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
8 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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”
7 Likes
Shooting incoming with IRs is fine. Fox 3 vs fox 3 not so much
an funny idea when it comes to advanced aircraft
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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
9 Likes
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
2 Likes
idk why lance is even talking on that point tbh, its obvious from irl doctrine that intercepting A2A missiles with other standard A2A missiles is not a reliable and dependable defense. Just cause there is 100% reliability of arbriary systems in game doesnt change the fact that the iron dome situation is poorly and inaccurately modeled rn. Can we not make nonsense arguments over semantics just to prove a nonsensical point?
2 Likes
Honestly though, if a missile in flight has parameters that a missile can intercept though, why should it not be able to intercept it.
See my r771 example from earlier
1 Like
Even as far back as the 1950’s aim-4 with no proximity fuses, you had the missiles being tested against simulated enemy bombers and simulated enemy cruise missiles, in fact the first aim-4E “kill” was precisely against an out of control matador cruise missile, which was taken down by momentum alone as the aim-4s were practise units with non functional warheads…
There are very good reasons why “iron dome” meta is common in wt but not in real life:
- Air combat doctrine relies on positioning the attacker in the most favourable place to launch a missile at an unsuspecting enemy. In real life, if you are in a position where you have to shoot down a missile launched at you, you are already doing something wrong.
- Using your radar to shootdown an enemy missile requires you to fly TOWARDS the missile trying to kill you without manoeuvring (It’s only recently that airborne radars have been given more than 180º of azimuth coverage to mitigate the risks of this approach, and yet even advanced jets like the F-22 and F-35 still don’t have that capability), relying entirely on the 95 to 90% chance the missile will be intercepted (assuming it’s not worse because of the very high closure rates involved), making it a very high risk strategy for a gamble with multi million dollar planes.
- At best, the very low reward for this strategy is getting closer to your target - that is also in optimum position to launch missiles at you. You will also be more vulnerable to getting targeted from a different angle by one of the enemy’s teammates, since in real life pilots work in teams.
So it’s obvious to see why “iron dome” is so viable in warthunder yet uncommon in real life - the risk is acceptable when losing the gamble means you’ll pay a few repair costs and rejoin a different fight in the next minute (as opposed to losing a multi million dollar jet AND your life), getting closer is no issue when engagement distances are already in knife fight range by real life standards, and 99% of the time the enemy player in wt is fighting on his own without coordinating with the rest of his team.
Note how none of those reasons has anything to do with the performance of the radars, or the missiles themselves… Honestly i think the real problem is that the performance penalties for carrying a truck load of missiles are too low in warthunder compared to real life, all that increased frontal and surface area has a huge effect in terms of supersonic drag that isn’t modelled at all.
1 Like
R-77-1 also uses a variant of 9b1103m.
Now ofc, we’re unsure exactly which variant of 9b1103m r-77-1 uses.
But, using data from other variants of 9b1103m, we can deduce a range of ranges that it should be able lock onto a super small target. I jsut need to find the source again
