Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
instagoat

Arma 3 is not going far enough with Technology

Recommended Posts

@Zionist_Wabbit just look what kind of assets one can have + use today and compare it to those of the past decades. Why should one not use anything that is more effective and useful than the "old" stuff? Many things and systems get smaller, lightweight and portable....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me either. Maybe he's talking about the Mil Mi-40?

AIFV concept based on the Mi-28. It looks nothing like the bullshit BIS made.

HGzhK.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's the mi-40.

Yes. I do think the soviets were more informed than BIS. Why did they jam mi-28 and mi-24 together to make some stupid 'future' abomination that never ever came to the table ever. If they wanted to make some outdated concept realized why didn't they go off what has actually been designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I do think the soviets were more informed than BIS. Why did they jam mi-28 and mi-24 together to make some stupid 'future' abomination that never ever came to the table ever. If they wanted to make some outdated concept realized why didn't they go off what has actually been designed.

I think we've been over this, Kamov, and frankly I'm getting tired of hearing it. I had actually thought that with your complaining here you were contributing something new, but no, it's just the same old song. Your complaining about this issue is the very definition of a waste of time. I suggest we get back on topic. Not every topic on this forum is a venue for your obsession with the Kajman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we've been over this, Kamov, and frankly I'm getting tired of hearing it. I had actually thought that with your complaining here you were contributing something new, but no, it's just the same old song. Your complaining about this issue is the very definition of a waste of time. I suggest we get back on topic. Not every topic on this forum is a venue for your obsession with the Kajman.

The vehicles in general are crap. Its perfectly on topic as they aren't going far enough with tech, infact they're going back in time about a decade or more with these helicopters.

Just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't mean its not on topic, because that is subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the Mil Mi-40/42 project a development with a NOTAR system in mind? I've seen an interview with an Mi-24 pilot who compared the changes from Mi-24 to Mi-35 like switching from Lada to Mercedes. Hopefully BIS is trying to make A3 to feel like using a Mercedes in Armaverse.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was this technology the US Army was developing. It was like a neck collar that picked up vibrations when the solider spoke, it basically acted like the microphone from the headset a solider would normally wear. I cant remember the actual project name, but I guess BI can always use the concept as a reference point if they want to take the "lightweight and ergonomics" concept even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was this technology the US Army was developing. It was like a neck collar that picked up vibrations when the solider spoke, it basically acted like the microphone from the headset a solider would normally wear. I cant remember the actual project name, but I guess BI can always use the concept as a reference point if they want to take the "lightweight and ergonomics" concept even further.

Forgive me if I've misread your post, but isn't that just a throat mic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that "Mark Owen" also mentioned some other specialized communications technology in No Easy Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want something even more advanced and still experimental, try subvocalization. :)

Unlike a normal mic or throat microphone, subvocalization allows commication without the person who is talking even making a sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

implement the tech but keep it realistic, dont throw what makes arma and Arma game out the window. stay a lil conservative

Edited by Carzilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read in the first post and some others, someone was reading too much William Gibson. Just because some technologies are predicted as possible to become common, that does not mean they will be. The main argument is money! We have the year 2013, with all the drones, satellite scans, bells and whistles, and a bunch of guys armed with AKs or Enfields(!) are still unbeatable to the most technologically advanced military in the world. With all the tech available, a single man with a rifle can still be very dangerous. When it comes to calculating a country's budget, top military tech in not the priority, cost-effectiveness is.

Also, as for technology in general - most of current research is not really aimed at delivering new innovative tech, it's focused on miniaturization and reselling the same product over and over again with added power saving maybe and a new design. More money goes to advertising the new iPhone, which is the same iPhone as last year, than is spent on it's developments. We could probably have virtual reality by now, but who really wants to sit in VR helmet and gloves, when you can lie comfortable in the bed with a laptop and hot coffee?

Oh, and then there is the eco-crysis... Kinda hard to develop a hi-tech army, when 20% of population is unemployed and the country is ears-deep in debt.

And seriously, AI drones? I guess everyone has watched Terminator by now. Not gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have the year 2013, with all the drones, satellite scans, bells and whistles, and a bunch of guys armed with AKs or Enfields(!) are still unbeatable to the most technologically advanced military in the world. With all the tech available, a single man with a rifle can still be very dangerous.

There are so many errors there that I don't even know where to begin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I read in the first post and some others, someone was reading too much William Gibson. Just because some technologies are predicted as possible to become common, that does not mean they will be. The main argument is money! We have the year 2013, with all the drones, satellite scans, bells and whistles, and a bunch of guys armed with AKs or Enfields(!) are still unbeatable to the most technologically advanced military in the world. With all the tech available, a single man with a rifle can still be very dangerous. When it comes to calculating a country's budget, top military tech in not the priority, cost-effectiveness is.

