Man just add then to WT. then they will be forced to add lower tier vehicles and QoL updates since there will be no new $90 premium available to sell
5th gen will 99% end up being premiums anyway. Gaijin knows people will throw money at them for it, so there’s basically no chance they won’t monetize it that way.
1 Like
People tend to forget stealth makes fox 3 lock on the target way too late. Afaik for f117 in front aspect they lock at like 3km. In game people would go side aspect, which would increase the lock range coz higher rcs, but nonetheless it will give stealth and advantage over 4.5 gens even in this furball meta as if the missile is not guided in properly via tws, can be easily evaded, or spoofed when ecm is added.
I think some of this is getting misunderstood, so I’ll try to be a little clearer.
On SARH: I’m not saying SARH missiles are unbeatable. What I’m saying is that chaff itself doesn’t function correctly in WT. Even if you chaff at 4–5 km and notch up or down early, you still get hit way too often. That’s the issue. The whole point of chaff is to throw a cloud of metal into the radar return and break, or at least degrade, the track — and in WT it basically doesn’t do that. It feels like the missile just ignores chaff unless you also do everything else perfectly (which new players don’t know how to do). Saying “you can still kinematically defeat it” doesn’t change that — countermeasures shouldn’t be cosmetic. If you’re going to add them, then actually make them do the thing they were invented for.
On the AIM-9R point: the AIM-9R was canceled in the early 1990s, and there’s far more documentation and real-world data (unclassified) on the AIM-9M and AIM-9X. Swapping missiles around to avoid balance issues kind of proves my concern — either these weapons are modeled too well and become oppressive, or they’re artificially downgraded to fit the game and lose their purpose. Either way, it’s a bad foundation.
On AIM-9X and AMRAAMs in general: my issue isn’t just raw performance, it’s that WT already struggles to model much smaller generational jumps correctly. AIM-9X brings IIR seekers, extreme HOBS, helmet cueing, and very different shot geometry compared to what the game is balanced around now. AMRAAM improvements aren’t just “more range” either — better guidance, better memory, and better resistance to notching and chaff all compress reaction time even further. If current ARH/SARH already push players into instant defensive flying, adding missiles that further reduce reaction windows just magnifies the same problem.
My BR point is simpler than it’s being made out to be: no matter what, you’re going to have 14.3 — and in some “rare” cases 13.7+ — aircraft getting pulled into games with 5th-gen fighters. That already happens now. Even if rules exist on paper, in practice uptiers bleed downward, and 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft would just be farmed. Which, yeah, is only a problem if they actually make 5th gen even semi-accurate.
On stealth: saying stealth won’t be much better than the F-117 basically means we’re talking about 1980s bomber stealth on modern fighters. That doesn’t make sense. Either stealth is meaningfully modeled — which requires major changes to detection, missiles, and SPAA — or it isn’t, and then F-22s and F-35s are just 4.5 gen jets with better kinematics. At that point, why even add them? Also, the F-117 uses old first-gen shape-only stealth — extreme faceting, narrow mission, very fragile aerodynamically. The F-22 and F-35 use modern blended stealth: smooth shaping plus materials and electronic management, while still flying like real fighters.
That ties directly into my SPAA argument. My concern with SPAA is because of stealth. If stealth isn’t real, then sure, maybe we don’t need new SPAA. But adding an F-22 or F-35 without real stealth is like saying, “let’s add an A-10C but replace the 30 mm with a 5.56.” You’re adding the platform while stripping away the thing it’s built around, and it just doesn’t add up.
On 5th gen in general: they are far more advanced than 4th and 4.5 gen jets. They have new radars (classified), new countermeasures and EW (classified), new sensors and a new “brain” (classified), smaller RCS (heavily classified), and reduced IR signatures (also heavily classified). Basically, all that’s public for the F-35 and F-22 is airframe shape, engine thrust class, supercruise existence, approximate G-limits, weapon carriage numbers, sensor locations, cockpit hardware, thrust vectoring (F-22), and the helmet-mounted display concept (F-35). That’s basically it. So yeah, my “99% classified” statement is wrong — it’s more like 90–95% of the stuff that would actually matter for a game is classified.
That’s really my overall point. Either 5th gen is implemented properly — which requires major system changes — or it’s implemented halfway and ends up either broken or pointless. With how WT works right now, neither outcome sounds good for a game that likes to be realistic or for players that like to have fun.
