The IRIS-T is not equipped on any plane currently in game. Where is the source that EXPLICETELY states 100% rate of success of current fox-3 in A2A missile interception even within 15KM?
Something that has yet to be developed is not a good argument for its effectiveness, especially not in the way currently portrayed in game
GRB ruined this game and introduced people like you to the game, so we will keep complaining and will continue mocking GRB klutz like you <3
1- IRIS-T is not in game carried by planes.
2- this one says capable and not 100% success rate.
3- also, previous links you sent talks about different missiles catogorized under intercepting missiles.
4- did you even read what i wrote? Why don’t we ever see a plane irl shooting down other missiles coming at them? Even in the latest example irl, how could they shoot down 3 f15s? Do you think pilots and air forces are less capable of thinking and implementing such tactics then?
The IRIS-T is not equipped on any plane currently in game. Where is the source that EXPLICETELY states 100% rate of success of current fox-3 in A2A missile interception even within 15KM?
Something that has yet to be developed is not a good argument for its effectiveness, especially not in the way currently portrayed in game
it’s right there next to the source that EXPLICITLY states 100% reliability rate and 100% success rate of those same AAMs to launch, the motor to ignite, the seeker to track and fuze to arm.
IRIS-T is already developed.
Can you show me a brochure that states 100% success rate for any missile to hit any target?
Incorrect. They are air to air missiles.
The “why” is simple: it is an unnecessary risk.
The same reason why air forces don’t send fighters to hug the deck in air combat or dogfight 2km away from their own airfield.
IRIS-T is not on any planes that are in the game.
The fact it is being advertised as a novel capability implies that other missiles are not capable of it to any degree of certainty.
SM2, Eurofighter AESA, Golden Eagle, and Rafale should have a higher BR, If you dont like that, dont play a bracket with modern aircraft, because thats the future
That entire article basically mentions a pletora of prototypes and new designs, completely different missile from sidewinders or amraams, specialized exclusively for intercepting purposes.
You also contradict yourself
also while yes IRIS-T is developed and includes such capabilities, it has already been mentioned that it is not present on any plane in War Thunder, making this a moot point
This has nothing to do with modern planes needing a higher BR.
It is about a clearly unrealistic and unfun mechanic, that has NOT ONLY been ruining top tier simulator battles for the past few months, but is now spreading even at lower BRs.
This is a meta which DOES NOT reward player skill, but penalizes it. It doesn’t encourage any skill improvement from players as it allows you to just fly straight, shooting down every incoming missile without the need to perform any defensive maneuvers, while simultaneously keeping the opponent in a defensive position.
Even planes that would normally be seen as weak or uncompetitive like the F/A-18E, are now oppressive purely because of their missile count, which favours this tactic.
loooooooooooooooooooooool unrealistic? engineers have been studying how to do this since the 1970s
sidewinders and amraams are specialized to intercept.
the missiles are air launched, to intercept aerial targets. this is the definition of an air-to-air missile.
The designation of the AIM-9 and AIM-120. Aerial-Intercept Missile
I didn’t, you just didn’t understand my point, which is that there is nothing with 100% success rate.
You are moving goalposts.
And?
Faulty logic. Advertising a capability does not prove other missiles are unable of the same capabilities. That’s a non sequitur.
1950s and 60s even.
Does not mean they have succeded in it.
How come only a couple of missile are marketed with this capability?
Tell me where pilots nowadays spend 10 amraams shooting down enemy missiles instead of notching or just defending in any other way
This is also a game, playability is more important than “realism”
Iron Dome meta is objectively shit for air battles and ruins playability
Like others have said, it punishes skillful gameplay and rewards the idea of “muh I have more missile so I can push button more”
Shooting incoming with IRs is fine. Fox 3 vs fox 3 not so much
an funny idea when it comes to advanced aircraft
1- why did you not respond to my first point?
2- I absolutely cannot show you 100% success rate of any A2A missile, thus; why we say iron dome meta is bad in game as it simply does not apply to any real life scenario. In game tho, this tactic is quite close to 100% rate, and it is 100% for some missiles. That is why we defend it needs to be removed or changed in the game. You just proved my point. Read again if you need to.
3- Incorrect. Air to air interceptor missiles, not air to air missiles. Different concepts for very different strategies.
4. And yet in game it is not an unnecessary risk, it is even way more effective than countermeasures. And again, that’s why we defend to remove or change it in game. You once more proved my point. That is of course only if you are willing to have an open mind.
The goal of these missiles is to intercept other aerial targets, meaning PLANES! not MISSILES!
It cannot be possibly this hard to actually understand some very basic concepts while all the sources are right in your finger tips. The internet was supposed to make us smarter not the other way around smh
Even air to air missiles don’t have 100 percent probability against planes. So idk why this is a point, just look at brochures for r77 or r73 or other stuff, they give probability of around 0.6-0.8 chance of shooting down a target, not 100%.
Nothing is 100%
Do you want missiles to just have an arbitrary rng multiplier of missing stuff just cause nothings perfect irl? Rng is terrible for the game
