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
2 Likes
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).
This is a fair, reasonable position, which I would, in the absence of any data either for or against, agree with.
Yeah but missiles in game are larger than 1m^2 so it’s moot point
There isn’t any documentation that shows modern ARH missiles being easily decoyed by simple piece of chaff and half loop like we can in game.
In other words you don’t have any documentation. Got it.
Do you? Or are we defending what is simply an arcade style mechanic for the sake of saying it’s realistic?
Is there any documentation that even slightly suggests that this would work in real life and with the degree of reliability that it does in WarThunder?
2 Likes
Why don’t real life pilots just vertical notch every missile? Are they stupid?
3 Likes
hahaha, that’s not how it works, little one.
You make a claim. You have the burden of proof.
Nice try though.
Your opinion isn’t a source.