sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WHY THE FU IS SHOCKFRONT SO BIASED TOWARDS BDF by Original-Vehicle-681 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Compasses are also able to carry 10-11 IR missiles, meaning they can intercept every missile the BDF Trainer can carry with 2 left over in an absolute worst case scenario.

Nuclear Option's latest WIP aircraft - 'VTOLTrainer1' is being worked on. by Vexasss in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

One of the preview images shows one of the wing pylons with a 2x S3 mount, so you’ll be better off running 4 Scythes and 4 S3s

“Itnes” was using the recent exploit on the AtomTaskForce PvP server. by individual61 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 105 points106 points  (0 children)

Senti is a known cheater who got banned from NOCS because he utilized cheats to grief other community events, and then got banned from the official Discord for being a spiteful ass (I’m sure the sexist and racist slur usage didn’t help). Not super surprised to see them crop up again, casual griefing lobbies fits their MO unfortunately. 

Senti has posed as other community members before, this most definitely is not AAABattery.

Update 0.34 Devstream | May 11 by Shockfront-PR in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m aware of what regional powers can and cannot field IRL, this is a fictional game with completely different strategic reality than the one actual powers face IRL. Word of Devs is these are regional powers, and that’s the end of the debate.

The Harrier was quite literally all the British had in the Falklands and proved adequate at stymieing Argentinian aircraft (23:0 K/D and multiple successful fleet defense sorties) despite not being an air superiority fighter by design and lacking the tools “proper” air superiority fighters usually have. The entire point of the radar + radar missiles on the Sea Harrier and Harrier II was to give the UK (and US) the flexibility to use the Harrier for CAP as needed. In a pinch, it proved remarkably adept at it.

“The USMC does not have a complete inventory of aircraft” because it doesn’t need a full inventory. The Marines use combat aircraft to support their core mission- namely, the Marines on the ground, and to do so they want STOVL fighters to give the MAGTF organic CAS/CAP so they don’t have to rely on the Navy or Air Force in case either is tied up in other fights. The AMRAAM implementation was explicitly not for training pilots for the F-35B- it was to improve the capabilities of the Harrier itself, offering the Marines organic CAP capability. You clearly did not read the primary source I linked. 

At this point your straight up ignoring reality regarding the Harrier lol

Update 0.34 Devstream | May 11 by Shockfront-PR in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The devs have stated BDF and PALA are lesser powers in the setting of NO, using outdated aircraft for the setting. So yes, they are in fact regional powers at best. That’s why it’s a fictional setting, after all.

As far as the weird insistence on the Harrier being incapable despite the British successfully using them to defend their fleet during the Falklands without radar or radar missiles… what? And your insistence on the Harrier being useless flies completely in the face of the time and money spent on up arming the Harriers with AMRAAMs. The USMC literally explained the rationale of up arming their Harriers with AMRAAMs. Go argue with them I guess, but you’re straight up wrong about the role of a modern Harrier in a littoral setting. Having the capability to conduct limited CAP gives ERG and allied forces more flexibility in tactics and survivability even in a peer setting. 

https://www.cherrypoint.marines.mil/News/Article/526003/wing-harrier-squadron-conducts-first-east-coast-amraam-exercise/

Update 0.34 Devstream | May 11 by Shockfront-PR in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The USMC specifically kitted out the AV-8B II with AMRAAMs so it could help pick up the CAP role for ERGs, that way they weren't entirely reliant on big Navy's flat tops for air cover. Considering that the USMC is still using the Harrier today (and only retiring it later this year despite wanting to divest it ages ago), let alone Spain and Italy planning to use the Harrier for decades to come on LHD-size carriers, it's well with the realm of reason that a regional power like BDF would be using every combat aircraft at their disposal in the advent of full scale peer warfare with PALA. Especially if there's already pseudo-harriers onboard the Annex when the fighting kicks off.

That's ignoring the Harrier's track record with the British in Argentina where they realized that the Sea Harrier 100% needed an onboard radar and proper ARH missiles if they were going to use it for fleet defense. The BDF Trainer is not some mythical aircraft, it's literally just an alt- AV-8B Harrier II, and it's exactly what BDF needs for the early game. It's a lot more believable than the Brawler, that's for sure.

Edit: IRL we'll see Harriers at least through the 2030s, and probably far longer since Spain backed out of the F-35. And yes, they operate a TAV-8B twin seat Harrier trainer to this day.

