enough that destruction is primarily obtained by direct impact with the target. The warhead / proxy fuse is apparently secondary.
2 Likes
Or amraam turn buff
9x with its drag reduction over 9m is actually pretty decent
a major buff to the aim120 would make the US viable again. Either revert fin aoa and maybe a little extra for the C-5 reduce drag by 10% across all aim120 variants or a 10% motor buff so it’s not down 10% on power compared to r77 and 8% when compared to the -1
That means EuroCanards will also get buffed and will get even stronger.
I want amraams tk be something between what they were and what they are rn, earlier the amraams pulled eay too crazily
thats a bad way to look at it, us fighters suffer more from the bad aim120 than eurocanards.