Adaptive Multipath Radar Behavior for FOX-1 and FOX-3 Missiles Based on Generation and Technology Level

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
1

I propose the introduction of a more realistic multipath radar interference mechanic for both FOX-1 (semi-active radar) and FOX-3 (active radar) missiles in War Thunder, where the missile’s effectiveness against low-flying targets is dynamically affected by its generation and radar quality.

🎯 Justification:

Currently, War Thunder simulates the multipath effect partially—missiles tend to lose lock or track the ground when the target flies under ~50 meters. However, this effect is applied uniformly across all radar-guided missiles, ignoring the real-world technological differences between early-generation missiles (e.g., AIM-7E, R-27R, AIM-120A) and modern missiles (e.g., AIM-120C-5, R-77-1, MICA RF).

In reality, modern air-to-air missiles are equipped with advanced signal processing, monopulse seekers, and filtering algorithms that significantly reduce multipath interference, allowing them to track targets flying as low as 10–20 meters above the surface.

⚙️ Proposed Mechanic:

  1. Dynamic multipath tracking failure based on missile generation.
  2. Missiles would lose lock when the target is below a certain altitude threshold, representing their radar’s capability to distinguish targets near the ground or sea surface.

📊 Suggested Multipath Altitude Threshold Table

Missile Type Generation Proposed Multipath Threshold Technical & Gameplay Notes
AIM-7E FOX-1 2nd 60 m Very sensitive to notch and terrain reflections; lacks true look-down capability.
AIM-7F FOX-1 3rd 50 m Improved range and tracking, still weak against low-flying targets.
AIM-7M FOX-1 4th 40 m Monopulse radar; moderately capable in complex environments.
R-27R FOX-1 3rd 50 m Comparable to AIM-7F; struggles with low-level tracking.
R-27ER FOX-1 4th 40 m Longer range; marginally better radar discrimination.
AIM-120A FOX-3 1st 55 m Early active radar; low multipath resistance.
AIM-120B FOX-3 2nd 45 m Improved electronics, better signal processing, and reprogrammable.
AIM-120C-5 FOX-3 4th 20 m Advanced radar seeker with strong notch/multipath resistance.
R-77 (RVV-AE) FOX-3 2nd 50 m Comparable to AIM-120B; good maneuverability, weak ground filtering.
R-77-1 FOX-3 4th 25 m Improved radar processor and signal filtering; solid low-altitude performance.
MICA RF FOX-3 4th 25 m Highly refined active radar, strong against countermeasures and low-level targets.
PL-12 FOX-3 3rd 35 m Based on AIM-120B; moderate performance under low-altitude conditions.
AIM-54A FOX-3 1st 60 m Extremely long-range, but very vulnerable to chaff and ground reflections.
AIM-54C FOX-3 2nd 45 m Improved electronics over A; still lacks close-range finesse.

✅ Gameplay Benefits:

  1. Realism: Adds depth and authenticity to BVR missile performance without overcomplicating gameplay.
  2. Balance: Ensures newer missiles maintain superiority within a 30% advantage cap, preserving fairness.
  3. Tactical Variety: Encourages low-level evasion, terrain masking, and altitude management.
  4. Scalability: Allows future inclusion of newer FOX-3 missiles like AIM-120D, R-77M, or Meteor without destabilizing gameplay.
Would you like to see this in-game?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

hank you for considering this proposal.
I believe this system would greatly enhance both realism and fairness in War Thunder’s missile engagement model, especially as BVR combat expands with modern jets.

5 Likes
2

Skyflash had a min engagement altitude of 33m if you want to add that to your list

But yes, MP being set on a missile by missile basis would be the msot fun and realistic set-up

2 Likes
3

The game is too compressed. Widening the gap between capabilities will only make this worse.

2 Likes
4

I’d place the Skyflash at 40m since it will be adapted to the game, but also so that planes using it aren’t affected by having to rank up. Although it’s still very competitive at 40m.

5

Yeah, that would be close enough for now

6

no longer feel that the BRs are as compressed as they used to be especially back when most aircraft were clustered around 12.7. This shift opens up space for more nuanced balancing, and implementing a system like the one proposed would give FOX-1 missiles a renewed role even against early FOX-3-equipped aircraft. For example, an aircraft armed with AIM-7F could now more effectively engage one using AIM-120A, encouraging diversified loadouts and tactical decisions.

By improving the viability of advanced FOX-1s, we wouldn’t just see FOX-3 platforms dominating the meta. Instead, we’d gain a healthier mix of missile types across different vehicles, which would enhance gameplay variety. Right now, it’s easy to assume that FOX-3s are all you need for BVR combat this mechanic would change that dynamic.

7

They are about to put the AIM-120C-5 at 14.0 facing 13.0 jets that don’t even get radar missiles. What were you saying?