...Also, as for technology in general - most of current research is not really aimed at delivering new innovative tech, it's focused on miniaturization and reselling the same product over and over again with added power saving maybe and a new design...

And seriously, AI drones? I guess everyone has watched Terminator by now. Not gonna happen.

And also:

Has been a while since I have investigated these, but these should give some inkling what may be done in 20 years time.

AI technology is starting to become cheap. The same goes for visual data analysis. By 2035 it is unrealistic to expect every drone to be piloted by a human, and it´s feeds observed by humans. Instead, there will be a network of drones, and if one spots something, it will act according to mission plan. Either close and investigate, immediately alert a controller, or alert nearby ground forces.

Robots will also be able to navigate terrain autonomously, and projects like the robot Mules and Unmanned Truck Systems will result in support vehicles that can cross dangerous terrain without any threat to the operators, and supply forward troops without sacrificing manpower. This is tech that is being developed right now, and in part is already being field tested.

You also forget that the most groundbreaking technologies are, more often than not, surprises, so I doubt anything I have listed is actually that exciting. Money is rarely a problem when a war is on, and while it is true that the individual combat system is much more expensive, it is also much more effective. Modern ground warfare will be -extremely- high velocity, and dominated and decided by reconaissance and air power. We live in a time where it is possible for a single lucky strike fighter to put a stop on a battalion sized forces advance, and two can put the same formation permanently out of commission. If you look at air warfare, you will also realize that by now we are developing missiles that can use IR seekers at BVR ranges, and which use dichromatic seekerheads that render all current IR countermeasures ineffective. Add to that the fact that the kinematic performance of every missile built for close in combat, which will use these seekers, will out-perform any human manned fighter (because the human body is now by far the weakest link in the chain.).

Up until Desert Storm, ground forces could wage war against each other even without dense air cover. Today, any conflict is decided the moment one air force grounds the other (Desert Storm, War in Bosnia, Iraqi Freedom, and to a degree Lybia, as examples.), and air-air as well as air-ground weapons are only bound to become even more lethal as engineers strive to improve cost effectiveness and lethality.

A lot of the things I said are, granted, very optimistic.

But I think oftentimes, we also tend to be too pessimistic. Again, I am trying to provide some inspiration, possibly to the devs, and to future and current modders. I know the future conflict theme is hugely unpopular with many oldtimers in the community, and I am also trying to break that up a little bit too, where I can.

The future is a fun subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's put it like this: Twenty years ago, what did the military have, and what did people just assume they'd have today?

The most advanced military on Earth, the one we play as, the US military had many of the drones they have today, and those they didn't have can hardly be called revolutionary in comparison. They were only a few years away from issuing the same protective level body armour that has only been upgraded once since. They've issued NV goggles as standard issue, there are two new helmets for the different branches, they've issued optical sights to their weapons, introduced a few new small arms, gotten new camo, new MRAPs, Strykers, etc.

That's pretty much it. Just because a bunch of companies make promo films featuring animated test concepts that are in theory possible relatively soon, or even a few prototypes, doesn't mean that the US army in twenty years time will be hard to recognise. If anything, Arma 3 is going too far with technology by replacing Abrams', Apaches, etc. If we can learn anything by looking back twenty years, then it is that the infantry in twenty years will probably use the latest things issued to them rarely today, and things that are currently almost only issued to SF, like silencers (actually used on a larger scale than before by infantry deployed to Afghanistan, not to mask the sound, but the muzzle flash) MK.48s. Not intelligent mini drones, metal "skeletons" and pack robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more with scrim, but I think that A3 does just fine with the weaponry. People tend to have little too futuristic picture of the future in my opinion. Does anyone remember the book written in the 80s that estimated that we'd have replaced esplanades with conveyor belts and cars with supersonic trains and little spaceships in the beginning of 21th century? :rotfl:

Edited by Ezcoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New combat vehicles are also developed to very precise operating conditions. MRAPs for example will not be that useful in a continental, cold war, fulda-gap style scenario. On the other hand, AAVs and Bradleys do not work very well in an Urban, ambush and IED dominated guerillia war.

I litterly choked on my lunch when reading this. Tell this to the thousands of soldiers who have had a Bradley come to their rescue in Afghanistan or Iraq, being used as mobile shields against small arms, cover fire, artillery, heavy fire support. Or non combat roles such as Ambulances and troop extraction from fire zones. The Bradley is a compact, armored fighting vehicle perfectly capable of urban combat.

