Arma 3 is not going far enough with Technology

[Beagle 684]

I wouldnt say that mbts are in their end of evolution. Using nano materials and similar we can probably make them extremely more resilient than they are today and with the same weight;or even less. And with increasing defense systems like trophy they will have even more survivability.(Now this doesnt mean against rebels in urban warfare)

MBTs are in the end of their evolution, you can see that in the fact that the total Number of MBT in service is decreasing since the 90's and the number of lighter, more mobile, more far deployable and Hunter Killer capable IFV is increasing.

[Tonci87 163]

MBTs are in the end of their evolution, you can see that in the fact that the total Number of MBT in service is decreasing since the 90's and the number of lighter, more mobile, more far deployable and Hunter Killer capable IFV is increasing.

It´s decreasing because there are no real enemys, no conventional warfare with a equaly modern nation. Simply put, it´s cheaper to use IFVs against rebels.

If you take a look at regions where conventional warfare is still possible if things go totally FUBAR you can see development and modernisation of MBTs.

[scrim 1]

If we were to say that everything that has decreased in military production from the 1990's i.e. since the end of the Cold War, is on the way out, then we are heading for a future that will be quite peaceful as there will be no militaries left in the world. In other words, it's a very broken logic, and MBTs are really not heading towards the end of their era, nor are assault rifles. Just because you can't think of a new thing to add doesn't mean that the people who's jobs it is to produce and design new ones can't.

[Kamov 1]

Armata will pave the way for the next generation of MBT. Unmanned turrets etc.

[wipman 1]

Hi, this is almost Off Topic but... i think in 30 years, is very possible that the women take full part on the western armys as 1St line soldiers; i would like to see female units added into the game with all that implies. Let's C ya

[ArmaIInoobATM 1]

We'll have exo-skeletons definitely, I'd doubt self healing stuff although you never know what's possible in seven years (ArmA III's set in 2020, right?) Besides, we have already developed smart polymers which act just like a bandage but they're much more effective for numerous reasons (TBH I can't remember all the advantages but they will heal injuries quicker and there's a lower chance of infection) so that's a start.

As for the exo-skeletons, there are already prototypes out there as I'm sure you know.

There are also the "Big Dog" and "Little Dog" robots too, but their flaw is that they need the terrain to be mapped out, as in, it can't detect it's surroundings and adapt to it by itself.

All this technology's very-well-and-good although as aforementioned money does come into it. Of course the US could undoubtably afford R&D for these technologies but to implement them into the whole military would be expensive.

We also need to take into account the storyline of A3 is that NATO have got owned by the 'Eastern Armies' (China and Russia I guess) so if they've taken a beating and are loosing the war they'll have less money and resources etc.

Smaller militaries (e.g. UKAF) are unlikely to have access to them but then again ArmA is primarily between China/Russia/US I presume. I wonder what the BAF will be like in A3 (I think they will have another British Armed Forces DLC)

To put the distribution into perspective, the entire British Army won't have MTP camouflage until 2014 (we do have a quite shit and very small military though, and we are only a small island) On the other hand we did just order twenty-five thousand new Gen 4 Glock 17s...anyway I'm going of topic NVM.

---------- Post added at 01:04 ---------- Previous post was at 00:47 ----------

by the way when I mentioned exo-skeletons I don't believe they have a used in physical warfare although I am suggesting they will probably be used by loadies and logistics/transportation crews to load vehicles, with IDK maybe a MG for defence if it's needed. I agree they're not suitable for obvious reasons though (slow, clumsy etc)

[scrim 1]

There were prototypes of Future Soldier and a bunch of other similar things out almost twenty years ago, and from the looks of it next to nothing of it will ever be implemented. Just read the latest post I made (before this one). Extremelly little new (in the sense of such revolutionary techniques) has been introduced in the last 20, or even 30 years. People back then had very grand, somewhat naive ideas about what we'd have today, and little if anything of it has come true, and the same will apply to us. There won't be unmanned tank turrets, just isn't practical, there won't be female infantry (just like it already is in any military that is actually involved considerably in combat) due to obvious reasons, and there won't be robot dogs carrying your kit around on the battlefield.