1 Like
8

And even on a much smaller scale. FGR2/F4JUK having Skyflash with 40m vs F-4S with Aim-7F at 50m might help balance out relatively similar aircraft that probably shouldnt be at the same BR

9

And there are 12.0 aircraft that must face 13.0 aircraft and don’t have FOX-3s. Some of those aircraft, like the US Harrier, fly easily at low altitudes and fire missiles almost seamlessly. This doesn’t counteract this, but it gives you more options to face them, and perhaps they’ll decompress in the future or change some BRs over time. Keeping in mind that 13.0 is not the final goal for aircraft, but rather reaching the final target.

10

That’s my point.

Then they are firing ineffective amraams since you can just multipath a sea level fired amraam instantly.

5 meters of difference in MP height won’t do this. Making it even harder for IR only planes or planes with bad SARH to do well because you reduced the top tier ARH by half in some cases will tho

It is required before they could do anything like you suggest, not after.

11

This proposal is clearly not intended for the current update, since it involves a mechanic that must be adapted to the game engine, which will naturally take time. BR decompression has both advantages and drawbacks: while it allows better differentiation of technological levels, it also reduces diversity, as you often end up facing the same aircraft repeatedly something that can become stale and even frustrating for many players.

For example, if every 13.0 aircraft is only matched against other 13.0s, tactical variety drops significantly, and the gameplay experience becomes narrow. Additionally, many aircraft without FOX-3 missiles should already be placed at 12.7, because a core part of War Thunder has always been about variation sometimes you’re advantaged, sometimes disadvantaged.

In ground battles, for example, the maximum air BR is 12.0. That means players are often forced to fight jets from 13.0 or even 14.0, despite not having aircraft capable of competing at that level, which creates obvious imbalance.

To make things truly “fair”, BRs would have to be expanded up to 16.0, so every jet only faces its direct counterparts. But that would make the game monotonous, repetitive, and predictable, especially considering that we’re nearing the edge of real-world aviation. What’s coming next are stealth variants or enhanced versions of current models (like the F-15EX or Su-35), likely in the 14.5 to 15.0 range. Eventually, aircraft like the F-35 and Su-57 will reach the 15.0+ bracket.

Is the current system unfair? At times, yes. But that’s also what makes the game challenging and tactically engaging. This proposal works within the structure that already exists. It doesn’t aim to equalize every match, because imbalance and BR spread are part of the game’s DNA. That said, reviewing the BR of aircraft without FOX-3s should be a priority, to avoid marginalizing those platforms in high-tier battles.

12

If it’s already hell to play at a low altitude of 50 meters, imagine having to fly at 30 or 10 meters, with an even higher chance of being killed by a missile that tried to predict your trajectory. Honestly, if Gaijin is going to add new missiles, planes, and SPAAs like the IRIS-T, they should add everything at once and massively expand the maps, thereby increasing the airspace, player count, and match duration(rework); otherwise, top tier will get even worse with matches that won’t last four minutes (possibly driving players to migrate to Tank Battles and increasing CAS).

1 Like
13

This is wrong, because widening BR allows more vehicles to be viable/competitive and therefore allows a wider range of vehicles that are enjoyable. Even if what you say was 100% true and what I just said was 100% false, it still wouldn’t be enough “diversity” removed to matter versus the net gain of massively improved balance/fairness.

Nah, they would just be overpowered and push compression lower again. You would see F-4S at 11.7 because of this. That would cause F-4E to go back to 11.0. Etc.

This is not the case. You are exaggerating MASSIVELY the small, almost barely there detriments of BR decompression.

14

In my opinion, the ground battles system needs a deeper revision, particularly by increasing the maximum BR to 13.0. Keeping it capped at 12.0 is becoming unreasonable, especially when aircraft in those matches can reach up to 14.0. The issue is that, whether a jet is BR 12.7 or 13.0, in ground battles they’re both treated as 12.0, which leads to serious balance issues in the air component.

From a historical and technological perspective, tanks in the game are now more advanced than many of the aircraft supporting them. There really aren’t that many modern tanks left to add, aside from some speculative or prototype models. That’s why it would make sense to raise the BR ceiling and adjust the environment around ground combat as well.

I also believe the ground maps need to be larger, since current SPAAGs and SAM systems cover too much of the field, making gameplay too static. I’d also rework artillery mechanics to allow for more effective and tactical indirect fire, perhaps with more interactive or guided control options.

I understand these are broad changes, and I know some of them are already being discussed or developed, but I do believe this area should be given more priority to improve the long-term experience of ground battles.

2 Likes
15

Just so you know, I was also one of the players who pushed for BR decompression, especially back when there was only a 0.3 BR gap between jets with FOX-1 missiles and others carrying FOX-3s that were completely dominating every match. It was after that imbalance that Gaijin applied some decompression, which made the game more playable again for less advanced aircraft.

That’s why, honestly, I feel like you’re exaggerating. It’s nowhere near as bad as it used to be, and I’m fairly certain BR will increase to 14.3 in the coming months, especially once the AIM-120C-5 starts making people rage, which it undoubtedly will. That always happens when NATO aircraft catch up or surpass their Russian counterparts.

