Thread 63919195

The EW-25 Medusa makes a lot of sense for the 21st century battlefield.

fucking gaymes designers

>big laser to shoot down missiles and drones
>big radar to detect them
>anti-radiation missiles and jammers to suppress what guides them
>small and manueverable enough to provide cover for other aircraft or defend itself
Situational awareness is everything, and this is built around maximizing your own while diminishing your enemies

Imagine if it had a weapons officer

>>63919195 (OP)
Looks cool.

>>63919222
So it's got buffs and debuffs? Seems like a solid choice to have in your party.

>>63919195 (OP)
The EW-25 Medusa's aerodynamics are best described as PS1 era

>>63919900
Well so are the Raptor's (manufacture started in 1996). What's your point? Also have this thing. Definitely based partly off of it.

>>63919840
It couuld have a crew of 4, maybe?

>>63919195 (OP)
Why the fuck is it VTOL?

>>63920659
Weirdest thing about this kitbash plane. It doesn't even have a 0.9 TWR when equipped with any kind of mission-capable fuel and weapon load. It really just helps for short fields and carriers, it can't really VTOL, only STOL.

>>63920659
Carrier capability

>>63919840
It would if the game could handle that.

>>63919865
Bard equivalent of a plane, kinda looks like one too.

>>63919865
>>63920752
Wouldn't this be a Mage / Wizard?

>>63920766
On one hand it does have a wizard hat, but on the other it's very flamboyant in its design and functions mostly as a support asset. I'm still going with bard.

>>63920752
Can you play music over enemy comms?

>>63920782
I'm sure that's part of the EW package.

>>63920809
I think I have an idea what to jam their comms with!

>>63919195 (OP)
Is it meant to be stealth? If so, the big ass saucer on top will surely help with radar signatures. It would be better to have a longer ranged, non-stealth aircraft.

An E-3 Viking (stretched somewhat for 6 crew and a large 'rotodome' radar) would prolly be the best choice, and would be well served with fighter and EW support from F-14/18's and EA-6B's. This is assuming it would be in service in tandem with said aircraft. While the E-2 Hawkeye is good for the role, it could definitely be better, and falls to the same fate as the AR-18 when submitted to replace the AR-15 series of rifles (not enough improvement to warrant retooling and replacement).

>>63920662
>It really just helps for short fields and carriers,

I mean, in game it's designed as a carrier capable AWACS and support aircraft. So yeah that's about right.

>>63921170
>Is it meant to be stealth? If so, the big ass saucer on top will surely help with radar signatures. It would be better to have a longer ranged, non-stealth aircraft

I'd agree, but the game takes place in 2070 or 2080 or some shit, it makes sense that it'd have LO features. Also the radome can be removed in game if you just wanna go SAM hunting.

>>63920662
>when equipped
So it's STOVL?

>>63921170
S-3 Viking, my beloved.
>>63921595
>that it'd have LO features
It's not LO at all though. Like, it's comically bad.

>>63919195 (OP)
If it could carry twin HARMs on the outboard pylons yeah

>>63922175
It can carry up to 6 I believe

>>63919195 (OP)
This shit has to be absolutely terrible for RCS.

Realistic or not, I do like how this game don't just copypaste IRL plane and take the risk of making his own stuff.
I'd love a gameplay for bigger aircraft but I see little that would fit, or only as NPC.
The EW-25 already hit pretty much every gameplay related to EW. There wouldn't be a place left for something like a maritime patrol aircraft.
And the Tarentula cargo-helicopter already take the role for most transport unit.

Even if the game added anti-submarine warfare, it would easily be done by the Tarentula or one of the other plane.

>>63923831
>that takeoff
Guess ramps are useful?

>>63923837
The ramp is on the other side

>>63919195 (OP)
Why don't we just fit AWACS on the BUFF at this point? We have a million of them, and they're already Swiss army knives, and they already got the kind of shit they can use an AWACS for. Give it the rotary mag, some AIM-260s, and an AWACS, modern avionics, and let it cook.

>>63922664
If you look up top, that radome makes it basically a lighthouse for guided missiles.

>>63922656
8, 2 inner bay, 4 on the inbound pylon and 2 on the outboard pylons
Anon probably wants to have 3 AShM 300s since you can mount the on center and inner pylons with 4 HARMs

>>63923942
Well yeah, but you could always turn your radar off. It's the juxtaposition of LO features with hilariously un-stealthy ones that rustles me.

