Arma 3 is not going far enough with Technology

[Beagle 684]

Whenever a new Sytem is introduced the projected service time of the systen including upgrades is 30-35 years. Thats why there are Still F-15 and M1A2 and 688 subs etc. Those Systems are to expensice to replace them all 10 yeras ans China and Saudi Arabia won't give all the money needed for thatr to the USA. Also keep in MInd that USA will have lost great portions of it importance by 2035 and will be just on par with global players like EU, Russia and China.

[instagoat 133]

Whenever a new Sytem is introduced the projected service time of the systen including upgrades is 30-35 years. Thats why there are Still F-15 and M1A2 and 688 subs etc. Those Systems are to expensice to replace them all 10 yeras ans China and Saudi Arabia won't give all the money needed for thatr to the USA. Also keep in MInd that USA will have lost great portions of it importance by 2035 and will be just on par with global players like EU, Russia and China.

I think it won´t necessarily be the systems that will be replaced, but the equipment they will carry. The air force plans to operate B-52s until something like 2050. By then the planes will be nearly 100 years old.

And I believe that certain new technologies will find their way into military use, and re-shape the battlefield. Small, stealthy, self-contained and automated drones scouting over the battlefield using small thermal cameras for example will for example revolutionize reconnaissance.

However, most technologies will, probably, find their way into civilian and commercial use. An example of a robotic system is here: http://www.riemurasia.net/jylppy/108424/Robotteja

Military technology will probably develop rapidly in a threat environment, especially with a new cold war brewing between the SCO and NATO, particularily over the pacific and asian sea regions. By 2035 it´s not unlikely to expect aircraft carriers operating ship-based versions of the Pak-FA, J-20 and J-31 fighters. At least russia has announced the development of a stealthy bomber aircraft, possibly to rival the B2.

Air warfare will dominate the future battlefield, because due to the -massive- lethality of modern air based weapons, the side that cannot establish air dominance will essentially loose all ability to move and fight in any coordinated and sustained fashion. The second gulf war has proven this, but we´ve known it at least since the normandy invasion, and particularly the later ardennes offensive.

[dragon01 902]

B-52 is a special case. It's main purpose isn't really "valid" in modern warfare, since we've moved away from carpet bombing, but occasionally you just need to put a bomb on every square meter of the surface, or maybe flatten a city district without nuking it. That's where B-52 comes in. A similar situation is with Iowa-class battleships. Late WWII-era ships which have no place in modern ship to ship combat, but for the few times you need to carpet a shore with huge shells, they're there, sitting in the drydock and acting as museums. They've been broken out a few times, and probably still could be.

[dysta 10]

Too much electronic warfare, too little mechanic warfare. Will 2035 going to be an "Iron Curtain"-style (Thousands of armored vehicles toward the battlefield) warfare if EMP and missiles are into serious problem?

[Harzach 2518]

B-52 is a special case. It's main purpose isn't really "valid" in modern warfare, since we've moved away from carpet bombing...

B-52s are used as JDAM platforms these days. They're excellent in that role, combining high capacity and long loiter times.

[Kupkake 1]

MAV technologies and minature uav

must be implemented

these could defenitly make a differance at a MP level

miniture portable airbourne reconacance will be a must in future warfare

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I think most advances will be in areas that would require a fair degree of creativity to include gameplay wise. Medical, cybernetic, electronic warfare and to some degree robotics would all have some difficulties/limititions in representing. (depending on RV engine improvements of course).

As for hardware, many current developments in the US seem geared to reduce costs and extend flexibility of units (F-35 an almost ironic example) so I'd expect the trend of getting 25-40 years of sevice life from equipment to continue if not lengthen, especialy in terms of design and development cycles. This probably translates to poorer countires extending thier equipment out even longer again, so still plenty of opportunity to see current equipment around then.

[onlyrazor 11]

MAV technologies and minature uav

must be implemented

these could defenitly make a differance at a MP level

miniture portable airbourne reconacance will be a must in future warfare

From the official Arma 3 website:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can provide valuable intel or provide additional fire support. Some are so small they can be deployed on a squad level.

[Dwarden 1125]

all this prediction is thrown out of window by just simple things like

world wide pandemia

world wide internet outage (cyberwar or just malware goes wild)

war or civil war or civil unrest and fall of any of G5 states (e.g. due to femine)

major vulcanic eruption, major tsunami (n times the one which cost 300k)

or just some massive economical depression by stupid decisions ;)

or any other disaster

what too many ifs, ors, when, maybe, might ...

who knows, maybe next week someone release to internet working cold fusion concept and by new year friendly ETs land there and give us theirs warpdrives ...