About the AIM-9X difference (all of these figures are real-world estimates, not declassified hard specs):
Roughly speaking, AIM-9L/M have aspect-dependent lock ranges of about ~3–3.5 km head-on, ~4–6 km beam/side, and 10+ km rear-aspect (highly afterburner-dependent).
By comparison, AIM-9X estimates are closer to ~8–12 km head-on, 15+ km beam/side, and 20+ km rear-aspect, again depending heavily on afterburner use and conditions.
That difference matters a lot more in Air Battles than Ground Battles, which is why systems like CLAWS having AIM-9X-2s aren’t really comparable.
Most of the times this community is it’s own biggest enemy, which is pretty funny to see.
1 Like
It really shouldn’t function at all without accompanying EW systems, Sparrows for example should straight up ignore chaff completely(see paragraph “#16” of the attached excerpt), among other countermeasures, like tracking a leading or trailing edge of a contact. or a speed gate (velocity filter)
you are ignoring HPBW considerations, for the specific case of similar RCS a chaff cloud (which bloom anyway so won’t ever actually get to that point) would need to be at less than ~84% the distance to the illuminating radar to have a greater return, and so even have a chance of stealing the tracking gate.
The effectiveness of Chaff alone on missiles is very much overstated in game, for variety of reasons.
Well, it’s up to Gaijin to make such a determination I’ve very much done my bit with a multitude of reports over the years, the main issue is that it would produce a fair imbalance simply due to how much more is known about western systems leading to issues like the P-51’s rudder, but worse.
The -9R is just a -9M with the seeker changed out, the same way the -9M is just a -9L with a different seeker.
… It’s not an issue.
- AIM-9L/M - Rear aspect lock range far too short
- AIM-9L flare sensitivity
- AIM-9M missing “Flare Rate Bias” and “Push Ahead” IRCCM features
- AIM-9M lock range too low
It’s because to some degree the improvements are to subsystems that either aren’t publicly quantified, are abstracted in game, or otherwise not relevant, and so will make no difference.
The -9X and -120D-3 are not going to be the missiles that causes these issues. Considering that their “counterparts” will turn up at the same time.
Just be happy that it’s not chronological matchmaking, I don’t think that there’s much a Su-22 could do about an F-22.
There are a wealth of levers that Gaijin has access too, to moderate the impact should it be needed.
The improvements to shaping permit a more aerodynamic planform to be used for a similar RCS, this is the tradeoff otherwise everything would be flying wings solely to reduce RCS as much as possible. Is the RCS of the F-22 and F-117 the same, no but they are similarly “Low Observable”, and without hard numbers Gaijin has little reason to improve things, just look at the precedent set by the later M1’s armor arrays still being held to values of the Swedish export package, arbitrarily due to a lack of data.
Due to needing to keep pace with other tech trees, many US options are now relegated to being side-grades, or not push the meta forward when their turn arrives for the edge in balancing so “carrots” still need to be found.
The easiest way to put this is that the US air tree “peaked” with the F-15E, for what its worth.
What we really need is more reliable ways to intercept ordnance in order to counterbalance ever increasing magazine depth and bespoke stores options;
like for example the “Sgt. Stout” (M-SHORAD Increment -I) Which has access to a hemispheric AESA radar array, and 200RPM 30mm HE-VT.
Ultimately we’re stuck with what Gaijin decides to do.
1 Like
Game is not even ready for 5th gen. Air RB maps are already small and just turn into WVR as the match progress and then turn into dog fights. Planes like F-35 would struggle against eurofighter and rafale and plane like SU-57 and F-22 could beat them (If the gave F-22 all the modifications that it is getting like HMD. If not then even F-22 could struggle against them). Aldi don’t forget about the name tags that randomly appear at 50km and dissappear
Stealth is already modelled quite well already, infact war thunder is one of the few games which has that somewhat well modelled, yes even better than dcs(lop).
Firstly RCS is calculated using wingspan values if aircraft in game.
For stealth jets, RCS multipliers are added on this values seperately for Front, side and rear aspect (these multipliers are as low as 0.0001)
In game using AESAs, a F-117 is detected at around 30km, which is quite low. Missiles struggle to acquire stealth jets at 3km while they normally acquire targets at 16km.
