bro isnt even using the same quotation marks
like if you cant make a argument without having to outsource thinking to an AI, then just dont make any argument
Brother, english is my second language. I gave AI the parameters to write it for me. Big woop. Fact check it if you like.
english isnt my first language either
and i dont need AI to make an argument for me
sure
the first “source” is a reddit post
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1smtova/mcm_missile_combat_missile_is_ruining_the_game/
so is the second “source”
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1rydk9t/rafael_iron_dome_protector_of_the_skies/
and the third “source”
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1pc1awp/a_guide_against_the_rafale_in_the_su30_sm/
and the fourth “source” is a wikipedia article
meanwhile the source stating that the R-77 can be launched against A2A missiles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240525200835/https://vympelmkb.com/about/history/#1994
4 Likes
Fair enough, each to their own I suppose.
So the chief designer on the Vympel claims this. I mean… That’s as good as a source as Wikipedia. Toropov went “Trust me bro, buy my shit!”
Technically the R73 as well as any fox2 could probably be used to intercept a fox3 if it’s engine is hot enough. Would it be a good idea? Probably not!
But let me ask you this:
Why do you think all countries who use land based firing batteries have one truck for just the missiles, one truck for computer power and one truck/generator to plug into the electric grid?
Could it be that for a radar to be effective in tracking bigger targets than a air to air missile requires massive amounts of power?
Now try to cram those systems into a plane that’s already loaded with ECM, MAWS, AESA/PESA radar.
My stand point is that NO, a modern day fighter jet. Even a 5th gen fighter jet with all bells and whistles can’t reliably shoot something as small as a air to air missile out of the sky. I don’t have access to any source material from any defence department/Military/Air force department. Just common sense.
so when are you making a claim backed up by any source?
1 Like
Alright. Let’s start with RCS:
Now I don’t have any source on the RCS of a AIM120 for example. But we do have one for a Tomahawk cruise missile. Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Let’s take the measurements for a tomahawk missile:
https://insights.globalspec.com/article/5402/tomahawk-missiles-everything-you-need-to-know
Length: 20.3 feet; with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Diameter: 21 inches (53.34 centimeters)
Wingspan: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Weight: 3,330 pounds with rocket motor
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Compare to that of a AIM120
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/AMRAAM
Length: 12 feet (3.6576 meters)
Diameter: 7 inches (17.78 cm)
Wingspan: AIM-120A/B, 21 inches; AIM-120C/D, 19 inches
Weight: AIM-120A/B/C/C-4/ 348 pounds; AIM-120C5/6/7, 356 pounds; AIM-120D, 358 pound
Speed: Fast as fook (classified but we can assume at least mach 3)
Now with that said. There’s documented instances of fighter jets shooting down cruise missiles.
Also instances from Ukraine but I leave them out.
Guess how many articles I found claims of a fighter jet OR land based systems intercepting and destroying incoming missile? I found one where Iron dome protected a friendly F16 from a SAM launch.
https://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/operational-intercepts-of-missile-defense-systems/
Further more.
If a counter-AAM shot were a viable tactic, you’d expect to see at least one of these:
- a named training maneuver or doctrine reference to “engaging” an inbound missile with your own missile
- a missile manufacturer marketing an anti-AAM capability (not “can hit maneuvering targets” broadly, but specifically “can intercept an inbound air-to-air missile”)
- any test/range footage, even unclassified, of a missile-vs-missile shot being attempted
None of that exists in the public record, while the evasion/countermeasure doctrine is extremely well documented and universal across every air force. That lack of sources is more telling.
so we are comparing apples to ornages
aka you dont have anything
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I’m comparing a missile we know the RCS to the size/speed of it (All comes into play when you need to get a firing solution) to one that’s comparable smaller, faster and more manoeuvrable.
So really comparing a watermelon to a grape.
IRIS-T is advertised with this capability. This is why sourcing AI for your arguments is trash.
