when can we see realistic airfield defense (multi vehicle SAM systems for airfields)
1 Like
Airfield anti-air defense systems present a compelling opportunity for enhanced realism in the near future, should Gaijin pursue this direction. Implementing a more realistic approach to airfield defense in Air RB and Air SB would allow major nations to deploy their most advanced anti-air capabilities.
In Simulator Battles, defensive systems could be determined by team composition. For instance, teams with Russia as their primary nation could benefit from Buk M3 coverage at airfields, while teams aligned with America or Germany could utilize NASAMS or IRIS-T SLM systems. This framework would incorporate not only long-range air defense systems but also medium- to short-range platforms such as the IRIS-T SLS, 2S6 Tunguska, M163 Machbet, and others.
With Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) scheduled for implementation in the near future, players would have viable countermeasures against these defensive systems, creating a more dynamic and balanced gameplay environment.
ARM is suppose to be coming within the next 3 to 6 months. My personal hope is that with the introduction of ARM we’ll see SEAD gameplay being added. Such as SAMs and Radar sites scattered about the map. Though until we get bigger maps I personally think the the ITOs are long ranged enough even for top tier. BUK or IRIS-T SLMs, etc would cover half the map, that would be kinda boring gameplay
That’s why longer range maps are a must if this game is to expand any further gameplay wise bigger maps equals more space and opportunity to add different things (strategic bombing sites, enemy radar sites, enemy bunkers and fortified positions etc).
1 Like
Yep, but alas, it appears Gaijin has 0 interest in doing that (Falklands map is scale down to about 1:2 ratio, what we have in-game should easily be 250x250 ish km map)
Im just hoping they use the deepstrike objective we saw recently in ASB, that alone would be an interesting addition (if added right)
The ITOs already have too long of range, and regularly make nearby convoys untouchable. A lot would have to change first before more realistic/modern SAMs can be placed on the airfields.
The combat range of most medium and long-range anti-aircraft weapons is too large for the current game maps. A 12KM range SAM is already a bit compact for a 64KMX64KM map. A 128KMX128KM map can effectively operate a SAM with a range of 12KM, or barely operate a SAM with a range of 20KM. However, for SAM with a range exceeding 40KM, we need a map of 256KMX256KM. What is actually important is to expand the map size. For rank7, rank8 and the upcoming rank9, a map of 64KMX64KM is too small for the vast majority of aircraft to accept, and a map of 128KMX128KM is also too small to accommodate the combat of rank8 aircraft. Only by expanding the map to 256KMX256KM can there be sufficient space to deploy larger air defense systems, providing a large enough area for combat while safeguarding the security of the area near the airport.
Not really just don’t chase people to the airfield,
Still just guns use missiles out of their range or don’t get close and maneuver.
It’s not about chasing people to the airfield, it’s abt destroying ground ai targets at and around the airfield. GBU-39 is literally the only weapon I have that can touch the AF.
Trying to strafe a convoy is a death sentence, and they’re often too close to airfields to launch Mavericks without getting in airfield range.
Modern maverick’s (Delta and above) have a range over 20km the firing range of the ito is 12km giving you a pretty large window to launch maverick’s without being shot at by the ito’s
1 Like
There are plenty of objectives close to AFs that create an overlap. Many objectives could do with being repositioned in light of the new SAMs. Heck, there is an argument to be made they were always in a kinda stupid locations, like the Bases located between 4 AFs on Denmark in the top left of the map.
Great? What if you dont have any?
at 10.7, it is entirely possible to be in a ground attacker without FnF weapons to use against convoy SPAA and if the convoy is also close to the SAMs, then you might not even be in range to use FNF even if you had them. Let alone how buggy the convoys can be at times with traveling underground
2 Likes
This is Sinai 128x128 and the circular zones are different Sam systems we have in game (red is buk blue is nasams) from this example I really don’t understand your argument of Sam’s with 40km or more range will be hard to implement in 128x128 maps
(Credit from @NOOB-SAMURI )
1 Like
If you’re flying an A-10, and especially if you’re limited by clouds, their range is quite short. They more drag than irl but Gajin ignores bug reports.
ITOs start to fire around 6-7 miles out, and 8-9 miles seems to be the maximum launch distance for GBU-39. Ive tried launching AGM-65 at airfields from 8 miles out but they simply fell short.
1 Like
That is absolutely absurd. Two thirds of the map should not be covered by SAM.
1 Like
Thats where anti radiation missiles come in you want more space on the map that isn’t occupied by sam’s simply destroy them
there is a reason the A10 doesn’t do sead in real life and operates under complete aerial superiority
SAMs respawn rather quickly, which is useful for grinding with GBU-39, but not useful when they take of two thirds of the map.
That is a fair point, however Warthunder’s gameplay isn’t meant to resemble real life.
Slopmark mentioned
Have this person here ever played and learnt how people move on the map?
Never ideally, they really shouldn’t have anything other than gun SPAA for defense in air RB.
Little 🐱’s running back to airfields when they’re the last on their team to use it as a tool is already ridiculous enough; being able to be shot down from spawn essentially is absolutely ludicrous.