It's like Tacit Blue, with the DSI from the X-32, but instead of the inlet bump its a camera package. Then there's the Harrier parts.

>>63923831
>Realistic or not, I do like how this game don't just copypaste IRL plane and take the risk of making his own stuff.
The Vortex is just the F-32, the Revoker is just the Gripen E, the Ifrit is just the Su-57 + YF-23, the Compass is just the Airland Scorpion + M-346, and the Chicane is just the RAH-66

(all based choices btw)

>>63921170
>Is it meant to be stealth?
The radome is removeable. It has the third lowest RCS in the game with it off, and adding it back really only makes it "semi stealth"

>>63924655
It's also semi useful to have a higher RCS in it as it has the tools to easily deal with radar missiles and thus waste enemy munitions, assuming they don't oversaturate it and/or catch it out of position.

>>63919195 (OP)
hell yeah NO thread lets go

>>63924728
You can't do 3000G impacts with nukes anymore

Need to try this

>>63924769
I just did. Very fun, gives a lot of time to fly away and enjoy the show. Toss bombing is fun, and over the shoulder is even funnier. It amazes me the US toyed with the idea for a while.

>>63924769
>>63926855
The fact they were doing this with a B-47 was just insane and what lead to a lot of the airframes breaking apart.

>>63926933
Priorities were different, and far more urgent, in that era.

>>63924621
I know.
My point is that they aren't EXACT copypaste, like Ace Combat would do to attract fanboy and avoid judgment.
On that matter, I also give it points for aircraft that look generic/realistic instead of trying to look unique and memorable.
Even if the EW-25 is on the crazy cold-war project side and their performances are well above expectation.

After all, the F-117 was a desperate attempt at making stealth shape fly (100% angle)
Before the B-2 which was desperate in the opposite direction (100% round surface)
We had not managed yet to mix both as the F-22 did.

>>63924769
It reminds me when they wanted to use AIR-to-AIR NUCLEAR ROCKET.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

>>63928103
every april fools the genie is enabled for a week or so in nuclear option

>>63919840
It already has a crew of 4 people in game, so there's probably at least one.

>>63928074
I think it's cool that the Chicane has a tailplane that actually acts an elevator or aileron when moving the cyclic. Do any real helicopters do that?

>>63924621
>Vortex is just the F-32
It took the F-35 fan and bendy nozzle though.

>>63929856
How to dogfight revokers and ifrits in this? Ifrits seem to have a better turn circle and Revokers a better turn rate

>>63929904
Correct. The answer here is "Don't" the Vortex trades dogfight abilities for the minuscule RCS.

>>63929904
you don't you use it's dime sized RCS to bitch slap them from 10km away with a ramjet AHM while they fail to get a good lock

>>63929834
Didn't know so I googled and found this white paper:
https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/6242c08a-81f3-4aed-a1c0-a87bc35c5848/content

Apparently the French toyed with the idea a quarter century ago, but it seems nothing came out of it in the end. Probably the additional complexity weight and cost aren't worth the gains.

>>63930109
Very cool, thanks for sharing

Where do you find tactics for NO?

>>63933766
What the fuck does that even mean

>>63928103
If I just launched an A2A nuke I would already have the in flight erection enabled.

>>63919195 (OP)
I like the idea of playing games like this, but everytime I try I completely lose motivation. What kind of equipment do you need to make it as painless as possible? I bought a shitty hotas a few years ago, but it was so squeaky I could barely use it, even after dousing it with lubrication.
I know the minimum is like TrackIR, and a half decent flightstick, but both of those combined is like $400+ for 1 (one) game I don't even know I'll like, even with proper stuff.

>>63936102
I play NO with a mouse and keyboard

>>63936102
I play on a dualshock controller

>>63936102
Nuclear Option really only needs a mouse and keyboard, and some time customizing it how you like. I have that expensive A-10 HOTAS and VR for DCS, but I still prefer NO with m+kb

>>63936209
>>63936215
>>63936316
Noted. I'll have to get it and give it a shot. Seemed like one of those diet flight sim games, so I thought that a joystick was practically a requirement.

>>63936524
>diet flight sim games
exactly what it is but with nukes
it also shows how worthless ground wars are with modern air power, 100km maps with thousands of tanks and almost none get to even shoot before being bombed

>>63936102
My only problem so far with the game is just that is too speedy for me.
Despite the simplified everything I'm supposed to jungle with submenu, selecting target on screen or on map quickly while also spamming flare.

