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
Tell me, which requires more skill and is just objectively better from a gameplay standpoint?
A proper joust where neither person shoots the other missiles down or the “hurr durr hurr who can press launch missile more often?” Iron dome playstyle?
7 Likes
“The absence of proof is not proof of the absence” is a very dangerous logic you most definetely do not want to get into.
Nontheless, my stance is basically that realistic or not, this mechanic should be either removed completely or hampered to such extreme to the point its removed in practicality. It does nothing but harming the already trembling state of the game both in short and long term, rendering future additions such as 5th gen fighters completely useless. Imagine an F-22 with only 6 or 8 missiles, going up against a su-30sm2, or F-15C GE with 12 or 14.
2 Likes
What would you prefer the F22 to be untouchable bar to the most advanced planes like the Typhoons and rafales.
This is not a matter of invulnerability, but rather the usefulness of future additions to the game.
My example can be applied even to some vehicles currently in game like the F-16 PoBIT. It already suffers heavily because its capabilities are clearly not good enough to compete against the other vehicles at similar BRs. Now add the fact it only has 6 missiles, what is it supposed to do if someone shoots them all down?
2 Likes
I would like a meta that actually rewards positioning & tactics that goes beyond “lol just shoot down all a whole salvo of missiles” or “shoot a whole salvo of missiles at a single target”.
But hey…if you want to kill a game mode that you do not play because of some off case about potential plane in the future…be my guest…
15 Likes
Yeah no, screw “skill”
Why do we need that?
Just let us shoot down all missiles because it’s easier
Things being easier definitely are always good for the game
Why should we try to get skilled at a game?
That’s boring and lame
Spoiler
/s
10 Likes
1 i do occasionally play sim.
2 I do not want to see this ridiculous missile spam continued in any game mode, be it sim or RB.
3 some off case plane which A i never brought up and B will absolutely dominate, expecially sim, is not the answer to the current issue.
I never said that at all.
I’m merely stating your response about the F22 seems as if you want it to he untouchable especially in relation to sim.
F22 when added will absolutely dominate sim, only being displaced again by the very top end of upgraded systems like the latests typhoons or Rafales.
That’s my point.
Nothing more, nothing less.