This is the most likely solution, so yeah.
Probably, but it would also be one of the many planes to die from enemy fire as well. Its speed is a double-edged sword.
Custom presets can’t be made while in a match and like the earlier SEAD event we were presented with default preset for weapons we could use. I expect it to be the same for this event.
I believe I should make a reply/post about the different kinds of missiles that would be on offer in this event. Not only would it be helpful, but if anyone wanted to “well, ackshually” me with facts (especially as it pertains to Russian/Chinese missiles) that would be most welcome.
This is (or rather, will) be the most hated BVR missile, second to potentially the R-37M and probably equally disliked missile as the MICA EM overall.
Why? Because with this missile it introduces 1 of 2 new propulsion systems to be introduced to War Thunder: ramjet propulsion.
There are a multitude of ways it could be implemented, but if I could guesstimate its implementation?
I would suggest it be implemented in such a way that the higher it flies, the slower the acceleration from the ramjet. Think of it like a sort of “altitude-acceleration” multiplier, specifically for any ramjet-powered missile. It would still be deadly up to 10 000 meters, however if launched that high (and when it lofts up to higher altitude), the acceleration from the ramjet itself should be a slow, gradual one from its ‘starting’ speed, which would be around Mach 3 anyway. It will be slow accelerating at high altitude, but will hit a higher terminal velocity (its stated Mach 4.5 top speed) over time. As for the rate of acceleration after the initial rocket booster… I think a gradual increase in speed of about 18 km/h a second at high altitude, which would put it at Mach 4.5 after about a minute (give or take a few seconds).
Even at low altitude, the ramjet isn’t a magic ‘infinite speed’ machine. When it turns, the Induced Drag will still cause the missile to decelerate, potentially quite noticeably if the target pulls a hard break-turn. However, unlike a solid rocket which stays slow, the ramjet provides a ‘thrust floor.’ Once the turn is completed, the engine will work to push the missile back up to its cruise speed, preventing the target from ‘bleeding’ the missile dry.
Oh right, before I forget: one of the more important stats about this missile is that according to multiple sources, it would very likely have a maximum overload of about 35 G, same as an AMRAAM.
These are Chinese-made missiles that also introduces a second, new type of propulsion system to War Thunder: dual-pulse propulsion.
In very, very simple terms: they have two separate rocket-boost phases. There is the initial rocket boost phase after you launch at a target and then sometime later (probably when the seeker goes active, or ‘pitbull’) the second rocket boost phase starts.
This will by far be the easiest propulsion system to implement IMO as it’s only a matter of deciding when the second rocket boost phase starts (whether through publicly available technical data) or timing it with seeker activation as suggested earlier.
Unlike the Meteor, its acceleration in the terminal phase will be sudden and leave you little time to dodge or run away with both being made difficult by its AESA seeker + dual-pulse propulsion combination.
For the PL-17 specifically, I want to guesstimate that the boost phases will be longer/more gradual than the PL-15, similar to the current AIM-120C-5 boost off the rail. Of course, if there is evidence to the contrary I would welcome this.
The PL-15 has an estimated max range of 200-300 km (this is probably closer to 160 - 200 km for a manoeuvring target though) with a confirmed max overload of 40 G.
A great missile, based on the currently used RIM-174 in the US Navy, but strapped onto a Super Hornet.
This missile differs slightly from the RIM-174, as it does not have the primary rocket booster of the RIM-174 whose purpose was to get it up to speed from a standstill before the “main” motor (which is present on the AIM-174B) takes over.
The RIM-174B has a range of around 240 km and that’s from mostly a standstill. The range of the AIM-174B at the best possible guesstimate I can give, would likely be around 200 km at normal operating speeds of the F/A-18E. It would still clear the maps in War Thunder no problem, however it would lack the “starting energy” due to low launch velocity from the Super Hornet. Like I have said elsewhere, kinematically in a straight line it would be similar (give or take, it still suffers from a lower max speed) in performance to the Fakour-90 launched from F-14 IRIAF aircraft.
As details on its onboard seeker are scarce, one would assume similar performance to AMRAAM seekers if implemented today. As for its maximum overload, since it’s based on the RIM-174, it is likely around 25-30 Gs.
These right here are the mother, father, hell, even God of all BVR missiles in the present day.
The R-37 on its own is a pretty hefty BVR missile, once scoring a hit on a target 300 km away (in a test environment). The R-37M improves on that monster of a missile by including a jettisonable rocket booster, extending its maximum range to 400 km. For all intents and purposes: three things in life that are certain: death, taxes, and a R-37/R-37M.