And I wouldn't go throwing around words like Precision in regards to military hardware, like most things new it all sounds great on paper but doesn't always translate well to real world scenarios. Most countries that have fought a revolution against tyranny in the last 100 years have used a weapon designed in 1940's and 50's, and you know what? Neither of them have changed much at all. the M16 and the AK. Pretty much all rifles since those two were first developed have used the same base formats even up to the newest and latest ACR which is just a pretty modular version of an M16, and by modular, I mean it has more rails on it to attach stuff and the stock folds, something the m16 and m4 didn't have standard.

The javelin missile is the best real world example of Press to Win, an anti tank rocket that is fire and forget, capable of firing hundreds of feet straight up and then coming down to hit its target that requires nothing more then a few moments of visual lock and then it doesn't matter if it goes behind a hill.

They sure didn't have that kind of tech during Vietnam though I am sure they would have loved too.

Military Tech moves at a much slower rate then civilian tech. Civilian tech doesn't have to worry about things like How many innocent people can this possibly kill if it malfunctions? No they worry about things like can we offer a warranty to fix it later and look like heros even though we know its broken now...

An example of Military Tech evolution. They built a Bradley fighting vehicle. 20 or 30 got blown up by IED's, they didn't go and reinvent a new fighting vehicle to combat insurgents. They welded a big V shaped metal plate under the vehicle to deflect IED explosions and continued to roll through the streets, why? Because it worked, and it was much cheaper then redesigning a new vehicle, and those vehicles are still out there doing a wonderful job, and doing what they are good at, support troops in an urban combat in more ways then you can probably imagine because troops get very creative in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradleys are de facto badly suited for urban warfare in counter insurgency because they're loud, tracked and thus more prone to breaking down than vehicles like the Stryker, doesn't carry as many troops, and look at the armaments: A 30mm cannon, a 7.62 MG and a TOW launcher. You're pretty much bound to only using the machine gun unless you want to cause much collateral damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amedeus the V shaped vehicle bottom was known for decades e.g. in African conflicts (even APCs of SAR used it) ...

extensive use of mines and also ieds tho not in mass amounts

it was actually lack of experience and need on the US part which led to huge casualties due to IEDs

if the refit was done prior deployment the amount of losses was tenfold lower

Edited by Dwarden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... The Bradley is a compact, armored fighting vehicle perfectly capable of urban combat.

Only after extensive rebuilds. The blast bottom is only a small part of the whole package. They put on ERA armour all around, added sensors and cameras to improve situational awareness and made the whole vehicle massively more expensive without a leap in combat value. And they didn´t invent a new tracked vehicle because they were already working on new tracked vehicles even BEFORE the Invasion started. The only new Vehicle introduced at the time was the stryker. After that, -many- new Vehicles were introduced, namely the MRAP family. This contains more than 10 different new Vehicles introduced since 2003.

If you look at -any- Urban combat scenario, Tanks have -always- failed to impress. From Stalingrad to Hungary to Grozny to Fallujah, to recent footage from Lybia and Syria, Tanks have been beaten to a pulp by untrained rebels with 50 year old AT grenades and surplus Arty shells buried at roadsides.

The main problem here is that the new vehicle families are built to do very specific things, and in a world in conflict scenario, the requirements for new equipment will change.

Major conflict drives technological evolution. That is why we saw so many huge leaps during the cold war. The main reason why everything slowed down to a literal trickle of progress (at least to the public's eye) is that the main incentive to evolve and revolutionize existing technology was gone.

Another thing one has to keep in mind is that warfighting equipment ever since WW1 is driven primarily not by presupposing an Idea, but by taking experience and working from that. And if you look closely, the main developments since the end of Vietnam have been in the evolution of air power lethality.

In WW2, Airplanes made Battleships obsolete. Today, a single Airplane can carry enough firepower to paralyze a Battalion sized force if it gets through. Unless you have a tight air defense network (which no NATO army, apart from those that have purchased Russian systems), modern standoff weapons can be used to attack ground Units from far beyond the reach of manpads and ground based cannon. I think, this is why we have not seen major leaps in ground based technology apart from very specific threat defeat systems (such as Trophy or Shtora), because battles are won from the air in such a decisive fashion that ground Units really are only necessary for mopping up and holding won ground.

The way air force destroyed the Iraqi military in 1991 was so decisive, everybody at the time was surprised. And the technology that was used then has continued to evolve. And from a Nato perspective, Opfor is not only catching up now, but if the internal problems of major western Air warfare platform developments persist, are realistically able to perform better than anything Nato can field in the next 25 years.