Tell me do you really think it’s fair for an aircraft with 4 or 6 FOX-3s to fight one carrying 12? Clearly not. But based on experience, it’s far more likely Gaijin will implement a new mechanic (like adaptive multipath behavior) than decompress again, because a large part of the player base is strongly against further BR spread. And that’s a fact.

Also, you’re missing something fundamental: the goal of the game is to push players forward not keep them stuck at low BRs. Sure, I’d love to always stay in a favorable BR with an advantage, but that wouldn’t be progressive, and over time it would kill interest due to lack of challenge.

16

Like I said, IR only 13.0s against 14.0s with AIM-120C-5 next patch?

Ok, doesn’t change the fact 13.0 will still face 14.0 or that 12.0 will still face 13.0 or that 11.0 will still face 12.0 etc. All of these are hopless situations if the downtiered guy isn’t terrible.

It happens worse when USA isn’t the #1 top meta. USA players hate not being the #1.

Why do you think this

Only if you mean the goal of gaijin’s purpose for making it, and how they use manipulation to get users to spend money. Not because the game is actually any more fun the higher you go.

17

+1 for far in the future, BUT, only if the values given to those vehicles are reasonably estimated or historically accurate. Furthermore, this would make radar guided missiles a LOT stronger than they are now, and would require BR increases for certain aircraft that would highly benefit from such a change.

1 Like
18

Have you considered that some infrared missiles (IR) are, in certain situations, more effective than FOX-3s? Personally, I’ve taken down multiple US F-14s using the German MiG-29, and even then, I still believe some of those aircraft should be placed at BR 12.7. But to fully apply your idea, you’d need to restructure almost every tech tree and BR in the game, not just by whether aircraft have FOX-3s or not, but also by whether they have all-aspect IR missiles, pulse-doppler radar, or other tech features. And honestly, at this point, that’s not going to happen.

I say this based on experience. I ran two polls in the past one over a year ago and in both, the majority of players did not support full BR decompression that would equalize aircraft by generation or armament. The second poll happened after FOX-3s were introduced and the BR ceiling was raised, and again, most players preferred the current system or even opposed further BR spread.

And it makes sense. Gaijin’s goal is not to make things comfortable they want players to progress, and ideally, spend money to make that grind faster. My proposal works within the current structure of the game. It doesn’t ask to overhaul everything. It just allows some FOX-1 missiles to regain tactical value against early FOX-3 platforms, instead of being completely useless.

Aircraft at 13.0 will continue facing stronger opponents, as they always have. The thing is, most players want to enjoy their favorite jet while having the upper hand. I get it I’d like that too. But no one enjoys being on the defensive, having to fly low or hide just to survive when a superior plane comes to hunt them down. Just imagine how bomber players feel when fighters come straight for them it’s frustrating, but it’s also deeply satisfying when you survive or even shoot them down, and the game rewards that with more SL and RP.

I’ve taken down Harriers in an F-15 or F-16 it doesn’t feel like an accomplishment. But when I’ve downed a Su-27 or Su-30SM with a lower-tier jet, that does feel like a victory. And trust me, I’m not some top-tier ace.

One of the few tools that can help level that gap are IR missiles, some of which are quite powerful. But I think FOX-1 missiles should also play that role, and currently they don’t because they’re inferior in every way. With a mechanic like the one I’m proposing, some FOX-1s could finally be viable again.

Also, for the record, I don’t usually play the US I prefer Germany and Sweden. And I’ve seen a lot of bias in discussions about BR decompression. Often what people are asking for isn’t true decompression it’s just a rebalancing of existing aircraft or better BR placement.

In my opinion, 12.7 should be the cap for top-tier jets that don’t have FOX-3s. But also keep in mind that air combat isn’t just about dogfights. There’s also base bombing and AI objectives, and that affects how players progress. For example, I personally grinded the F-15 Baz without FOX-3s all the way until the final update when they were finally added. In fact, I made a suggestion back then that all top-tier jets should have at least two FOX-1 or FOX-3 missiles, and just a few months later, that became standard.

Not all jets serve the same function, and most players aren’t trying to stay locked in one BR. They want to progress and unlock new things. That’s why, before calling for a full restructuring of the game, I think we should look for practical solutions and I believe my proposal is exactly that.

19

The calculation is an approximation so as not to make it 100% real or otherwise it would be unplayable on the maps, since there are planes that have Multipath up to 5 meters and it would be unviable, but it would be something that would diversify, and of course some would benefit and others would be harmed, for example it would encourage you to have variety, since you can estimate that one guided by radar, would serve you better at short distance or against a target that is flying low than a fox-3.

20

Yes, in very specific close up situations. Most Fox3 can be used as impromptu fox1s anyway by just firing them in HMD.

Any 13.0 moved to 12.7 would hideously compress 11.7-12.7 to the point that you’d have to move everything from 12.7-10.0 down a br to compensate.

Gaijin not doing something doesn’t mean I can’t advocate for what needs to be done to fix the game.

Can you show this poll

yay! Can’t wait to face F-15J in a MiG-23~!!!