The Iron dome meta

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3072483/aesa-radar-launches-f-16-into-next-generation-of-airpower/

Here is a source proving that aircraft radars can infact detect Cruise missiles, now of course these are smaller, and also usually use a jet engine which makes it recognizable. We probably both knew this already, but the fact is that modern AESA radars are easily abled to detect a small cruise missile. Your point is that you think that AESA radar could not detect a smaller missile coming head on at it while ALSO providing a strong radar return. Have we actually forgot that AMRAAMs themselves have Home-on-jam capability? Not to even mention AESA radars lmao. But even without this its actually stupid to think that a radar could not pick a missile from headon just because of “low rcs”. you realise that looking at a plane from +100 km would make it as small to the radar as the missile at closer range. I think you think too much about “facts and data” and stopped thinking with your actual brain. I can reinforce this point by looking at your post history which basically proves your full time job is posting on war thunder forums.

Even more to add, we know that ground based radars can detect missiles easily, even mortar launched grenades. With common sense we can verify that airborne radars with similar capability are able to do more or less do the same. Not only is information about this subject very rarely publicly available, but it’s most likely also not researched enough, since in reality things are usually different enough for this not be a cause of concern, thus no direct information about this is present.

That is why most of the time games like war thunder have to make intelligent assumptions about subjects

Only one “making shit up” is you. You’ve been proven wrong about multiple things but you just back track and try stray away from the main point.

regarding that, It would be quite easy to make a change, if you are locked by a missile (no matter the type) J out should be a counted kill.

1 Like

Which is

  1. common knowledge
  2. meaningless to the topic at hand

I never said that lol. I pointed out that your assumptions are based on vibes and “I feel like”. Do you know how to read?

And? What the fuck does this have to do with anything lmao??? What is this slop???

Unless you can provide any data on radar capability, this is another “I feel like” argument. RCS is only one part of the equation. Detection, tracking, and fire-control logic, as well as radar resolution, among other things, play a role.

It’s actually stupid to handwave everything because you have feels and vibes as your basis for argumentation.

True. But then, math.

If an F-18 loaded, RCS around 3m^2
AIM-120, RCS around 0.01m^2

If F-18 detected at max range of 100km, the missile, to have the same signal strength return, is gonna have to be around 24km.

That’s to be DETECTED as a signal return. We aren’t even considering stable track for display, much less promotion to a fire-control target. Or radar resolution, automatic gain compensation, and more.

It costs USD 0.00 to use your neurons, I suggest you try it.

What ground radars can do is irrelevant.

No, you can’t. That’s you presenting vibes as fact again.

Which again is the core of my argument: Stop making shit up presenting it as fact lol. Sit down.

I’ve been proven wrong about nothing, but feel free to kick and scream as much as you want.

1 Like

Sounds like someone is mad lmao. You say you present facts yet you have presented zero (0) evidence, other than your own ramblings, which are quite poor. You are in no way qualified to talk about the subject, Just based on the fact that your own profile tells me you have no relevant education and all the things you say are based on war thunder forum knowledge. Can’t help to notice you actually spend most of you life arguing against other people in here about litearally anything, which makes sense since you only seek argument. I also don’t know what the fuck you are defending lmao, war thunder devs?

I’m not the one making claims lmao

you have the burden of proof. I guess you don’t even know what that means.

Join the fan club, send me your address and I’ll even throw in a free autograph for you. For some money I can even throw some feet pics.

If you still don’t understand my position then I apologize. I overestimated your intellect.

1 Like

It is as much of a claim to say that AESA radars can not do this as much as it is to say that they can.

But speaking of, you are seriously hindering to ability to have any sort of meaningfull conversation in the forums and also constantly claiming to be “intelligent”, yet judging by your arguments (and they many flaws you are making) you are either 1. not really educated at all 2. just don’t care and you are by definion trolling

cool story bro

now where’s your data and evidence to back up your claims? Ah yes, in your r/noncredibledefense folder

go run JEM NCTR on a rocket motor lol

1 Like

Cool, we are back at the argument where you think the only way to identify aircraft is JEM. How do you think modern radars can tell the exact model of the aircraft?

just quit talking, you are a troll, you have more post on this exact thread that I have in my entire history, and all of them are arguing with others lmao

Huh, not at all. Just pointing out you’re trying to smart off when you said missiles could be NCTR’d by JEM. Peak.

I love my fans! You can’t help yourself, you HAVE to talk to me! Look, I get it, I’m charming, but I don’t mate outside my species, m’kay

and after all this… still zero evidence or data.

1 Like

When did I say that missiles could only be NCTR’d JEM? I never said that. My point was that they could be ID’d by speed/acceleration and by 3D shape and 2D shadow, which is true, you can literally ID them with a radar that DOESNT identify the missile, by just looking at the speed manually, rarely see planes going Mach 4.

Can you provide any data or evidence that a fighter AESA radar can use SAR/2D ISAR on a small moving target at supersonic speeds at long range?

Can you provide any data or evidence of how the detection, tracking, classification and identification logic works on a specific fighter AESA radar set?

1 Like

Can you? I mean have you got anything behind your own claims. I made it clear to you that radars are capable of doing this, first you claimed they were not, now you claim to only ground based radars can do this.

Can you provide me information how you classify a target using ONLY JEM? Because that is what you are claiming modern militaries do with jet fighters lmao

You are the one making claims, the burden of proof is on you.
What is this, amateur hour? Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

They are. For terrain, static objects, and large, slow moving surface targets, or stable, predictable air targets.

Against a missile? They aren’t, no lol.

Yes. You use the microdoppler signature of the target compressor or turbine. That’s how you classify a target using only JEM.

1 Like

this thread has turned into an errrm achtuwally pissing contest

Edit: at least the poll has pulled some real data

1 Like

could have been easily avoided if people didn’t double down on presenting feels, vibes, and opinions as facts.

Appreciate that, but are we in agreement that iron dome is bad for the game? (what the original post was about)

If so, is there a way that we can present evidence of its detriment to the game?

i hear that MCM has made its way into RB, which is good for us as it brings light to the issue.

rather than roleplaying as a reddit mod, is there a way we can actually work together and make the game a better place?

I highly doubt we’ll see a proper solution to be honest, specially from Gaijin’s part since they’re comically bad at balancing

Yes, if it is proven to be unrealistic. No, if it is proven to be realistic.

I value realistic physics over gameplay.

I outlined what we should look for here: The Iron dome meta - #321 by LanceLynxx

The problem is sourcing data to prove if it is realistically feasible, or not, and why, and any caveats if feasible.

My educated guess? Feasible, but only in very close range, like, sub-10km. Again, EDUCATED GUESS.

But again, the problem is finding data. We should forget about modern radars and try first to check earlier models from 80s and 90s since those are much more likely to have data leaked around.

To be completely honest, I think it is completely worthless to try to find documentation on any of the AESA radars as they are likely extremely classified. Big problem, in my view, is finding documentation on the logic for creating, maintaining, and promoting tracks.

From my point of view, the single biggest point that could hold the answer is the tracking logic for the launching aircraft, since that’s the biggest factor for properly directing the missile to a target.

I’m doing my part by shutting down bullshit arguments before they gain traction.

Fair enough, each to their own.

I suspect that will be as such, thankfully, Gaijin will pull sources out of their arse when and if it suits them, we (the majority, according to the poll) can only hope.

I am no where near as clued up as some of the people that have argued here, nor do I pretend to be. While I appreciate the sentiment of realism over gameplay, it will be difficult to prove or disprove its realism due to the point made above. With that in mind, I would be in favour of doing what is right for the game in the lack of evidence to support either argument (if it be so).