At least the new multi-vehicle SAM mechanics is a good opportunity to add for older vehicles like the Strela-10.
1 Like
Its designed to operate in a multi-layered battery, and the passive detection TELARS are just another layer in that battery
1 Like
It’s not alone in this either, there have been a multitude of reports made to correct the Stinger that Gaijin have sat on for nearly a year after the were accepted at this point.
I mean you would think that with them selling the RAH-66, and the focus on SAMs that it might actually get actioned at some point but not so far.
3 Likes
I get that the Stinger has its own issues, but this thread isn’t about the Stinger — it’s about the Strela-10M2 and its completely missing passive detection, which has been ignored for years despite being acknowledged.
Dragging in unrelated problems doesn’t help push this specific issue forward. If everything turns into a laundry list of complaints, none of it gets addressed properly. If you want to discuss the Stinger, there are dedicated threads for that — let’s keep this one focused so it doesn’t get buried or dismissed.
1 Like
ok give it passive detection and move it up to 11.3+ where it should be based on missile performance
Yesh Strela is a monster and im sorry I just dont believe it’s that effective IRL when we have seen them used and they have failed to intercept aerial threats.
Yet a jet screaming over a mach 1.3 sees the launch and cannot kinematically defeat the missile or decoy it…seems nonesense.
Oh right, of course — let’s give Strela-10M2 the passive detection it already had in real life, and then immediately push it up to 11.3 so it can face jets with thermal imaging, laser missiles, guided bombs and mavericks strikes. Totally fair, right?
Let’s be real: this vehicle has 5 km range missiles with no post-launch guidance, no radar, no thermals, and currently no way to even know a plane is coming until it drops a bomb on your face. Adding the passive detection it was meant to have doesn’t suddenly turn it into a Pantsir or TOR.
This isn’t about “buffing” Strela — it’s about fixing an obviously incomplete implementation. If we’re at the point where restoring a basic, missing feature requires a BR hike, then we’ve completely lost the plot on how balancing and realism are supposed to work.
2 Likes
5km sphere of death and as a Strela player you know that.
I would wager 1 out of 10 aircraft you shoot at escapes.
1 Like
If someone is genuinely struggling to deal with a Strela while flying a jet equipped with Mavericks, TV-guided bombs, or long-range AGMs — that’s not a Strela problem, that’s a skill issue.
Let’s be honest: Strela has no radar, no thermal optics, no long-range capability, and no warning system. It’s short-range, fire-and-forget, and incredibly easy to counter with flares, distance, or basic awareness.
If a player can’t eliminate a stationary SPAA with standoff weapons from 5+ km — which is exactly what those weapons are designed for — the issue isn’t balance. It’s user error. Suggesting a BR increase because some people can’t use their tools effectively is just absurd.
4 Likes
Not really, aircraft like Typhoon need to be within that engagement envelope.
And Radar when you just lock that jet you can clearly see flying and delete it.
type 81C has similar restrictions and yet it is at 11.7 and you are somehow arguing that a vehicle with similar capabilities should be 10.3?
1 Like
the Type 81C’s missile is roughly twice as effective as the Strela-10M2’s. It has better guidance, longer range, and improved seeker performance. Both are fire-and-forget IR missiles, but Type 81C’s rocket is a significant step ahead in terms of capability.
So comparing Strela-10M2 to Type 81C and suggesting they should share similar BR just because they’re both short-range IR SAMs is misleading. Even with passive detection added, Strela’s missiles remain much less capable.
This is why giving Strela passive detection is a necessary fix, not a buff that would suddenly push it to higher BR tiers.
1 Like
the type 81 does not have anywhere near as much of an improvement in range as you are suggesting and both have IR and contrast lock giving them more adverse weather capability than many other IR sams.
why would we not compare them, both have similar ranges, and IR missiles that cant be reliably flared or kinetically avoided and yet one is a much higher BR than the other. I agree that type 81 has slightly better missiles but not enough of an improvement to warrant 4 BR steps higher. and if anything with passive detection on strela I believe they should be the same BR.
are you seriously suggesting that adding passive detection would not improve the strela performance?
I understand your point about the similar ranges and IR/contrast lock capabilities of the Strela-10M2 and Type 81. However, there are important distinctions beyond just missile guidance and range.
While both missiles use IR and contrast lock, the Type 81’s missile generally has better maneuverability, seeker sensitivity, and engagement envelope, which translates into more consistent performance in various conditions. These subtle but critical differences affect overall effectiveness in combat.
Regarding the BR difference, it’s not solely about missile capability. The Type 81C also benefits from better crew ergonomics, tracking systems, and positioning flexibility in-game, which contribute to its higher rating. Plus, the Type 81C is set to receive radar guidance and new ARH missiles in the next patch, which will further improve its capabilities — something Strela-10M2 will not get.
Adding passive detection to Strela-10M2 would certainly improve its performance — I’m not denying that. But it would still lag behind Type 81C in several key areas. So yes, passive detection should bring Strela closer to Type 81’s level, but I’m skeptical that it justifies putting them at exactly the same BR, let alone a BR jump of four steps.
Balancing is about the full package, not just one feature. Strela’s missing passive detection is a fix, not a buff that suddenly makes it overpowered.
1 Like
due to the engagement range normal for SAMs, the ability to lead the missile, and inability to reliably flare, maneuverability is not a huge advantage for IR SAMs once it is past the point to be reliably dodged
yes there are other factors but your assessment is flawed, tracking is not as important of a component on an IR only SAM system and if anything strela has more flexibility in positioning due to its lower profile and tracked nature allowing it to access spots the type 81 cant
it is not, unless they add a lock after launch mechanic, it is the separate system that will have radar capability
yes and the strela is already by far the best SAM system at its BR and should have moved up long ago without passive detection, with its current capabilities it would be balanced around 11.0 and yet it sits at 10.3, where you can often fight CAS with only unguided ordinance and no ballistic computers to aid in its use.
They mentioned something as linking vehicles to an radar, or someone not from Gaijin did, I don’t remember, Strela-10M2 and every other Strela-10 in-game is more like an All-in-One vehicle, just making it able to link to a allied radar vehicle will completely make it’s uniqueness useless, there are plenty of footage of the Strela-10M2 operating by itself, detecting and attacking a target by itself.
1 Like
Strela-10 has no right or reason to go any higher than 10.3 simply just no, right now all it takes to make it complete worthless is any other aa with radar even Ozelot can make Streal-10 unless and im not joking as this has happend to me while playing as Strela
why not? there is stinger AA at 10.0 and strela absolutely should be 2 or more BR steps above AA which’s only medium range capability is stingers
and should be higher br than roland 3 systems due to its very poor performance in game
Strela has 8 missiles ready to go Ocelot has 2 Stingers…
You might want to actually take a look at the Ozelot and Strela, because they both have the same amount of missiles in the exact same loadout: 4 ready + 4 reload.
2 Likes