America.. BAD? (Nuclear thunder)

It’s to my terror that I find it to be that America isnt being hand held through the nuclear thunder event

As someone who has both America and Russian top tier, I am not biased against the aircraft, so don’t take this as you will.

But America needs a buff in this game mode. It’s airframes and missiles are simply just not enough.
I’ll give major examples

F-15; alright airframe, alright missiles (carried by the 9M)
Now… the Russian ''counterpart"
MiG-29; great airframe, perfect missiles, however could use the extra two missiles sometimes

Not satisfied? Another example.

F-4E; clunky, alright speed, terrible energy retention and radar, alright missiles, however can carry both kinds of nukes
MiG-23; can turn when told do (sometimes), alright radar, meh missiles, fucking rocketship, however can only carry lighter nukes, leaving the big ones to the Su-24… (horrible aircraft)

Russia also gets the yak-141, which is a fucking god by itself except for missile count, but I won’t go too much into it
I don’t have much to say about the bombers, I’d believe if they were reskins of eachother.

I just wish this game mode were balanced. (I have 3 marks for the B-52 and Tu-95, I’m not biased or uneducated)

what.

6 Likes

Dude, US gets F14’s, F15’s, F16’s and F18’s. Thats a buff in itself with how good all these planes are.

Only side with fox 3’s,
only side with 4+ radar missiles
what more could you even want?

They should put better planes at the US presets.

1 Like

I think the main issue is that the best USA planes are pay walled Also the Mig-21bis might have been a better counterpart to the F-4E in the lower bracket then the F-4J with the Mig-23MLD at the higher BR.
Other than that the SAM systems force low altitude close rang engagements that favor the Russian planes/missiles a little more.

2 Likes

The default line up is really badly balanced.

Mig-23 holds a number of advantages over the F-4E

and anyone without either tree being grinded is at a notable disadvantage to anyone with it grinded

3 Likes

I could only see this happening if the F-4E only had normal Aim-7Es and Aim-9Js.

Me when I lie on the internet:

The one change I would make is swap out the A-7E for an F-111F with Aim-9Js or a limited number of 9Ls.

1 Like

That would be reasonable and WAAAAAY more balanced that the current setup

Why don’t USA even have the F-111 to compete with the Su-24?

Or even why is it US only, and they could have added the Tornado

unfortunately there is no exact 1 to 1 counterpart between the 2 trees, the F-4E and the bis would at least both have 4 all aspect IR missiles (as the are in the nuke mode currentl) and no lookdown radar, the F-4 has 2 extra radar missiles, but without the lookdown that’s not a massive issue and the bis can trade it’s radar missiles for 2 more R-60Ms.
But the F-4E is a higher BR than the bis, so they could start it with it’s normal loadout and add the AIM-9Ls back later if it struggles.

Biggest issue of USA is it fuel tank. Not enough fuel.

The F-4E is better than the MiG-23 in pretty much every way except for the once in a blue moon the MTI works, and top speed I guess. It gets 9Ls for God’s sake. On top of that the F-4E gets a full air-to-air kit when carrying a nuke while the MLD is restricted to R-60s only…
Like the A-10 and A-7 are pretty buns but the F-4 is by far the best free aircraft.
IMO the F-4E shouldn’t have nukes and instead something like the AGM-45 (as the US ARM carrier are pretty restricted by their subsonic top speed) and the F-111F should have been the US nuke carrier (plus its ordinary conventional ordinance ofc)
But, it’s unlikely that the event will be changed in any significant way

the F15A has way better airframe then the MIG-29

not at all

the Mig 23 radar is infinitely better than the F4Es radar in capabilities at low altitude

and the Mig 23 has much better radar missiles

along with the Mig 23 being both faster at low altitude and having much better dogfight performance than the F4E

also the F4E burns a lot more fuel than the Mig 23 on afterburner so it is much more limited in range

3 Likes

If you are dying to a 9L period then its a skill issue, if you are dying to a 9L with 72 LCMs, then its a massive skill issue.

Aim-7E-2 cant be used 99.99% of the time, Kinda wish I could remove them to save wieght and drag.

So even with the 4+4 weapons fit, most of my kills I from using the gun

1 Like

MTI works quite well in look down mode it functions the same in game as a PD radar the only reason it doesnt work all the time is people multipathing but it can still hit them low the F4E cant it doesnt even have a ground clutter filter unlike the MIG 23 MLD you cant hit multipathing targets from above due to this the MIG 23 MLD can

the R60M and AIM-9L feel pretty even in this mode since they changed seekers for this mode

the MIG 23 MLD literally outperforms the F4E in every FM aspect other than instantaneous
even looking at statshark and flying the MLD in game it can be seen to perform better than the F4E

1 Like

it’s just quirky, you have to be under 1500m and have your nose pointed down for it to engage MTI mode, which is a pain when SAMS are forcing you into a permanent multipath as you cant keep your nose down for long when you are at 50m alt to begin with.

1 Like

If you’re dying to R-60Ms or R-24s of either flavor, that’s a much larger skill issue. The truth is quite simply that the guns are the best option for either aircraft- and the M61 mogs the GSh-23L.

Which is why limiting a standard F-4E to only Aim-7Es would bring it on par with the bis.

And dying to an R-60M is also a skill issue.

And the Mig-23 will never be in a position to look down at the target because of the OP spaa and increased vulnerability to other aircraft.