That solo mission with the medusa is especially annoying, you don't have the time to neutralize the radars at your pace or they kill all your bomber, you have to simultaneously jam your target to have your ARM reach them without intercept, and you are supposed to use laser to shoot down missile targeting you.
If at least I had the time I would be using its incredible vectoring to hide behind everything as I fight.

Helicopter virtual-joystick is also a catastrophe.

>>63938214
Or they just based AA off of Russian systems in order to get away with half the shit you wouldn't normally get away with irl :^)

>>63938214
>it also shows how worthless ground wars are with modern air power
IRL say otherwise.
You need huge amount of drones to overload antimissile systems else your fighter become a target.
If NO" add a ground vehicle that has an equivalent, or superior laser than the Medusa, you easily interdict the airspace.

On that matter, I kinda wish Medusa wasn't such a small aircraft but instead a large airplane, explaining why it can have and need both laser, radar & jammers. As is, it's like a James Bond flying car.

>>63938214
>it also shows how worthless ground wars are with modern air power
IRL say otherwise.
You need huge amount of drones to overload antimissile systems else your fighter become a target even 200km away from the frontline, no matter the stealth.
If NO" add a ground vehicle that has an equivalent, or superior laser than the Medusa, you easily interdict the airspace.

On that matter, I kinda wish Medusa wasn't such a small aircraft but instead a large airplane, explaining why it can have and need both laser, radar & jammers. As is, it's like a James Bond flying car.

>>63936102
I personally use my same DCS HOTAS and TrackIR, but that's just me.
When it first came out, Keyboard and Mouse with no TrackIR was more than enough. It's a really accessible game.

>>63938254
I got absolutely BTFO on the Medusa mission a good 6 times before I quit trying. After coming back to it, I realize how you are supposed to play it, and it's actually pretty laid back. The missiles are SARH, and literally cannot be guided without ground radars. If you just lock up the radars, blast them with the jammer intermittently, and turn off your own radar, enemy missiles have nothing to track them. I didn't even end up using my laser and one of my ARADs.

>>63938214
Infantry with MANPADs, ground based jammers stations, railgun anti-air, and enemies just using stuff like camo netting to slip under your EO sensors would make the game much harder for aircraft. It's even more lopsided against air power than IRL thanks to ludicrously effective datalink.

>>63939537
Most missiles when I played it used IR guidance and are impossible to escape without flare.

>>63938254
>That solo mission with the medusa is especially annoying, you don't have the time to neutralize the radars at your pace or they kill all your bomber, you have to simultaneously jam your target to have your ARM reach them without intercept, and you are supposed to use laser to shoot down missile targeting you.
>If at least I had the time I would be using its incredible vectoring to hide behind everything as I fight.

Turn out I managed to achieve that mission.
For some reason, I only needed to jam the 2 radar that serve to guide the missiles, not the other radar. In which case the 2 jamming pods are enough for the job.

>>63922664
>Terrible RCS
Anon I...

>>63942436
It's true that it should have a terrible RCS at least with external pylon equipped

>>63938254
>>63942399
You do know that by pressing the comma button you can slow down time, don't you?

>>63944015
>cheating & ruining the experience
Why would you want to do that?

>>63944359
Because of task saturation. You're effectively running a one man show in place of a crew of four, with simplified controls at your disposal on top of that.

>>63944513
Is there any talk of muticrew functionality?

>>63942436
If you're talking about the radome, then my question is why make it look like Tacit Blue in the first place? I don't think there's ever been an aircraft that made more concessions in the pursuit of reduced RCS.

I really like most of the designs in NO, but this one is a miss for me.

Behead those who insult Cricket.

>>63944572
Idk, but I doubt that's even remotely a priority.
>>63944643
>this one is a miss
It's the Harrier nozzles that really baffle me, they look so out of place and I don't quite understand why they're there in the first place. What's the tactical advantage?

>>63944996
Well, the faction who boughts it operates not-Warp-class assault ships, and they want it take off and land on it.

When is it better to climb to defeat a missile, and when is it better to dive?
>go up to make missile lose energy
makes sense
>go down to drag it into denser air
makes sense too

>>63945327
>Up
You can't reach terrain to block it
>Down
You can reach terrain to block it

>>63919195 (OP)
>EW-25 Medusa
aka Mezouzah

>>63944996
The STOL capability are understandable since it has to land on both a carrier and assault ship.
And since it's a "boring" barely armed plane, it gives it impressive maneuvering capability.