Modern aesas could possible detect 5th gens from 60 - 80km. (Eurofighters radar is said to detect f35 from 59km away, tho unknown angle. It has around 1500 GaAs TRMs)
The problem is, while stealth is modelled well, it doesnt fit well in the the current ARB meta, as it forces players to create a hotspot at the center of the map. Not to mention the maps are also small. If things stay same, stealth will have only have 1 advantage that is being easier to evade fox 3.
Thing is stuff likely wont be same. BVVD talked about the aerial warfare mode. If they make maps larger, add multiple airbases, stealthe would matter. Heres my take :- the frontline will be covered with good SAMS preventing early merges in yhe match and forcing BVR and SEAD for a while. Stealth will be good if distances are large. Then there would be stategic targets to attack, mainly the airfields which you can bomb (or even nuke). This will allow people to spread out and make things more strategic. This not only makes stealth better but also would make aerial engagement closer to IRL scenarios. Larger maps would also prevent 5th gens being sniped by r37m or pl17 or meteors or aim174b from 200km away, which 4.5 gens will definitely face.
So instead of saying “pls model stealth”, we should say “please fucking fix your air gamemode(s)”. Current ARB is slop anyways
3 Likes
Also forgor to add but notching and multipathing should be nerfed drastically and ecm and EAD and better seekers should be modelled too
1 Like
I’m not arguing that real SARH missiles were easily fooled by chaff, or that chaff alone should be some kind of off switch. I get the HPBW, velocity gate, edge tracking, and speed filtering arguments — but right now WT makes chaff not do anything. Yes, you have to notch, but again, I’m saying there is absolutely no difference in-game whether you deploy chaff or not.
My point is that WT does not model the rest of that ecosystem. We don’t have realistic EW integration, radar mode fidelity, pilot cueing, or timing margins, but we do have chaff as a selectable countermeasure. In that context, chaff needs to provide some meaningful track degradation on its own; otherwise, it becomes cosmetic — which it is right now.
In WT, chaff is one of the few defensive tools players are given. If it has little to no observable effect even when used early and with correct geometry, then it becomes effectively cosmetic, regardless of how things work on paper.
The same problem shows up with missile progression. You even pointed out that AIM-9L/M are underperforming and missing key IRCCM features. That, in itself, shows that (1) WT is not ready for a better AIM-9, and (2) it’s extremely hard for WT to even model incremental improvements cleanly, let alone basically rework the whole A2A AIM-9 ecosystem. So when we start talking about giving it newer seekers, better guidance, and reduced reaction windows, my whole concern isn’t that it’s going to be too OP — it’s that the game already has so many issues with modeling things correctly. And yes, with the whole BR uptier situation, it’s still a concern for AIM-9X.
Saying that Gaijin can balance stuff in theory doesn’t address the fact that those tools are already struggling, and a lot of systems are very abstract or incomplete. Adding proper stealth, more advanced sensors, and next-gen weapons on top of that isn’t just another step forward — it makes the issues bigger.
That’s why my argument isn’t about ideal real-world behavior. It’s about whether WT, as it exists right now, can support that level of complexity without turning countermeasures into checkboxes and combat into constant forced defense.
At the end of the day, we’re stuck with what the devs do. All we can really do is point out the problems before they get worse.
I don’t really disagree with the idea that ARB itself is a big part of the problem — I actually think that supports my point more than it contradicts it.
Yes, WT does have aspect-based RCS modifiers and basic stealth behavior, and I’m not denying that stealth exists in the engine. My issue is that what’s modeled is still a very simplified slice of what stealth actually does in combat. Static front/side/rear multipliers aren’t the same thing as dynamic RCS changes, track quality degradation, sensor fusion, emissions management, or how detection reliability changes over time and geometry.
Stealth is supposed to starve missiles of good information — worse tracks, worse guidance, later seeker lock, and lower energy at intercept. WT mostly treats stealth as a detection-range modifier, not a guidance-quality problem, which is why it doesn’t interact with missiles the way it should.
The same applies to IR missiles. Stealth doesn’t “break” IR guidance in real life, but it does shrink lock ranges and usable angles by reducing exhaust and skin heating. In WT, this often gets exaggerated into unstable or binary behavior, where IR seekers either lock perfectly or fail completely, instead of degrading gradually. That’s another example of how the game skips the gray area 5th-gen aircraft are actually designed to live in.
Because of that, stealth ends up being very binary: you’re either seen or not seen. There’s not much middle ground where stealth meaningfully degrades tracking and decision-making the way it’s supposed to. That’s fine for something like the F-117, but it’s a problem when you start talking about multirole 5th gen fighters that are built around operating inside that gray area.