Honestly, we could go back 60 years to the 1950s. What was very different? They had helmets, made out of steel but still helmets, they had body armour, not as effective as today but still body armour, they had rifles, not assault rifles, but they're not so different that a 1950s soldier couldn't be trained on assault rifles in less than a day. There was even NV equipment, though not in the same shape or issued as much. And back then they believed we would have sci-fi "blaster" rifles, some sort of intelligent helmets or something, jet packs so we could fly, etc. We have none of that today. Why would we have any equally revolutionary things in just twenty years?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Todays technologies are somewhat different to what was used back in the 50's or 60's. What about FLIR, remote controlled weapon stations, unmanned systems (UAVs, UCAVs, UGVs), communication/IT networks, AESA radar, modern targeting/cueing systems, C-RAM systems etc? Of course helmets, rifles and soldiers kit/equipment have been also developed to be more effective and lightweight/portable. Just because you don't like to see the progress of research and developments doesn't mean there are none. A3 is set in 2035 and in the alternate reality of Armaverse.... in A2 you can use the F-35 but how many of them are actually fielded and deployed? ;)

[Kamov 1]

Todays technologies are somewhat different to what was used back in the 50's or 60's. What about FLIR, remote controlled weapon stations, unmanned systems (UAVs, UCAVs, UGVs), communication/IT networks, AESA radar, modern targeting/cueing systems, C-RAM systems etc? Of course helmets, rifles and soldiers kit/equipment have been also developed to be more effective and lightweight/portable. Just because you don't like to see the progress of research and developments doesn't mean there are none. A3 is set in 2035 and in the alternate reality of Armaverse.... in A2 you can use the F-35 but how many of them are actually fielded and deployed? ;)

F-35 in A2 is more maneuverable than the Su-34, its quite bullshit on BI's side.

[scrim 1]

FLIR and AESA, that's completely new, I'll give you that. Remote controlled weapons, unmanned vehicles, communication, things like that existed back in the 1950s. They have been vastly improved since, and issued on a larger scale. So that is probably what we'll see in 60+ years, mostly our current systems vastly improved, and a few select revolutionary things. And Arma 3 is set in 20 years, 1/3 of the time it'll take for us to get all of those fancy sci-fi things.

And no Kamov, making the very latest fighter jet in the world more maneuverable than the SU-34 is not bullshit, it is an extremelly reasonable thing to do, because it's true. Just the fact that the SU-34 is a figher-bomber and the F-35 is a pure fighter means that it'll be better suited for, well, jet fighting.

[Kamov 1]

FLIR and AESA, that's completely new, I'll give you that. Remote controlled weapons, unmanned vehicles, communication, things like that existed back in the 1950s. They have been vastly improved since, and issued on a larger scale. So that is probably what we'll see in 60+ years, mostly our current systems vastly improved, and a few select revolutionary things. And Arma 3 is set in 20 years, 1/3 of the time it'll take for us to get all of those fancy sci-fi things.

And no Kamov, making the very latest fighter jet in the world more maneuverable than the SU-34 is not bullshit, it is an extremelly reasonable thing to do, because it's true. Just the fact that the SU-34 is a figher-bomber and the F-35 is a pure fighter means that it'll be better suited for, well, jet fighting.

No. The F-35 is a strike aircraft that is less maneuverable than any flanker. It is virtually useless in a dog fight, it would have its ass kicked by anything.

[scrim 1]

Sigh. Whatever you say, of course all Russian technology is vastly superior, and American technology isn't even worth the paper it's printed on...

What does it have to do with this thread in the first place? What's next, going to remind us of that helicopter again?

[Kamov 1]

Sigh. Whatever you say, of course all Russian technology is vastly superior, and American technology isn't even worth the paper it's printed on...

What does it have to do with this thread in the first place? What's next, going to remind us of that helicopter again?

The F-22, F-16, F-18, F-4 and pretty much every other plane is more maneuverable than it. Its a strike fighter. The f-35 ingame performs better than a F-22.

Also, what do you have against me? You don't like legitimacy?

Edited January 22, 2013 by Kamov

[scrim 1]

The F/A-18 is a strike fighter. The F-4 is a Vietnam era plane. Seriously, if you're going to derail threads with nonsense "America plane crap, Russia plane awesome", at least write things that are a little true. Besides, when's the last time you flew an F-35? If you ain't, and I doubt you've even seen one fly, you have pretty much zero basis to claim that "it's virtually worthless, it would have its ass kicked by anything".

Why did you even write about the F-35 in the first place? You wrote nothing related to the thread.

[Kamov 1]

The F/A-18 is a strike fighter. The F-4 is a Vietnam era plane. Seriously, if you're going to derail threads with nonsense "America plane crap, Russia plane awesome", at least write things that are a little true. Besides, when's the last time you flew an F-35? If you ain't, and I doubt you've even seen one fly, you have pretty much zero basis to claim that "it's virtually worthless, it would have its ass kicked by anything".

The f-18 is also more maneuverable than the f-35. When did I ever say the su-34 was better than the f-35? I thought it was a given that it could out turn it and that the f-35 in-game is poorly represented.