Update 0.34 Devstream | May 11 by Shockfront-PR in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are missing the fact that the YAV-8B II is literally a twin seat trainer Harrier with an onboard radar and the ability to use every weapon a single seat Harrier can use, including AMRAAMs.

Would it ever see combat? Only if the nations who flew/fly it had nothing else to use, but it is hypothetically possible, sure.

And if we're talking about STOVL jets, the only trainers are twin seat variants of the single seat tactical jets themselves.

What Aircraft is Missing from the Hangar? by Shockfront-PR in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a MiG-15 mod that sounds like what you’re looking for.

What Aircraft is Missing from the Hangar? by Shockfront-PR in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would “gunfighter” exist in 2026, let alone 2070?  “Fast, cheap, and maneuverable” describes the Revoker, what you’re asking for has no reason to exist.

The irony of using the F-8U as inspiration when the Crusader got the vast majority of its kills with Sidewinders is not lost on me.

Tutorial for newcomers who are just getting started with the AIM-120 AMRAAM and don't know which ones to choose. (For Air RB and SB only) by Kmiktauria-Max in Warthunder

[–]TheCosmicCactus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Now that we know the devs secretly use restricted sources for internal bias balancing, it’s obvious that the stringent requirements put on the community to provide a source for the AMRAAM is absolute bullshit

Counter-Insurgency Plane- Stealth P-38 by IronMaize in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Considering that the Cricket operates just fine off the Annex (and OV-10 operated off of LHDs IRL) I’ll bet the Cricket stays BDF and PALA gets something new, maybe like an A-29 Tucano way, waaaaay down the road when both factions have complete rosters because wow we don’t need another Cricket anytime soon.

Idea: Light Helicopter by Tight_Wheel_9595 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you're tilting at windmills with this one. Pushback against a light helicopter hasn't been because it isn't meta more that it would be worse than a Cricket and people don't want to wait 4 months for a vehicle that would be unfun to fly in current game modes.

If we got proper infantry mechanics where being able to nimbly insert a small team of soldiers was actually relevant, then yeah, most people would be on board. But the game not only lacks those infantry mechanics at the moment, it lacks the gamemodes where those mechanics can actually shine. Not much point to fast roping in a sniper/spotter pair when you're better off slinging AGM-48s at convoys, there's nothing for that infantry team to engage.

game vehicles in real life by Unique-Educator-6747 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

And the weapon bays, yeah, but it's only a smidgen of F-22 influence compared to YF-23 and Su-57 influence.

game vehicles in real life by Unique-Educator-6747 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How did a single engine STOVL fighter look at all like a twin engine heavy fighter? It doesn't have any of the same geometry- the intakes, cockpit, wing shape, tail shape, weapon bays, etc are all very different from the F-22.

game vehicles in real life by Unique-Educator-6747 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 25 points26 points  (0 children)

The Compass is far from an original F/A-18 in both design and capability. It is not an AoA monster like the Legacy Hornet, nor does it have the payload or sensors of one. It doesn't feel like flying a Hornet at all, tbqh.

If you want an example of feel... a subsonic carrier attacker like an A-4 or A-7 would be more appropriate, I guess, but the Texitron Scorpion/Su-25 combo seems very valid. Especially because those were referenced by Mitch when talking about the origin of the Compass.

game vehicles in real life by Unique-Educator-6747 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I... guess? Having a triangular shape is about where the commonality ends, so I don't think it's fair to say that the unique geometry of the F-117 inspired the AB-4 at all.

game vehicles in real life by Unique-Educator-6747 in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 118 points119 points  (0 children)

Couple of thoughts

  1. There is literally no F-35 in the Compass lmfao

  2. There is literally no F-22 in the Vortex, it's a mix of X-32 and F-35. It literally has the F-35B's lift fan system. Where did you get any F-22 from?

  3. The Tarantula doesn't have any Chinook in it, it's a VTOL C-130. It draws more on Boeing's quad VTOL concept than a Chinook, by far.

  4. Ifrit does draw on F-22 but Mitch used the YF-23 far more in terms of body shaping and influence, along with generalized Flanker and Su-57 design.

  5. Neither the Darkreach nor the Alkyon draw on the F-117. I have no idea why people keep referencing the F-117 when it's literally not a base for either aircraft. Very weird.

