I voted for both
wow this guys sounds absolutely insufferable.
what makes you say this
The iron dome situation has gotten even worse. It’s way more common to see people using it now than when this thread was made :(
4 Likes
especially at BR ≥ 13.0. Especially the Su30MK premiums, they love shooting down missiles, whilst not even attempting to dodge
1 Like
Feels disgusting when you watch the replays and see the guy advancing on everybody without ever going defensive because he can always shoot down missiles that are coming at him with 100% effectiveness.
4 Likes
Nah it’s peak!
What’s even worse is that MCM and missile spamming are incentivized, and the game rewards players for using them.
Currently, there are four ways of defeating Fox-3s:
a) Multipath;
b) Kinematically defeating the missile;
c) Notching;
d) MCM.
Of all these techniques, MCM is by far the most reliable. Here’s my take on the issue.
Multipath
High-altitude launches can counter it. Sometimes, even low-altitude launches can bypass it too (Bug Thunder, I guess).
I’m not a fan of the current implementation of multipath, and I personally think it should be reworked (I don’t believe the current implementation is realistic when modern missiles are taken into consideration).
I’ve seen many situations where both the enemy and I were below the multipath threshold when we launched, yet the missile simply ignored the multipath effect and flew straight at the aircraft instead of tracking the false radar return.
Kinematic Defeat
This is perhaps the most realistic way to defeat a Fox-3 launch (I believe it’s the standard tactic in real life), but you can’t always do it. Sometimes you’re inside the missile’s NEZ, making it impossible to defeat through speed and hard maneuvering alone.
Notching
This is the standard defensive technique in War Thunder. However, it can be quite unreliable at times.
Some aircraft have a very limited chaff count, which makes defending against multiple missiles much harder.
Furthermore, the RWR is not 100% accurate. Sometimes the incoming missile approaches from an awkward angle, causing the RWR to misinterpret its position. It may indicate that you’re in a proper notch when, in reality, you aren’t. If you don’t know exactly where the missile is coming from, you can easily believe you’re at the correct angle while actually remaining vulnerable.
This isn’t necessarily a problem by itself, but I mention it to compare it with MCM and illustrate why the iron dome solution is currently the most effective option in terms of risk/reward.
Finally, Gaijin has already stated that server issues and desync can affect missile performance. It’s possible to be in a perfect notch, deploy chaff correctly, adjust your altitude appropriately, and still get hit by a Fox-3 that simply ignores your defense. Since this is often caused by server issues, there isn’t really a permanent solution (or at least that’s what Gaijin has stated in the past).
MCM
This brings us to the iron dome. At the moment, it’s the most reliable defensive option. You don’t have to hope multipath works, you don’t have to sacrifice your offensive position by defending, and you don’t have to worry about the game randomly ignoring your perfect notch. You simply lock the enemy missile, launch your own, and let it intercept the threat for you.
How does this affect spamming?
Since the best defensive option is to intercept the enemy missile, spamming naturally becomes an effective tactic. The more missiles you launch, the more time your opponent has to spend tracking them and launching interceptors. Eventually, they’ll either miss one or simply run out of time to defend against everything.
Either way, unfortunately, missile spamming becomes a valid strategy (even if it’s boring, unrealistic and unenjoyable). The same can be said about MCM.
Conclusion
The game currently favors and rewards both MCM and missile spamming. Unless your goal is simply to challenge yourself and improve mechanically, employing these tactics is the most effective way to play.
This is especially problematic for newer players who aren’t yet familiar with all the game’s mechanics. Naturally, they’ll gravitate toward the path of least resistance (iron dome and missile spam).
3 Likes
Bro is baiting, rite?
Iron Dome meta is gross and unbalanced.
it is called sarcasm
1 Like
Agreed on all points. As a player, you’re forced to iron dome, and if you don’t, you have to spam missiles. It’s not fun
1 Like
Haha, FeetPics, just causing chaos 😂
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.
3 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
8 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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