1 Like
See previous post about that
Also
This don’t claim intercepting incoming fox3’s that’s going pitbull on you - just “missiles”
(Source to claim Guided Missiles | Diehl Defence)
Would like to see test data behind this statement
What missiles they tested interception on and their parameters
Intercepting a SA-18 from a Hind is very different to intercepting R-40 or R-27E
The context is pretty clear that it means opponents missiles in an air to air context which would… yes…be active radar missiles in most cases. Unless you want to make the argument that they are talking about cruise missiles when immediately proceeding sentence is about its air to air capabilities.
No, you’re twisting the context to fit your narrative. Cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles. They are all missiles. I point to my previous comment again.
Yes a fox 2 could probably lock onto a Fox 3 since they are guided by a heat source i.e an engine or just the friction of it moving through air (idk speculating)
Now please present a named training maneuver or doctrine reference to “engaging” an inbound missile with your own missile instead of one that recommends deploying chaff and manoeuvring. Also ECM’s.
I actually dont think it should be removed as its definitely a strategy that would work on the higher tier radars , AESA and possibly PESA. However , if its a reliable strategy like we see now , thats unacceptable. Being able to have a CHANCE at MCM with a High G pull Fox-3 might make sense , but being able to use IR as a defence is just completely braindead. I think the proper way to kill this unskilled meta is not by removing it , but by simply making it unviable in ways such as narrowing the conditions for its success, such as long range tracking being near impossible , removing IR locks onto missiles and only allowing for solid or data linked locks to be able to track the threat. In this way , by firing even 2 missiles MCM is unviable for the defender , and they are forced to defend properly or learn the lesson the hard way . I wouldn’t be opposed to it being discarded as a concept though , better it completely gone than what we have right now.
1 Like
Please present a named training manual with a page number and citation that specifies exactly how to use the thrust vectoring on the Su-30SM2?
You won’t find it. So we should remove thrust vectoring because it’s only in marketing brochure?
Or find me any kind of training manual in the employment of the Mica missile with actual data on target range and kill probability.
Sigh
It’s common knowledge to know that the SU30SM2 have 3d Thrust vectoring, as it is that the F-22 have 2D thrust vectoring despite everything about the F-22 Raptor is very very classified.
It’s also common knowledge that you don’t fly straight trying to lock an incoming missile and have a 98% hit rate against those. Why would plane manufactures even bother with implementing stealth, ECM, MAW if they could just simply shot them down? You would see planes with more missiles on them than the F15EX
I see you fighting for your life to have this shitty mechanic in game and I can’t help but feel sorry for you. Thoughts and prayers that you might some day find the skill to avoid these without needing to click a button.
1 Like
Are you sure about this?
I mean, in-game it is 2D
Is it really the same IRL?
It’s more 3d than the F-22 who can only move up and down (Not interpedently of each others nozzles. to my knowledge)
Where’s some Su-30’s can look like googly eyes (so yes, fair enough not full 3d as one would imagine) but it’s still called/named 3d Thrust vectoring.
Or are you asking if I know for a fact that Su30SM2 have thrust vectoring IRL? Cause I don’t, not more than the SU-35S uses the same engine and it have thrust vectoring.
Let’s nevermind that the Su-30 thrust vectoring is 2 dimensional but just canted sideways.
Okay…so show the Su-30 manual that documents how the Russians utilize thrust vectoring and the situations in which it’s useful. Can you find it? How about a manual that specifies launch range and target conditions for R-77-1?
How is it common knowledge though? What manual is it in? The only thing we have reassembling missile employment manuals is going to date from the 1980s to maybe the 1990’s.
Stealth predates the IRIS-T. MAW predates it. ECM predates it. At that time even ballistic missile defense was considered to be something of a pipe dream.
If anyone has the ability to readily shoot down missiles with their missiles right now it’s not information you are going to find in any kind of open source.
No. I don’t like the mechanic at all. But it’s stupid to deliberately misinterpret brochure statements because we find them inconvenient.