[maddogx 13]

who knows, maybe next week someone release to internet working cold fusion concept and by new year friendly ETs land there and give us theirs warpdrives ...

Vulcans and warp drive confirmed for Arma3, people! Remember, you heard it here first. ;)

[Maio 293]

Vulcans and warp drive confirmed for Arma3, people! Remember, you heard it here first. ;)

OMG!! BOHEMIA IS giving up on us TRUE fans of the series!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE !!!

BTW what Dwarden says is a good explanation for a technological stagnation. Who knows, maybe that 7 day World Wide Web Crash from 2021 had a bigger impact then expected...

[antoineflemming 14]

The problem with the lack of technological advancement, and it's implementation in modern militaries is not that we are incapable of producing this technology, but that governments led by non-military/non-veteran individuals aren't willing to PAY for such technologies. That's why the US military, at least, doesn't have more advanced technology (our soldiers were supposed to have integrated squad-level network systems by 2010, look up Future Combat Systems).

[RogueRebel 1]

This is an interesting thread.

[rye1 22]

The problem with the lack of technological advancement, and it's implementation in modern militaries is not that we are incapable of producing this technology, but that governments led by non-military/non-veteran individuals aren't willing to PAY for such technologies. That's why the US military, at least, doesn't have more advanced technology (our soldiers were supposed to have integrated squad-level network systems by 2010, look up Future Combat Systems).

I don't know. I agree with some of what you put but not all of it. Otherwise the solution for most problems would be to throw money at them. It's about technological improvement, and that needs a cash-flow to sustain their projects. Without the think-tank and innovation behind it, you will get no where. Wars bring out that creativity and really boosts military thinking and I think by 2030 you would have seen a LOT of changes. Plus the fact that the "SF" team portrayed in ARMA 3 (who basically sound like a nuclear/biological weapon busting team) are going to be kitted out with the best gear, or so you'd think.

[bonchie 39]

Money is going to be a factor. All this sounds great, but the US and especially Europe are going to be bankrupt long before 2035 if spending continues like it is.

And it's military spending that's one of the first things always brought up to cut.

Point being. I think most of the OP's stuff is optimistic. Not that it won't exist. But that it will be in mainline use by then.

[rallyolle 10]

[*]We will have global, organized cyber militaries

You mean us lot?

[paecmaker 23]

What I think is funny is that Arma 3 which is set ten years after black ops 2 got less futuristic equipment than its(now dont lecture me about black ops and arcade blah blah blah, I have heard all about it already) :p

But Bi where are our flying squirrel suits, personal camo and mechs, Atleast give us the Barrack Obama :D

[Sabot And Heat 10]

I don't know. I agree with some of what you put but not all of it. Otherwise the solution for most problems would be to throw money at them. It's about technological improvement, and that needs a cash-flow to sustain their projects. Without the think-tank and innovation behind it, you will get no where. Wars bring out that creativity and really boosts military thinking and I think by 2030 you would have seen a LOT of changes. Plus the fact that the "SF" team portrayed in ARMA 3 (who basically sound like a nuclear/biological weapon busting team) are going to be kitted out with the best gear, or so you'd think.

You are correct that tech invention needs cash flow. Those think tanks though are civilian just as the development corporations who make the tech.

The last two U.S. military vehicles that were really the "cream of the crop" for choices to add into the military arsenal were the M1 Abrams and the AH-64 Apache. Today the only thing that keeps them from being completely dated is constant component upgrades. Almost everything else after has been a mixture of compromises because of budget and operational tempo considerations.

It doesn't matter how high tech things can be in the future. The smaller the conflicts become (more guerilla like), the less likely we are to be upgraded. Especially since hi-tech is not always the best way to fight a low-tech guerilla war. Like it or not (and I don't like it) our tax payers only see current threats, what's right in front of them. Even General Ordierno said he see's large scale conflicts in the future as unlikely. Now, I find that a disturbing statement considering we should be prepared for any realistic threat. Not to mention, it's the enemy who choose the type of conflict not us. We are always re-active.

The reality is that ARMA3 is probably accurate for tech. If ARMA3 off on anything it might be that American military in the near future won't have the political backing or funding to continue operations that are orientated towards policing actions. All recent U.S. policing actions in the last 45 years have continued to cause great losses of money, life and very rarely actually yielded an outcome that is tangible because there was never a task and purpose for those wars. Real wars should be quick deadly and decisive.

Edited November 19, 2012 by frostybowman

[Tonci87 163]

You mean us lot?

Did you follow the forums during the ARG? I say that we make a pretty good intelligence agency.