I'm more annoyed by the fact it can do so much in a small package, like the laser.

>>63945327
>missile
>loosing energy
Never been a thing.
Only thing you can hope is that it was fired at its range limit, letting you go back and outrange it.

>>63936102
A X45 is a great cheap HOTAS that will do 98% of whatever you need but NO really doesn't require it.

How do we feel about C-130 sized VTOLs?

>>63945327
>When is it better to climb to defeat a missile
literally never. the best way to sap energy from a missile is to dive into dense air and force it to hold a turn

>>63946158
is it really C-130 sized? I thought it wasn't much bigger than an osprey

>>63946431
IIRC it has a max takeoff weight of 55 tons or so

>>63946158
It's shockingly fun for how much of a brick it is to fly.
the guided 76mm was disgusting pre-nerf, sniping helicopters crossmap was pretty silly, now it's just merely extremely good

>>63946158
Feel a bit cheated with engines too small to carry it.
But I understand why the developers couldn't make a gameplay for a huge C-130.

>>63946431
>is it really C-130 sized?
It can carry 1 or 2 armored combat vehicles.

>>63946556
>the guided 76mm was disgusting pre-nerf, sniping helicopters crossmap was pretty silly, now it's just merely extremely good
Having huge guns and so many missiles make it the NO equivalent of Avatar gunship.

>>63946431
>is it really C-130 sized?
Look by yourself

I'd be interested if devs were going to add something like pic related.

Nuclear option, but sometimes, peaceful option.

>>63946719
You won't get bigger than the "B21" and it's already taking the entire runway
Even if I would love a business jet sized version of the YAL-1

>>63946878
i wonder what it would feel like to be blasted by that

>>63946924
It would be very painful

>>63946951
You're a big guy!

>>63947012
For you

>>63920657
It does have a crew of 4.

>>63946719
What would be insanely based is a big transport that can para-drop multiple vehicles or one MBT

It's fun to just sit outside a heavily defended zone with a medusa and see how many missiles you can make them waste

>>63950656
Basically all static radar missiles having infinite ammo is obnoxious

>>63952843
Just blow up their ammo trucks

>>63952989
That blows them up too, so there is no configuration where they don't have infinite ammo

New helicopter is pretty small

>>63944750
A solo cricket can comfortably sneak up on a Corvette with a full load of Lynchpins and sink it in one salvo

>>63919195 (OP)
21st century concept art from the 1990s

>>63953582
>21st century concept art from the 1990s
This is a criminally underrated aesthetic outside of /k/.

>>63953582
>>63953596
I would dump from my holy grail of 90s vision of the 21st century aerospace gonzo, but I always forget how much of a pain it is downsizing photos to post to this piece of shit website until I have to do it.

>>63953509
When's the update? You'd think they'd drop it during the sale to drum up interest...

>>63953582
Some of the late 80's and early 90's concepts and even fake stuff was pretty rad.

>>63953618
I can't resist one more. According to this book, this bong aircraft, and its predecessor, could be a competitor to the US Joint Strike Fighter. Big if true. Also:
>you now know where marvel stole the design for their flying aircraft carrier thing

>>63953681
>Some of the late 80's and early 90's concepts and even fake stuff was pretty rad.

yes it was

>GCAP fighter concept maybe, with loyal wingman and palletized airdropped cruise missiles module.

All of witch are a real thing, well GCAP all most

>>63953693
UK had some very promising designs and ideas.
What they didn't have was money.

Think some of their stuff actually did get incorporated into the F-35 in the end.

>>63953618
I want to know, WHERE’S THE FUCKING DROPSHIP’S THEY TEASED US WITH?

>>63953663
New helo still looks pretty unfinished, and the cargo its carrying isn't in the game yet either. Wouldn't expect it this month.

Nuclear storage buildings are being added that bunker busters or demo bombs can take out. Also, new helicopter bladesim.

>>63953761
The future has been sacrificed for a gay eternal present.

>>63953693
Can you upload it to catbox? That shit looks so damn cool.

>>63953761
They were just watching Thunderbirds at this point and seeing what they could theoretically get away with weren't they?

>>63955371
>Thunderbirds
Now that's the good shit. I miss the days when people could believe an aircraft like TB2 would work just because it had an "atomic" power source. Incidentally TB1 was supposedly based on some obscure MiG prototype/concept that never saw the light of day.