As for seeker details, I’m pretty sure it goes active at 40 km which for a Mach 6 missile that’s pretty much 16 km anyway.
As for how it will be implemented in War Thunder… take the Fakour, give it a ton more thrust with a longer burning motor (iirc, it burns for at least a minute? or close?), a higher maximum overload (35 G) and a better seeker and you’ve birthed the R-37 (and R-37M if you strap an additional booster motor on)
Again, any and all “well, ackshually” will be appreciated if possible.
This missile uses the dual-pulse propulsion system, according to Rafael. It has a maximum range of 100 km.
Unlike other advanced missiles… it uses a PD seeker that relies on software to ‘cheat’. Think of it as having the Look-Down power of a PD radar but the jamming resistance of an AESA. It’s the ultimate hybrid—it physically moves its seeker head to track you (Mechanical), but its digital ‘filters’ make it nearly immune to being fooled by Chaff or Jammers. In-game this seeker could be modelled to be as good or better than the current MICA EM and if/when ECM/ECCM gets introduced this missile would be one of the best at fighting it.
Officially, this is the first missile ever to have an onboard AESA seeker. Alongside the previously mentioned I-Derby ER, it would be one of the hardest missiles to fool with electronic jamming.
It has a maximum range of 120 km, using a familiar boost-sustain propulsion system. The maximum overload here is likely in the 30 - 35 G region.
(SORRY for the short part here, I’m still collating sources and the like about this missile in particular)
Official estimates put its max range at about 200 km with it using a dual-pulse propulsion system. Earlier variations of the missile utilised a mechanical onboard seeker, but later iterations are now reported to be planned to implement an AESA seeker. It is also expected to have at minimum 35 G maximum overload and potentially up to 40 G.
The AIM-120D-3 represents the pinnacle of the AMRAAM family, featuring a massive hardware overhaul under the Form, Fit, Function Refresh (F3R) program.
While it retains the classic 7-inch diameter to fit internal bays, it introduces a new, classified rocket motor (likely featuring high-energy propellant and refined grain) that, when combined with superior GPS-aided lofting logic, extends its effective range to 160 km (approx. 86–100 nm).
Unlike the “brute force” of a ramjet, the D-3 uses an advanced digital core with 15 new circuit cards to “smartly” manage its energy. This allows it to arrive at the target with enough kinetic speed to pull a 40 G maximum overload in the terminal phase.
Its seeker is essentially “software-defined,” (similar to I-Derby ER) using agile algorithms to filter out modern DRFM jamming, making it the most reliable “smart sniper” in the US inventory.
If reading all those words aren’t your thing, here’s a table to make it… easier to read:
| Missile | Propulsion | Speed | Range | G-Load | Primary Gimmick |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meteor | Boost + Ramjet | Mach 4.5 | 200 km | 35 G | Throttled Ramjet; maintains max energy for massive No Escape Zone (NEZ) |
| PL-15 | Dual-Pulse | Mach 5 | 200-300 km | 40 G | AESA seeker; terminal boost phase. |
| PL-17 | Dual-Pulse | Mach 6 | 400 km | 30 G | Ultra-long range “AWACS Sniper” with thrust-vectoring; terminal boost phase. |
| AIM-120D-3 | Boost-Sustain | Mach 4.5 | 160 km | 40 G | Digital core refresh; software-defined ECCM |
| R-37 | Boost-Sustain | Mach 6 | 300 km | 35 G | Hypersonic interceptor |
| R-37M | Boost-Sustain + Jettisonable Booster | Mach 6 | 400 km | 35 G | Jettisonable booster; “God” of all BVR missiles. |
| R-77M | Dual-Pulse | Mach 4.5 | 192 km | 40 G | Russian AESA; terminal boost phase |
| I-Derby ER | Dual-Pulse | Mach 4.5 | 100 km | 50 G | PD seeker with AESA-like ECCM capability. |
| AAM-4B | Boost-Sustain | Mach 5 | 120 km | 35 G | First ever onboard AESA seeker; advanced ECCM. |
| Astra Mk.2 | Dual-Pulse | Mach 4.5 | 200 km | 40 G | AESA seeker; terminal boost phase. |
| AIM-174B | Boost-Sustain | Mach 3.5 | 200 km | 30 G | Near-space enthusiast. |
Edit: Added it in the main post
Nah aim 120 d3 gets a new motor, the normal one doesn’t though afaik.