I do agree that current ARB maps and pacing flatten stealth even more. Small maps, center-map hotspots, and instant Fox-3 pressure compress timelines so hard that a lot of advantages just don’t get room to exist. But that’s kind of the point — if stealth only really works after a major rework of maps, objectives, SAM coverage, and match flow, then WT as it exists right now isn’t ready for 5th gen gameplay especially for fighters.
The future mode ideas sound cool, and I’d honestly like to see something like that. But until those systems actually exist in-game, adding 5th gens means either stealth barely matters, or it matters in a way the current mode can’t handle cleanly. Either way, it’s not just a “model stealth better” problem — it’s a fundamental game-mode and pacing issue.
The starving if information is already done by major reduction of rcs. The irregularity of lock happens due to much variable rcs values for different angles, however that would be really hard to do in game due to server client desyncs. Hence even a small change of aspect will cause different values recorded client sidr and server side if thr values are more high defination (as in more aspects and its values). Stealth mechanic is imo perfect, what needs change is gamemodes.
I get what you’re saying about technical limits, and I’m not denying that more granular aspect-based modeling would be hard in a server-based game.
My issue isn’t just why stealth is simplified — it’s the consequence of that simplification. Reducing RCS mostly affects detection range, but it doesn’t really model degraded track quality, unstable guidance, or the gray area where missiles and sensors work poorly instead of cleanly or not at all. RCS isn’t the only thing about radar and stealth there’s a lot more yes RCS is the big main thing but everything else play equally as important of a role
If the reality is that WT can’t reasonably model that degradational behavior because of engine or networking limits, then that kind of reinforces my concern. 5th-gen fighters are built around exploiting that gray space. When stealth gets compressed into mostly a detection-range modifier, it either barely matters or forces the mode to bend around it.
So yeah, I agree that game modes matter a lot — but if stealth has to stay this simplified for 5th gens, then WT as it exists right now still isn’t ready for true 5th-gen gameplay. That’s more a design limitation than a complaint about implementation.
Arguably speaking, the irregular locks will feel more like rng and would be annoying. Plus the irregular lock will be mostly st fsrther distances, where the rcs increase spikes makes the radar lock early and breaks it once the angle is out if the spike saea, so the irregular locks would be mostly happen in ranges more than currently possible against stealth jets
I get why irregular or degraded locks could feel like RNG if they aren’t handled carefully, and I’m not arguing for random behavior.
My point is that this highlights the limitation. If the only way to avoid “RNG-feeling” behavior is to keep stealth binary — either you’re locked or you’re not — then that’s exactly why 5th gen doesn’t fit cleanly yet. Those aircraft are designed around operating in that in-between space where tracking and guidance get worse, not flip on and off.
If WT can’t reasonably represent that gray area without it turning into frustration or desync issues, then simplifying stealth makes sense — but it also means adding true 5th-gen fighters becomes a design problem, not just a balance one.
That’s why I keep coming back to the same conclusion: it’s not that stealth should be “modeled better” overnight, it’s that the current systems don’t really support what makes 5th gen different in the first place — and shouldn’t have to be dumbed down to a 4.5-gen level just to fit into the game.
The big issue is that to make 5th-gen aircraft actually 5th gen, stealth can’t stay this simplified.
If you strip stealth out of the equation, 5th-gen fighters really aren’t that different from late 4.5-gen jets. They already share most of the same stuff: similar weapons, fly-by-wire, glass cockpits, HMD/HMS, BVR combat, composite materials, high agility and energy performance, electronic warfare systems, modern mission computers, software-driven upgrades, and advanced AESA radars.
The things that actually separate 5th gen from 4.5 gen are:
- Full-spectrum stealth
- Fully integrated sensor fusion
- Extremely high survivability
- Internal weapons bays
If you only fully model one of those, or partially model two of them, you’re not really adding a 5th-gen aircraft — you’re just adding something that behaves much closer to a 4.5-gen jet with better kinematics.
That’s why stealth matters so much here. It isn’t just a bonus feature — it’s the core of what makes 5th-gen fighters different in the first place.
The game doesn’t need 5th gens to be ruined. I think it can’t go lower…
It’s either the same crap or better.
1 Like
SU-75? it didn’t event fly. it was a wooden model.
Apparently, they now expect the Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate to fly in early 2026, after being delayed by roughly three years. That’s according to claims from Sukhoi representatives.