I guess we will see some changes on this soon as BVVD mentioned that they are working on a RCS system. Until then, I’ve decided to not touch past 14.0 since ESA radars make MCM even more braindead than Mech radars as you don’t even need to fiddle with your radar settings to make it work or give up datalinking your own missiles.
2 Likes
Hopefully, we can get this thread to Gaijin’s attention. While this is just a game, SIM mode should always strive to be as realistic as possible (and as long as it doesn’t kill the fun).
In this case, realism and fun gameplay go hand in hand, as a significant portion of the sim community finds the iron dome/spam meta not enjoyable.
This meta has to go
NOW
non-negotiable
There is nothing you could say that justifies the existence of this meta.
2 Likes
“But what about the less skilled players?” - Gaijin
7 Likes
Both the R-77-1 and the MICA advertise it as a capability; therefore it’s not going anywhere. The only change Gaijin has made is to make it even easier by adding radar symbology to distinguish planes from missiles.
You are wrong and here’s why:
- The Real Enemy: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
- In-Game: War Thunder’s radar code treats air-to-air missiles as standard lockable physical targets once they leave the rail.
- In Real Life: An air-to-air missile like an AMRAAM or R-77 is a tiny, sleek cylinder roughly 7 inches in diameter. When coming at a plane head-on, its Radar Cross Section (RCS) is microscopic (estimated at less than 0.001 m²). Fighter radars, even modern AESA or PESA sets, are optimized to scan for fighter-sized targets (1 to 5 m²). They would struggle to detect, let alone firmly track, a head-on Fox-3 missile until it was far too late to react. [1]
- Seeker Geometry and Closure Rates
- In-Game: A missile’s onboard radar seeker turns on and immediately grabs the target handed off by the aircraft’s datalink.
- In Real Life: The active radar seekers inside the noses of the R-77-1 or MICA EM are tiny. They operate with very low power outputs compared to the fighter’s main nose radar. If two aircraft fire at each other, the closure rate (relative speed between the two incoming missiles) can exceed Mach 6 to Mach 8. The processing power and physical gimbal limits required for a tiny missile seeker to see, track, and calculate an intercept course for another Mach 4 object flying directly at it is completely outside their design scope. [1]
- Fighter Radars Can’t Calculate an Intercept Solution
- In-Game: Fighter radars seamlessly track incoming ordnance and hand off “fire solutions” to your own missiles.
- In Real Life: Fire control computers on jets like the Su-30 or Rafale are programmed to track aircraft, cruise missiles, and drones. They do not possess the specific fire-control software algorithms required to compute a ballistic intercept solution for hyper-fast, burning, staging air-to-air missiles. Ground-based systems like the actual Rafael Iron Dome or a Patriot battery require massive, heavy, power-hungry ground radars and specialized command trailers to do this. A fighter jet simply doesn’t carry that processing math. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- The Misinterpreted Vympel/MBDA Claims
- The R-77 Claim: Vympel marketing has historically stated that the R-77 has a theoretical capability to intercept “precision-guided munitions and cruise missiles”. However, cruise missiles are large, non-maneuvering, jet-powered objects flying at sub-sonic speeds. Intercepting a slow Tomahawk cruise missile is entirely different from intercepting an incoming Mach 4 air-to-air missile. [1, 2]
- The MICA Claim: MBDA markets the MICA EM as a highly agile multi-mission missile capable of defending the host aircraft. This refers to offensive defense—shooting down the enemy aircraft before its missile hits you, or engaging incoming cruise missiles/drones—not shooting down a supersonic air-to-air kinetic dart head-on. [1]
Ultimately, the War Thunder “Iron Dome” meta is a byproduct of game mechanics favoring missile counts over realistic physics. In real life, pilots use electronic warfare, chaff, and high-G kinematically draining maneuvers (like notching) to defeat Fox-3s, not shooting them down with other missiles.
