As is the case with every other ARH missile in the game.
EmbArassing*.
No, the mechanics are not very different. Kinematics have nothing to do with guidance. And all seekers are the same besides the MICA.
This is an anti aircraft missile shot from a ship though. Not even an anti A2A missile (which does not exist btw and only a concept according to the only provocateur around). Also, shooting a missile from a ground/sea base unit is very different from shooting from an aircraft as the fox1/3 missiles (what we talk here) is dependent on the source radar.
The physics are the same bro. ASTER requires initial DL updates from the launcher radar until pitbull.
What is harder? Managing position and geometry and keeping missiles in notch window? Or use target cursor on missile and clicking launch missile button?
impossible question to answer
That would be situational. It is harder to shoot down munitions from close range sub 10km coming out of a notch from a defensive position and takes more skill than pressing offensive advantage for example.
why bother notching?
Just shoot down the missiles anyways
That’s exactly what I described in the scenario.
sorry im not really seeing the point you’re making? Im saying its opinions… you’re agreeing its opinions. So agree to agree? sick.
I really don’t think its a far cry to make the argument that shooting down missiles requires less skill then defending using positioning and return fire. If this is a more difficult task for you then I could see it being subjective, obviously skill-sets resonate more with others. Some find BFM easy, some dont. Some find BVR easy, some dont. I am sorry that stating MCM takes less skill then other playstyles.
Thats a perfectly fine point of view. Thankfully you’re entitled to opinions.
maybe might i suggest something? instead of just playing devils advocate 24/7, maybe try and find a common thread? maybe present your point of view? maybe suggest why “the lens of radar resolution from the launching aircraft being able to detect them and the track reliability over time” might be a valid reason based in fact that we as a community could use when discussing this?
thats %100 subjective. plenty of times ive seen someone throw it in ACM and shoot something down sub 4km.
Sadly its not something i have one concise source on, the values i’ve stated for them are just ones i’ve often seen thrown around; occasionally by manufacturer brohures or such.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate, I just point out logic flaws where I see them. Doesn’t mean I support the iron dome gameplay.
But like I said, the current arguments that have been presented so far are mostly opinions that aren’t based in physics or realism regarding capabilities, which is what I personally care about.
Correct, hence why I stated it’s situational. There’s no clear cut definition for which is more skilled as it depends on situation.
I myself have accidentally done so in ACM mode a few times, which actually was not the intent because I wanted to return fire… but that’s beside the point.
cool story bro
Mäh, I was just getting excited. Submission has never been my thing. Try again :)
So you see the USA struggle with the economics of shooting down actual ballistic missiles and drones with patriot systems, and you think there’s a country that can afford making air to air missiles dedicated to shooting down other air to air missiles? Keep in mind that the cost of AAM’s was only ever justified if it brought down higher value targets like enemy jets, not other missiles with equivalent or less cost.
As for ground/sea based unit vs aircraft radar, there was a time where there was a big difference between the technology available for ground systems vs what was feasible for airborne systems, but that time was gone ever since microchips and computers with nanoscale transistors became common place; modern airborne systems can even link up together to share information. Now the main advantage of ground systems is sheer size and power, which effectively only changes how far you can detect targets of a given size.
again, maybe present “the lens of radar resolution from the launching aircraft being able to detect them and the track reliability over time” as a topic of discussion along with your contraries. This way we can have a discussion about fixes or realistic systems to look at to help this abysmal meta that we all dislike. If we all argue amongst ourselves then there wont be much if any progress.
So what might this be? I am unfamiliar with this. How might it make this meta not realistic?
Because 1v1, flying in a straight line cycling to enemy missiles and shooting them down is SO skillful compared to having to launch on the enemy, notch, counterattack, etc etc.
Situational my ass.
4 Likes
Why would you be in a notch if you are going to shoot down the missiles? The whole point of the tactic and the way it is used is to completely negate any need for notching or any kind of defensive maneuvers.
7 Likes
I have an honest question. If we are talking realism is it possible to base our opinions on reality?
There have been several military conflicts in recent times, and some aircraft have been shot down by missiles (both air to air and ground launched missiles). There is even some footage from these events.
By analyzing that footage, is it possible to infer what the pilot was doing to defend against the missile? Were they trying to evade while deploying countermeasures, or were they attempting to intercept incoming missiles by employing their own offensive systems?
I believe this can help us identify what is realistic in this case. If missile interception is not only thoeritically possible but also reliable, surely there has to be some footage or evidence of this tactic being employed.