[onlyrazor 11]

Did you follow the forums during the ARG? I say that we make a pretty good intelligence agency.

Never, ever underestimate the mental capacity of an information-hungry fanbase :cool:

[instagoat 133]

I have been mucking about on these things, and been looking into military R&D to see what kind of things are really being implemented. Historically, the two driving factors in military technology development have been lethality and protection. In small scale conflicts, the protection of soldiers is really not done for humane reasons, if you look at it an a really cold fashion, but to protect an investment. A soldier today carries around tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, and has hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in training invested in him. The issue gear and training of a soldier in 1900 was a fraction of what it is today. I have found that some experts even have expressed the raise in equipment costs in the shape of an exponential function. One of the more humorous ones predicts that by 2050, if the US defence budget will remain unchanged, the Pentagon will be able to field two fully equipped soldiers + assorted supports.

However, this will only continue until we see a conflict that produces major losses: any replacement gear fielded will be reduced in quality and complexity as expenses and production time and effort are lowered to meet raising demand. Then it comes down to what new technologies will actually stay being used: to stay, they need to be simple and cheap enough to remain on the "have got to be used" list.

On a sidenote, the new swedish Stealth tank using the BAE IR camouflage system: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?207206-Today-s-Photos-Friday-January-13th-2012&p=5972608&viewfull=1#post5972608

It´s fair to say that, if we take the F-22 development as a baseline example, this technology is likely to be fielded in some shape or form by the time Arma 3s date rolls around. I am still trying to write up a meaningful (and properly formatted) post that supplies some Ideas of what may or may not be possible. I am trying to figure out what is worth being put in and what is superfluous. I hope whatever I come up with will be helpful and interesting at least to some.

Cheerio

Insta

[onlyrazor 11]

I have been mucking about on these things, and been looking into military R&D to see what kind of things are really being implemented. Historically, the two driving factors in military technology development have been lethality and protection. In small scale conflicts, the protection of soldiers is really not done for humane reasons, if you look at it an a really cold fashion, but to protect an investment. A soldier today carries around tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, and has hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in training invested in him. The issue gear and training of a soldier in 1900 was a fraction of what it is today. I have found that some experts even have expressed the raise in equipment costs in the shape of an exponential function. One of the more humorous ones predicts that by 2050, if the US defence budget will remain unchanged, the Pentagon will be able to field two fully equipped soldiers + assorted supports.

Then again, this would lead to an interesting disparity between Eastern and Western troops - where the West relies on superior individual technology and lethality, the East's technological advancement is of a (somewhat) lower grade, but is able to field it to a far greater number of troops due to decreased costs. Besides the fact that this reflects the doctrines of the East and West during the Cold War, it also provides individual challenges to each side - the West must be able to repel attacks far greater in numbers than them, while the East must in turn apply tactics to turn the battle to their advantage. It provides a different type of asymmetric warfare to the type that has to be waged by the guerrila factions in the current games, since both sides are still able to effectively engage each other in conventional war. It does stress the synergetic use of both technology and equipment, though, which is always a good thing.

[paecmaker 23]

On a sidenote, the new swedish Stealth tank using the BAE IR camouflage system: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?207206-Today-s-Photos-Friday-January-13th-2012&p=5972608&viewfull=1#post5972608

Insta

Damn was that a cv90120?

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I figure, as technology advances, we'll always have long lasting classics, like the M1911 or the AK-47. By then, the AK-107 will be an old and popular classic among Iranian troops. The M16... Aw hell, that'll be outdated. I think BIS is right in that rifles like the CZ 805 Bren will be advancing, I think anyone would like to take advantage of that change in caliber at any time from 5.56 to 7.62.

However, BIS needs to capitalize on these advances and rather make new weapons based on these nice modern ideas to create fictional classics in there. Also, the ArmAverse isn't the real world, so hell, the Greeks could be using phaser rifles before they fell to Iran!

And that's just weapons development. Think about cars, or for that matter, civilian things. Civilian rifles, civilian cars, civilian aircraft. I picture tilt rotors in every military, or things like F35 which move their engine around to do VTOL. Also, I think Mi-48 Caiman is right way to go. The world needs more gunships like Mi-24, capable of transporting infantry into battle as well as rockets into a tank column.

[Kamov 1]

I don't think ArmA3 is going far enough with aircraft technology, from what they have shown us through screenshots and the latest videos all we get are standard already existent helicopters that haven't even gone into mass production or are cancelled. So far we've seen the Mi-28/Mi-24 mashup, RAH-66 Comanche and Ka-60. If the game is based in 2035, I would be expecting things like the Ka-90, Mil X-1, not helicopters from the 1990's. Not very creative in my opinion