2 Likes
bro isnt even using the same quotation marks
like if you cant make a argument without having to outsource thinking to an AI, then just dont make any argument
Brother, english is my second language. I gave AI the parameters to write it for me. Big woop. Fact check it if you like.
english isnt my first language either
and i dont need AI to make an argument for me
sure
the first “source” is a reddit post
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1smtova/mcm_missile_combat_missile_is_ruining_the_game/
so is the second “source”
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1rydk9t/rafael_iron_dome_protector_of_the_skies/
and the third “source”
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1pc1awp/a_guide_against_the_rafale_in_the_su30_sm/
and the fourth “source” is a wikipedia article
meanwhile the source stating that the R-77 can be launched against A2A missiles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240525200835/https://vympelmkb.com/about/history/#1994
4 Likes
Fair enough, each to their own I suppose.
So the chief designer on the Vympel claims this. I mean… That’s as good as a source as Wikipedia. Toropov went “Trust me bro, buy my shit!”
Technically the R73 as well as any fox2 could probably be used to intercept a fox3 if it’s engine is hot enough. Would it be a good idea? Probably not!
But let me ask you this:
Why do you think all countries who use land based firing batteries have one truck for just the missiles, one truck for computer power and one truck/generator to plug into the electric grid?
Could it be that for a radar to be effective in tracking bigger targets than a air to air missile requires massive amounts of power?
Now try to cram those systems into a plane that’s already loaded with ECM, MAWS, AESA/PESA radar.
My stand point is that NO, a modern day fighter jet. Even a 5th gen fighter jet with all bells and whistles can’t reliably shoot something as small as a air to air missile out of the sky. I don’t have access to any source material from any defence department/Military/Air force department. Just common sense.
so when are you making a claim backed up by any source?
1 Like
Alright. Let’s start with RCS:
Now I don’t have any source on the RCS of a AIM120 for example. But we do have one for a Tomahawk cruise missile. Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Let’s take the measurements for a tomahawk missile:
https://insights.globalspec.com/article/5402/tomahawk-missiles-everything-you-need-to-know
Length: 20.3 feet; with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Diameter: 21 inches (53.34 centimeters)
Wingspan: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Weight: 3,330 pounds with rocket motor
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Compare to that of a AIM120
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/AMRAAM
Length: 12 feet (3.6576 meters)
Diameter: 7 inches (17.78 cm)
Wingspan: AIM-120A/B, 21 inches; AIM-120C/D, 19 inches
Weight: AIM-120A/B/C/C-4/ 348 pounds; AIM-120C5/6/7, 356 pounds; AIM-120D, 358 pound
Speed: Fast as fook (classified but we can assume at least mach 3)
Now with that said. There’s documented instances of fighter jets shooting down cruise missiles.
Also instances from Ukraine but I leave them out.
Guess how many articles I found claims of a fighter jet OR land based systems intercepting and destroying incoming missile? I found one where Iron dome protected a friendly F16 from a SAM launch.
https://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/operational-intercepts-of-missile-defense-systems/
Further more.
If a counter-AAM shot were a viable tactic, you’d expect to see at least one of these:
- a named training maneuver or doctrine reference to “engaging” an inbound missile with your own missile
- a missile manufacturer marketing an anti-AAM capability (not “can hit maneuvering targets” broadly, but specifically “can intercept an inbound air-to-air missile”)
- any test/range footage, even unclassified, of a missile-vs-missile shot being attempted
None of that exists in the public record, while the evasion/countermeasure doctrine is extremely well documented and universal across every air force. That lack of sources is more telling.
so we are comparing apples to ornages
aka you dont have anything
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I’m comparing a missile we know the RCS to the size/speed of it (All comes into play when you need to get a firing solution) to one that’s comparable smaller, faster and more manoeuvrable.
So really comparing a watermelon to a grape.
IRIS-T is advertised with this capability. This is why sourcing AI for your arguments is trash.
1 Like
See previous post about that
Also
This don’t claim intercepting incoming fox3’s that’s going pitbull on you - just “missiles”
(Source to claim Guided Missiles | Diehl Defence)
Would like to see test data behind this statement
What missiles they tested interception on and their parameters
Intercepting a SA-18 from a Hind is very different to intercepting R-40 or R-27E
The context is pretty clear that it means opponents missiles in an air to air context which would… yes…be active radar missiles in most cases. Unless you want to make the argument that they are talking about cruise missiles when immediately proceeding sentence is about its air to air capabilities.