>>63955414
>atomic
Reminder that nowadays you can switch atomic with fusion and the explanation still holds enough for everyone's suspension of disbelief. Ultimately it's just flavor text, and it's only autists who can't enjoy stuff that struggle with it.

>>63955414
The atom gives a lot of power but still doesn't magically override aerodynamics.
Still this is a Thunderbirds thread now.

>>63955478
Aerodynamics are of secondary importance when energy density is high enough. Multicopters/drones are proof of it.

>>63919195 (OP)
>>63919222
Like a more combat oriented E-2 Hawkeye?

>>63955414
>>63955478
Atom would easily power a giant forever flying VTOL aircraft (there was a prototype that flew a nuclear reactor)
The first problem is converting the 100% thermal energy into electrical/mechanical energy so it does propulsion.
The second problem after that is shielding and maintenance.
On a boat/submarine you can easily afford the mass of shielding and spread apart components to lessen radiation difficulty.

And obviously there's a 3rd problem of whether it is worth risking a nuclear reactor falling from the sky.

>>63953560
Love doing that, feels like pic rel in the best way.

>>63956231
More like a EA-6 someone managed to rig a giant radar to. Its a combat aircraft 1st and AWAC second.

I finally managed to complete the Blackout mission. They should automate at least the laser, like the gun on the Chicane where the gunner takes control of it, because at times you're so task saturated it ain't even fun.

>>63953560
While suicide runs on Crickets are fun, I prefer having artillery duels with Shards in the gunship. They'll actually use their 57mm to shoot your 76mm out of the air. You need to stay above 500 kph so your gun doesn't overheat, and dodge their SAMs by notching it and using your ECM pod. You can fight two at once if you are really based.

>>63955414
>people could believe an aircraft like TB2 would work just because it had an "atomic" power source
Aerodynamic lift is just a way for thrustlets to cope with their inherent inferiority.

Game needs more time to cook, but a ton of potiential. The medusa should also hold more ASHM's. At least triplets of the AGM-99's.

>>63919195 (OP)
They combined a harrier with a hawkeye and then tried to make it VLO, and somehow also gave it a giant laser?

Sounds cool but very expensive to operate.

>>63958392
IIRC it costs more than the F-22 at home

>>63944750
>dumb ass pilot
Try that against me, too many pilots single circle instead of two circle, that invoker should have hauled ass or climbed and left that cricket in the dust.

>>63958305
The AGM-99s don't seem to serve any purpose. You can fire 6 from a Vortex at a Shard and all of them will be intercepted. Meanwhile, rocket spam in a Cricket is more reliable. $12M loadout vs $96M loadout.

>>63958535
He should have slung a fox 3 from above and forgot it existed while the cricket meets the wrath of God

>>63946158
Going macross on a airfield, radar, or ship is hilarious two or three spiders can throw a stupid amount of missiles.

>>63958542
If you fire 6 at a lone shard and don't have terrain spoil the attack it will kill it 100% of the time, four are usually enough.
6 focused on one shard with another helping it defend is dicey, anything else is impossible.
The performance you're describing for AGM-99s was how they behaved on release, they have had two series of buffs (pop-up attack takes less time, they have lower RCS, and there is a 50% chance for each missile to pop up vs not so a volley will have both and thus force CIWS to move significantly).

>>63958543
That's not fun though. Save those Fox 3's for a Tara or Darkreach, you won't kill them most of the time but making them abort runs is more than worth a missile.

>>63958580
Darkreaches and Taras are built for big boscali cannons.

>>63958598
>ifrit gun run
WHY

I think they dont serve any purpose because you cant spam enough of them solo. Give a medusa 3x 99's on the inner and 2x 99's on the outer with 3x in the wep bay would give you 13, which should breach defenses. It would be a mini darkreach, which can launch 20 or something big boy ashm's.

>>63958617
wait until you experience chicane dogfight

>>63958617
God gave me one of the heaviest cannons on a plane, it would be a sin not to use it

>>63958305
>more time to cook
You are just a gourmand.
It already offer more than enough to pour money into it so it can afford to cook more.

>The medusa should also hold more ASHM's.
It's already overpowered as it is, even if the radar is so heavy it need to drop some equipment. The laser alone is OP.

>>63960652
>It's already overpowered as it is, even if the radar is so heavy it need to drop some equipment. The laser alone is OP.