Like Rocket fuel, Assault Rifles are pretty much at the end of development: you can´t really improve on what we have, aside from trying refinements in mechanism and propellant chemistry. It is much the same for tanks: many MBTs are physically so heavily armoured that you run into physical problems defeating them without putting excessively big guns on your own vehicles OR improving your air based weapons to defeat them. And it doesn´t make much sense to armour a tank against a Maverick class Missile.

That´s the way I see it, anyways. And again, in a scenario of evident conflict, development will pick up again and continue like last time: until one side either runs out of steam (ie, economical leverage until society breaks down) or is beat in physical warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only after extensive rebuilds. The blast bottom is only a small part of the whole package. They put on ERA armour all around, added sensors and cameras to improve situational awareness and made the whole vehicle massively more expensive without a leap in combat value. And they didn´t invent a new tracked vehicle because they were already working on new tracked vehicles even BEFORE the Invasion started. The only new Vehicle introduced at the time was the stryker. After that, -many- new Vehicles were introduced, namely the MRAP family. This contains more than 10 different new Vehicles introduced since 2003.

If you look at -any- Urban combat scenario, Tanks have -always- failed to impress. From Stalingrad to Hungary to Grozny to Fallujah, to recent footage from Lybia and Syria, Tanks have been beaten to a pulp by untrained rebels with 50 year old AT grenades and surplus Arty shells buried at roadsides.

The main problem here is that the new vehicle families are built to do very specific things, and in a world in conflict scenario, the requirements for new equipment will change.

Major conflict drives technological evolution. That is why we saw so many huge leaps during the cold war. The main reason why everything slowed down to a literal trickle of progress (at least to the public's eye) is that the main incentive to evolve and revolutionize existing technology was gone.

Another thing one has to keep in mind is that warfighting equipment ever since WW1 is driven primarily not by presupposing an Idea, but by taking experience and working from that. And if you look closely, the main developments since the end of Vietnam have been in the evolution of air power lethality.

In WW2, Airplanes made Battleships obsolete. Today, a single Airplane can carry enough firepower to paralyze a Battalion sized force if it gets through. Unless you have a tight air defense network (which no NATO army, apart from those that have purchased Russian systems), modern standoff weapons can be used to attack ground Units from far beyond the reach of manpads and ground based cannon. I think, this is why we have not seen major leaps in ground based technology apart from very specific threat defeat systems (such as Trophy or Shtora), because battles are won from the air in such a decisive fashion that ground Units really are only necessary for mopping up and holding won ground.

The way air force destroyed the Iraqi military in 1991 was so decisive, everybody at the time was surprised. And the technology that was used then has continued to evolve. And from a Nato perspective, Opfor is not only catching up now, but if the internal problems of major western Air warfare platform developments persist, are realistically able to perform better than anything Nato can field in the next 25 years.

Like Rocket fuel, Assault Rifles are pretty much at the end of development: you can´t really improve on what we have, aside from trying refinements in mechanism and propellant chemistry. It is much the same for tanks: many MBTs are physically so heavily armoured that you run into physical problems defeating them without putting excessively big guns on your own vehicles OR improving your air based weapons to defeat them. And it doesn´t make much sense to armour a tank against a Maverick class Missile.

That´s the way I see it, anyways. And again, in a scenario of evident conflict, development will pick up again and continue like last time: until one side either runs out of steam (ie, economical leverage until society breaks down) or is beat in physical warfare.

I think you are wrong on some points.

Air assets alone will NEVER win a war. The Iraqi military was defeated because of poor training and old equipment.

if you want to see how effective Airpower is if you are fighting in a central european environment (with many forests to hide tanks in) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Military_casualties

Infantry and armored vehicels will always play a role. AS I see it we will experience a development of more effective AA systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Rocket fuel, Assault Rifles are pretty much at the end of development: you can´t really improve on what we have, aside from trying refinements in mechanism and propellant chemistry. It is much the same for tanks: many MBTs are physically so heavily armoured that you run into physical problems defeating them without putting excessively big guns on your own vehicles OR improving your air based weapons to defeat them. And it doesn´t make much sense to armour a tank against a Maverick class Missile.

That´s the way I see it, anyways. And again, in a scenario of evident conflict, development will pick up again and continue like last time: until one side either runs out of steam (ie, economical leverage until society breaks down) or is beat in physical warfare.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daisy chain a few shells or EFP their asses. Cheaper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×