AARGM-ER is currently only integrated on F/A-18E and F
Gripen isnt even listed as a potential user
1 Like
Gripen never lucky :(
Its potentially planned intergration.
Which might be enough, given that the Gripen E I dont think has any ARM at the moment?
When coupled with SAABs standard policy of weapons on the Gripen E. It would make sense for it to be able to use AARGM
1 Like
yeah no ARMs at the moment so if you want ARMs in the swedish tech tree currently you gotta research the F18 MLU2
1 Like
And spawning from rear bases, sideclimb a bit, launch HARMs when you’re over second line of SAMs is exactly mentioned ±100km distance from EWRs.
Upcoming change of replacing Buks with S300, with SARH guidance might allow the same long range saturation strikes, as SARH guidance should remove ability to engage multiple targets. Which in turn, makes playing Wild Weasel viable, by being bait.
1 Like
this is nonsense, it is talking about finland’s purchase of AARGM-ER, which is for its F-35’s which are actively getting integrated with AARGM-ER.
it just says Sweden wants an ARM but hasnt decided on it, and that article is over 2 years old and I havent heard anything new about that
1 Like
You jokin? It shoots at far blues AF right after takeoff, while SAMP/SPYDER not shoots even over it’s side of the map
No buk problem was the active guidance and loft slaughyering people low flying.
Long range A should at least try and contest high altitude domain while SACLOS sams stop low flyers from crossing the frontline.
SPYDER and SAMP also have active guidance but somehow reds not suffering from it.
Becouse the BUK has a much bigger warhead, and loft much more coupled with 40km ARH lock range.
Buk is much better at killing low flyer than SAMPT.
Spyder only defend airfields do not spam missles on the frontline
So? I repeat - buks start shooting when i takeoff from far spawm. SAMP/SPYDER not shoot when i flying over it.
Seems you finally got it.
And Asters go up as soon as redfor takes off from frontline airfields too, just don’t have noisy 40km ARH seeker to announce themselves, nor redfor has any reason to close the distance to fire their Kh31.
3 Likes
faster buk with no launch warning and bigger warhead
The BUK is practically unkillable using the 4-6 HARMs the USA has, having semi-active guidance nerfs their ability to engage multiple missiles at the same time, multiple planes, and hinders it’s ability to fire at you over terrain. I don’t know how you can say the guidance isn’t the issue.
2 Likes
I am normally against copy-pastas but it would seem you are trying to re-invent the wheel here.
Wouldn’t it make sense to almost copy the dynamics of the ‘Escalation’ mode of nuclear option? It isn’t perfect, sure, but i do believe it deals quite well with the issues you are trying to fix in nuclear thunder mode.
This is not considering any balancing, because it is already good enough(or very close to being). But instead just looking at the whole mode and how it plays. So that said, some things that probably have been mentioned already-
- The map isn’t great. It’s way too flat.
AA systems see you almost immediately after take-off, so your sorties look all the same- sticking to the ground like glue. - AA systems are way too aggressive.
As i said, you get rwr pings just about after taking off from your airfield. This just doesn’t feel good, to be paranoid constantly. Even when you just fly around your own airfield (defending it) you get missiles shot at you. Because of this flying high is completely out of the question. People like freedom, and this makes it very constricting. An idea- to have basically a front line(like in air sim maps) where enemy anti air wouldn’t shoot at you unless you cross it(or intercept your missiles if they get across). - AA systems are too effective at countering munitions.
Once again, people like freedom. And the freedom is being shot down one after another. With sometimes even your entire load-out being intercepted. Realistic or not, it doesn’t feel good. Not saying any specific vehicle is too powerful, but instead their ‘operators’ are.
So i’m not exactly sure why you find balancing to be something that needs to be looked at right now. In my eyes its quite far down the list of things to fix. When both, red and blue sides suffer from same things, i’d say problem is elsewhere, no?
3 Likes
Why does this exist? Why is this still even a thing? Everything else is a mishmash, so why have “red and blue?” It’s so dubious.
1 Like
The point is so there is some ups and downs for both sides but there both close enough.
One thing I like about the game mode is if you got a 300% rp booster you can use it to the max. Helps with the Japanese sub tree su30 which has a frustrating grind. But I can go sink some poor ships.
1 Like
I know this won’t get answered but not every nation has 1960 or 70s era vehicles that realistically have a purpose for Nuclear Escalation are more vehicles planned for those nations like Sweden or Germany?
Should we further make this mode closer to ‘Enduring Confrontation’ and break down the conflict levels?
For example:
a. Make helicopters, trainer aircraft, and light tactical planes like the IA58 and OV10 active in combat during the early stages of the match.
b. Allow transport planes or helicopters capable of carrying ground vehicles to interact with airborne vehicles and deployable defense systems, integrating more organically with the airport capture mechanics.
c. Easier PVE air-to-ground combat, making this mode more comfortable for players—if possible, we might even transition the main air combat modes of the whole game to these more dynamic campaign-like experiences?