What the hell, Gaijin?! Bring Pantsir/Phalanx, S-300 and PARIOT to the main Airfields!

@Smin1080p @Stona_WT

Seriously guys? I cant even come back to rearm and repair. Just outspammed with missiles from complete safezone above AF. What’s the point then?
Curret Airfields AI defense in Air RB is a joke. Cant shot down anything besides straight flying bots.
Anyone with a >0 brain cells can easy avoid it and kill landed players. It was a problem long before and you add SAMs on AF and it still was a problem. Now in case of new missile it become a heaven for spawn campers.
Where the hell modern AA?
Add Pantsir and Phalanx as CIWS and S-300 and PATRIOT for long-to-medium range defense for red and blue team respectively. It should 100% 1-way trip if you entering at least 10km zone around AF (IMHO even 15) And even if you dodge the SAM, CIWS shouldnt allow you to circle AF for entire game unharmed.






I don’t mind this, as long as ECM jamming and SEAD is a feature before hand.


Also should be in-game long time ago. But it’s Gaijin…


Actually not a troll post!
Im in full support.
This is the correct way to introduce long ramge air defence into the game and imo DCS gives jets this option so we should have it too but better


The game is not ready for PATRIOT or S-300/400. Those are very sophisticated systems and we don’t even radar jammers in game yet. Plus their ranges are much higher than a measley 15km…

Once they add countermeaures against those systems (ECM pods) and weapons to counter them (ARMs) then maybe that could be a cool implmentation.

👉 “The game is not ready for jets!”
👉 “The game is not ready for gen2 jets!”
👉 “The game is not ready for FOX-1!”
👉 “The game is not ready for gen3 jets!”
👉 “The game is not ready for FOX-2!”
👉 “The game is not ready for gen4 jets!”
👉 “The game is not ready for FOX-3!”
👉 “The game is not ready for PATRIOT or S-300/400.”
✋ — You are here —


What’s the problem to limit their engagement ranges in purpose of gameplay? I’m not asking to cover half of the map, just an airfield.


This game has radar guided munitions and no jamming equipment. In certain ways Warthunder wasn’t/isn’t ready for Fox-1s and Fox-3s. If they existed, multipathing wouldn’t have needed to be so strong to allow a meta like short range IR missiles to exist so strongly.

Because then people expect them to stay the way they get imemented, and people also expect vehicles that are implemented to hold a majority of their characteristics. That is why the XM-975 doesn’t have the same range as the Pantsir, because those changes don’t fit Warthunder.

Just put Pantsirs and make competent AI that could make decent kills, or any other SACLOS system that way the airfields aren’t invincible bubbles of safety like the airfields in prop tiers.

1 Like

You talking about player driven vehicles. I’m talking about AI.
Dont you confuses by AA in Air sim? Which kills any incoming plane with no chance at about 2-3k meters from any direciont. While Air RB AA sometimes not even shoot to a target circling AF.

S-300 and PATRIOT anyway barely be playable, so some “unrealistic” limitation wont hurt anyone.

1 Like

You can just put them further back to cover the air fields and a few kilometers ahead of them instead of half of the map bruh

1 Like

Pick better times to rearm and repair, you shouldn’t be entitled to a safe space enforced by AI in a PvP game.


PATRIOT seems to have an unclassified range of over 70km. If it is 25km away from the airfield it wouldn’t do much good because you could just fly low with the terrain to avoid detection and it would be useless. Asset defense with those systems means being close to the asset to ensure defenseability. The ranges and features of those systems make them much to powerful for aircraft with countermeasures let alone aircraft without them. They could simply put current SACLOS systems on the airfields and make the AI actually be able to hit something instead of the trash platforms currently there.

I think that’s an opinion.
Because obviously other game developers don’t agree.
Eagle dynamics gives players that safe space

Multi path can be addressed by giving ground radars much more resistance to multipath (as they do irl) as well as efficient radar systems.
Detection is a map design flaw. Not a radar flaw.

A safe space would be good, but only if that safe space can be destroyed, not some invisible force field. Just some two cents.

Why do you need to be able to destroy the safe space?
Just for the record im not against that but only if they add HARMs etc.
We have other objectives such as ground targets, which by the way is a neglected but crucial aspect of winning air battles (we need more tickets though)

Because safe spaces are stupid and can be abused.

You can actually destroy AA on airfield.

1 Like

And spaces which called “safe” but not actually safe can be abused by other side.

Well i would argue that it is realistic. Aircraft always have a fall back option irl if theyre outside the NEZ and MAR so they should have such an option in game.
I’m not really a fan of cowardice but hey some people wanna play tactically.

1 Like