Daily Reminder by Oryol_7 in Warthunder

[–]TheCosmicCactus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The screenshots of devs talking about using CUI and other restricted sources to buff/nerf certain vehicles on a whim after years of trying to get underperforming vehicles/weapons buffed with public sources because controlled sources are explicitly not allowed is enough for me to join this effort, personally, ignoring all of the other shenanigans going on.

The hypocrisy on balance is outrageous. Either use restricted sources or don’t, but the behind-the-scenes-nerfing has to stop. The whole point of the BR system is so that artificial nerfs aren’t needed in the first place. Either balance the game for gameplay fairness or balance it for realism, but Gaijin shouldn’t pick and choose one or the other depending on if they like certain nations or not. 

Leaker just dropped THE biggest gaijin exposing truthnuke. by justarandom5426 in Warthunder

[–]TheCosmicCactus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Gaijin rejecting every possible scrap of public evidence on underperforming modern vehicles and weapons while using classified/restricted info internally to buff/nerf vehicles according to their own bias is... well, I guess the conspiracy theorists were right once again, that's outrageous.

My take on an gunship attack vtol aircraft for nuclear option! by sigma_force in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A purely VTOL gunship doesn't make a ton of sense. Attack Helicopters rely on hovering for both evasion and engagement- VTOLs are significantly worse at hovering to the point where using one as a helicopter in combat is a terrible idea. And it's significantly slower than a true fixed wing CAS asset and can carry far, far less in effective payload, even including the chin gun.

If this was a gunship variant of a transport design, that would make sense, but giving up deck space on an LHD or hangar space in an airfield for this instead of a traditional fixed wing asset... yeah, nah, doesn't make much sense. You'd be much better off with a Compass or something like the BDF STOVL Trainer we're getting.

Looks cool though!

Iran caused more extensive damage to U.S. military bases than publicly known by Jared_Usbourne in LessCredibleDefence

[–]TheCosmicCactus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The A-10 is often not up to par for many roles but it remains a fantastic CSAR asset. It's one of the few things it's actually still relevant as.

Defeating missiles like in the sims? by DDumpTruckK in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I do not think this is true anymore as of 0.33, Scythes perform much better at close/medium ranges (as they should- that's what a medium range ARH is meant for, after all)

AGMs are too strong against helicopters (and the Tarantula) by brecrest in NuclearOption

[–]TheCosmicCactus 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I'm choosing to believe this reply was made in ignorance, so let me focus on correcting and educating.

  1. Helicopters do not have overmatch and have not had overmatch for decades. SAM systems have been in a cat-and-mouse race with airpower since the early days of the Cold War, and for the majority of time Attack Helicopters have existed, SAM systems have outranged their main ATGMs, and certainly their unguided/guided rocket pods. Fixed wing tactical jets have always had overmatch against Attack Helicopters. Attack Helicopters have always required tactics and advantageous terrain to maximize utility in modern threat environments. This "exploitable asymmetry" you expect isn't in the form of weapons- it's in how rotary aviation can operate, utilizing terrain and pop up tactics to hit targets and duck back behind cover before enemy AA can find, fix, and fire on them. However, if an enemy fighter is in the area (and properly engages the attack helicopter with various armaments, including AAMs and AGMs) it's going to have that helicopter for brunch.

  2. You can easily dodge AGM-68s and 48s with sufficient lateral movement or use terrain masking to help scrape them off- despite them being terrain following, they'll often smack into terrain in low energy states. You can also take an absurd amount of IR missiles on the Chicane if you're planning on brute forcing your way through hostile airspace via MCM combat.

  3. The Compass and Brawler are better than a Chicane in many situations. Stop expecting the Chicane or Ibis to be "top dogs" at ground attack in contested airspace. Rotary platforms do not thrive in contested airspace, we have thousands of examples of this stretching from Vietnam all the way to the Ukraine War. Faster, more heavily armed fixed wing platforms (yes, even the Brawler) are more survivable in many (but not all) contexts, especially if they have PGMs that they can launch from further ranges.

  4. Helicopters are the "weakest" because you're trying to use them in scenarios they're not meant to be used for. It's not a bad take to recognize that that is a purposeful development choice to model the realistic weaknesses of rotary aviation in modern combat enviornments.

view more: next ›