@quartas121 which one was which again
D-3 definitely has a bigger motor. D has better guidance and better range from what I’ve heard but I’m not certain if it’s due to better software, improved motor, or both
Its supposed to be 200km, and uh 40g.
this would apply to the AIM-120D-3, it gets better ECCM either in the D-3 upgrade or one of the ones before iirc
Every source I could find says 160 km, which is what the US Air Force wanted in an AMRAAM to ‘counter’ the PL-15 (something something, we need a missile that could reach out to 100 miles). If the D-3 could go that far, they wouldn’t be wasting money and resources on the AIM-260.
I can confirm its maximum overload is around 40 G.
Updated.
There was a recent interview with drdo scientists which said the range is to 200km, some even said 240km
Plus d3 is a single pulse missile, not fair comparision
Use auto translated captions
13:00
Astra mk1 itself is getting ramge extended upto 160km (likely battery and loft changes)
My apologies, misread it.
Fixed.
Bumping the topic…
A question for those interested in the event: should the R-37M be applied across the board to every eligible airframe, or remain exclusive to the MiG-31BM for the duration of the test?
IMHO: I’m a No.
Even for a limited event, keeping them exclusive to the MiG-31BM preserves the “interceptor” niche. Performance-wise, trying to lug 4–6 of these 600kg monsters on a Su-30SM2 or Su-35S would likely tank their flight models more than a full rack of 12 R-77Ms would.
I think it’s better to let the Flankers lean into their multirole agility with the R-77M, while the Foxhound plays the dedicated long-range sniper role. It gives players a reason to try both airframes during the event (especially if they don’t already own them) rather than just picking the one that “carries everything.”
Of course, the “sandbox” perspective—letting everyone try every missile regardless of the drag penalty—is also valid for a test event. Curious to see where the consensus lies.
Lastly, @Sea_Harrier_FRS1 mentioned something about loadouts earlier and it got me thinking… to keep the data collection broad and allow players who don’t own top tier aircraft to participate, I propose a “Loaner Aircraft” system for the event (which was used for the SEAD event before, so nothing new here):
Standardised Loadouts for Everyone
To maintain a fair testing environment, all aircraft (owned and loaners) will use fixed, historical/technical (where possible/ideal) maximum loadouts.
If an airframe has access to multiple primary missiles (e.g., Su-30SM2 with R-77M and R-37M or F/A-18E with AIM-174B and AIM-120D-3), you will be able to select between these specific presets at the spawn screen. This ensures no one can “cheese” the flight model by stripping their jet to a basically drag-free state; everyone (mostly) deals with the same weight penalties, making the event a true test of BVR tactics and positioning rather than who has the best custom preset (and also has the side benefit of giving devs the best data possible).
This whole thing reads like a pipe dream.
The SEAD event happened because they’re planning to add it soon. Hopefully these aircraft and missiles are still at least one or two years away.
The idea of gathering “feedback on balance and counterplay” sounds good, but testing in a simplified environment won’t reflect the real one. The results won’t translate.
Running tests with a 10 m multipath makes no sense if the live game won’t use 10 m. That would make the data useless. Same with RB EC maps, which the devs have already dismissed.
And they’re not going to add brand-new aircraft just for a test. If anything like this happens, it will use existing aircraft.
I think you’re getting hung up on the specific figures rather than the concept of a test environment. Obviously, this isn’t coming to the live game tomorrow, but the fact that it was pushed through for public viewing at a minimum shows that the suggestion devs were at least open to the conversation.
Regarding multipathing: 10m is a test figure. Even if that’s too extreme for the live game, the event could easily be modified to test something like 30m instead. It would have the same effect of rewarding BVR tactics while lessening the “lawnmower” worry for players. That is literally the point of this test event.
As for the aircraft:
The goal is to have a simplified sandbox to test how things like AESA seekers, ramjet or dual-pulse motors behave (and how players react) before they hit the 16v16 chaos of the live game. Better to find out the Meteor or R-37M is “broken” in a weekend event than during a major update launch.
After some thought, I’d also like to suggest a further improvement to the current multipath effect limit of 10 metres.
Previously, I had thought that by blanket setting a 10 m cap on all maps that it would better simulate these missiles real-world performance, which is in part true, but it would also work against the test event by taking out the fun factor for the average player.
This is why I’d like to propose a slightly different adjustment to multipathing in general: a variable multipath limit that differs across maps presented in this event, similar to the change made to visual contrails at different altitudes on different maps. Essentially, maps with rugged or variable terrain (Vietnam being a good example) could have a slightly higher multipath limit set from 30 to 40 metres, instead of 10 metres. This takes into account things like trees or dips in terrain which would make ground hugging or terrain masking much more difficult and physically dangerous at high speeds.
As for the maps on offer in this event, I propose these revised and map-specific multipath limits:
Note: these aren’t definitive and are instead guidelines for possible implementation
Any and all feedback welcome.