Manual targeting kills this, along with janky interface to do so quickly. If you are facing nothing its OP, but as soon as any ground targets get in the way you are fighting them to be able to target the missiles.

What is the IRL equivalent to this?

Also, the Darkreach is kinda boring, because the optimal way to use it is to literally just pack up 24 of these things, take off, point at enemy within 50km, fire everything, and land. Doing actual bomber things, like loading up 70 bombs, getting to high altitude, and flying over the target is ten times longer and ten times more dangerous.

>>63962657
>What is the IRL equivalent to this?
AGM-69 SRAM but with an HE warhead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM

>>63962684
This + Kh-29. It's the closest thing to MLRS / HIMARS in this game, and it really demonstrates why this system has been so devastating in ukraine

>>63962657
>>63962684
>>63962834
I thought it was based on the Israeli Rampage missile.

Thrust vectoring owns the skies

>>63962549
>>Manual targeting kills this
Well yes, but that's fake difficulty. This aircraft is supposed to be flown with 4 persons aboard and yet you can't have one manage a job that an AI would do automatically.
That and the front-facing laser is the only reason Medusa can't stroll unchallenged over the battlefield.

>>63964006
>I didn't have a ramp so I made my own

Thinking of it, the thruster are so powerful in the game I see nothing that prevent to take off Yukikaze style.

>>63964006
>>63965682
>>63965690
How long till this game turns into Macross?

>>63964006
Its a little crazy how short the take off distances are in NO. the only one that uses like half the runway is a loaded darkreach

>>63936102
Get a used Quest 2 and connect it to your PC to play VTOL VR and you get 98% of the sim experience for like 150 to 200 bucks.

>>63965690
>>63965682
I preferred the FFR-31 Sylph over the MAVE. The sliding cockpit, total lack of internal space, and tiny reverse swept wings was getting too silly for me.

Note to self: just loft them over the hill next time

>>63966317
I'm told during April fool day the game let you spam a ridiculous number of missiles.

The way the missiles already do evasive maneuvers is perfect for Itano circus. You already get your missiles swarm when locking a few targets and shooting 20x AGM-48 at once.

Part of me love the realism of not having hyperspace missile storage.
The other part of me want 12 missiles under each wing plus everything the internal bay can hold, fired at an equal number of drones.

Nuclear option macross

I wonder how drones/parasite craft will work. Just aircraft that you spawn in flight and have no/loose control over? Why use that over missiles? In the context of the game obviously.

Relevant
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nAIT74_eSHU

Holy shit, you actually can

>>63974459
Kill things with the laser? Yeah, it just requires a shitload of juice and being in close proximity.

>>63971821
this game needs takeoff-assist rockets as a hardpoint option

>>63919195 (OP)
the argus-is puts this pos to shame, a superior surveillance system with 4 guided missiles, 1.8gigapixel camera high resolution high zoom. the targeting system can track 65 moving targets in a 15km radius at 10000 feet. it has an on board system that encrypts its self on the fly and sends it to ground control to be decyrpted with a super computer. in the united states they are still in service over residential areas. im not talking about the shitty predator or hunter or even the earlier model argus that was a windsock looking ah thing. 6 of them can fly formation about 30 miles apart and map an area on the fly.
i cant find a picture because its a active program

wait what? ew medusa has a laser !?!?! yo and it takes off vertically.. ok that is pretty cool. but the argus-is over powers it with numbers, though i havent seen the argus strafe hard at all.

>>63920523
that is one ugly aircraft

>>63974459
Lasers make superior weapons.

>>63974459
I'm ashamed to admit I recently got effectively lasered to death in a Revoker by an undetected Medusa that was within 2km of me. I was flying radar off at sea level quite a ways away from the islands and was wondering why my speed kept dropping and somehow didn't notice the damage indicator, probably because it happened gradually. Once I realized I looked for it and gunned it. However I was so far out and my max thrust was like 30% that I decided the lost time from bringing it back would be more valuable than the plane so I punched out. Realistically it would've just been a mission kill but effectively it was a laser kill.

>>63974549
Argus can't preform SEAD or DEAD, nor can it be used degrad enemy missiles.

>>63974522
>takeoff-assist rockets as a hardpoint option
I suppose it's better than easy jump launch but game need to help carrier-landing more. The indicators we have are essentially pointless.

>>63974549
>>63976181
The Medusa is also a carrier-based aircraft.
Can't say I like having it armed like a james bond car but I can understand from a gameplay perspective why doing it like that.