Everything I've said is easily sourced to aerospace analysts and experts.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/09/web-interview-sprey.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/05/jsf-marketing-video-maneuverab.html

Ask anybody who knows a thing or two about combat aircraft. You can read further if you like.

[scrim 1]

And I take it all those random guys who's qualification as experts and analysts is their internet connection are privy to the classified information regarding the as of yet not fully developed F-35? Or that everything the Russian military claims about its vehicles is true? I for one am more inclined to believe that the only superpower, modern military in the world that has never built an IFV with flammable armour (BMD-1) is very likely to produce a fifth generation fighter jet that will be considerably superior to a fourth generation fighter bomber that traces its routes back to the Soviet Union and still isn't completed. And you did write that the SU-34 was better than the F-35, don't lie.

And of course, you have still to explain why you are derailing the thread with this propagandaesque nonsense? How was it relevant now again?

[Kamov 1]

And I take it all those random guys who's qualification as experts and analysts is their internet connection are privy to the classified information regarding the as of yet not fully developed F-35? Or that everything the Russian military claims about its vehicles is true? I for one am more inclined to believe that the only superpower, modern military in the world that has never built an IFV with flammable armour (BMD-1) is very likely to produce a fifth generation fighter jet that will be considerably superior to a fourth generation fighter bomber that traces its routes back to the Soviet Union and still isn't completed. And you did write that the SU-34 was better than the F-35, don't lie.

And of course, you have still to explain why you are derailing the thread with this propagandaesque nonsense? How was it relevant now again?

They're credible sources of information. Also where did I say its 'better'. Unless you can tell me where I said the Su-34 was better than the F-35 you're mind needs readjustment.

Also, your post is full of inaccuracies and straw man fallacies. The PAK FA program begun in 2001.

[scrim 1]

Your uncredible "credible" sources say so, and you have repeatedly said so.

Would you kindly explain why you are derailing the thread? I trust that you can read, and that you are as such able to read that this isn't what the thread is about.

[Kamov 1]

Your uncredible "credible" sources say so, and you have repeatedly said so.

Would you kindly explain why you are derailing the thread? I trust that you can read, and that you are as such able to read that this isn't what the thread is about.

So basically you lied is what you're saying. Cite where I said or any of my sources said the 'su-34 is superior to the f-35'. Su-34 is a two seater fighter bomber and the f-35 is mean't to be an attempt at an all service VLO strike fighter aircraft, and its not very good at it.

Also, as far as I know steel armour on the BMD-1 isn't flammable and pretty much everything else you said in your post was a lie.

[Westonsammy 1]

So basically you lied is what you're saying. Cite where I said or any of my sources said the 'su-34 is superior to the f-35'. Su-34 is a two seater fighter bomber and the f-35 is mean't to be an attempt at an all service VLO strike fighter aircraft, and its not very good at it.

Also, as far as I know steel armour on the BMD-1 isn't flammable and pretty much everything else you said in your post was a lie.

I have a sneaking suspicion this this guy is only going off of what hes seen in Arma 2 gameplay...

[Tonci87 163]

Could you please stop that USA vs. RU Discussion? Both of you? (And yes the Ingame F-35 is poorly represented, not just because of the relatively high maneuverability. And yes the SU34 already has shown that it is a great aircraft, while the F-35 only has shown that it costs truckloads of money and still fails to achieve the original development goals)

[scrim 1]

Also, as far as I know steel armour on the BMD-1 isn't flammable and pretty much everything else you said in your post was a lie.

You keep derailing this thread like many others if you want to, and I suppose you won't answer why you did it in the first place either.

What I can say is that to save weight, BMD-1s were built with magnesium alloy armour, which is flammable. If you're going to go ahead and lie out your behind about that too, go ahead. It's not like you seem to understand the concept of "on topic".

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well maybe OPFOR even got somehow a high-energy laser weapon system capable of providing air defence and Blufor can't do much against it unless its deactivated? IIRC such prototypes and their capabilities were shown last year. Just curious why BIS didn't show the H&K G11 - revamped for A3? :D

[Maio 293]

Well maybe OPFOR even got somehow a high-energy laser weapon system capable of providing air defence and Blufor can't do much against it unless its deactivated? IIRC such prototypes and their capabilities were shown last year. Just curious why BIS didn't show the H&K G11 - revamped for A3? :D

That being said, I wonder if BI considered adding some kind of anti missile/mortar/artilery defense system like the Iron Dome.

[Kamov 1]

That being said, I wonder if BI considered adding some kind of anti missile/mortar/artilery defense system like the Iron Dome.

they probably didn't because it can be easily overwhelmed and its unlikely it could intercept extremely fast moving A2G missiles.