There should be multiple jets in the release version

[clydefrog 3]

Another funny thing is look at what Greece has in their airforce as far as combat aircraft:

Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon | F-16C / F-16D

Dassault Mirage 2000 | 2000EGM

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II | RF-4E Phantom II / F-4E PI-2000 AUP

LTV A-7 Corsair II | A-7E / TA-7C

and they give them a trainer aircraft not even used by them (according to wikipedia they use the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II and Rockwell T-2 Buckeye). This just makes no sense whatsoever, I can't understand it.

Edited August 11, 2013 by clydefrog

[dmarkwick 261]

Another funny thing is look at what Greece has in their airforce as far as combat aircraft:

Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon | F-16C / F-16D

Dassault Mirage 2000 | 2000EGM

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II | RF-4E Phantom II / F-4E PI-2000 AUP

LTV A-7 Corsair II | A-7E / TA-7C

and they give them a trainer aircraft not even used by them (according to wikipedia they use the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II and Rockwell T-2 Buckeye). This just makes no sense whatsoever, I can't understand it.

You can understand it if you take into account the legal troubles 2 of the lead guys are still in - their case hasn't been finalised as far as I know or have heard. Removing RL Greek assets from the game's Greek faction might be part of a softly-softly approach until such time as the legal troubles are over.

[Alpha-Kilo 36]

I don't see the reason for this fierce debate about planes in ArmA3. One faction comes with a jet and the others have armed UAVs instead. This means that all factions will able to do recon and attack missions. Is there a difference between a piloted aircraft and a drone in a video game?

[Bee8190 10]

Another funny thing is look at what Greece has in their airforce as far as combat aircraft:

Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon | F-16C / F-16D

Dassault Mirage 2000 | 2000EGM

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II | RF-4E Phantom II / F-4E PI-2000 AUP

LTV A-7 Corsair II | A-7E / TA-7C

and they give them a trainer aircraft not even used by them (according to wikipedia they use the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II and Rockwell T-2 Buckeye). This just makes no sense whatsoever, I can't understand it.

Something I've been wondering about as well. Not only am I sick of the L ''alca'' plane being in every game so far but also it's the only one. If there were licensing issues why not just do what has been done with all vehicles? Slight design changes and name change and off we go?

[chortles 263]

The A-143 Buzzard is based off of the L-159 fighter -- not the L-39 trainer -- so yeah, they did do the name change. As for why they'd feature the L-159... *cough cough* That it's not nearly as recognizable as a F-35 to American and Canadian gamers is probably a plus.

And Alpha-Kilo, an interesting thing: I'm not aware of either the BLUFOR or the OPFOR UAVs having AAMs, only AGMs, while the A-143 has both AA and CAS versions in the Editor's vehicle list (under Empty)...

[13islucky 10]

Another funny thing is look at what Greece has in their airforce as far as combat aircraft:

Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon | F-16C / F-16D

Dassault Mirage 2000 | 2000EGM

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II | RF-4E Phantom II / F-4E PI-2000 AUP

LTV A-7 Corsair II | A-7E / TA-7C

and they give them a trainer aircraft not even used by them (according to wikipedia they use the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II and Rockwell T-2 Buckeye). This just makes no sense whatsoever, I can't understand it.

To be absolutely fair the devs said that AAF was supposed to be an underequipped army based off the Armed Forces of Malta, which coincidentally have... 2 non trainer planes, neither of which is armed.

[chortles 263]

I vaguely believe that it was Moricky who explicitly said that the basis was the Armed Forces of Malta, but 13isLucky and I recall that remark -- comparison with real-world Greece no longer applies.

[[evo] dan 79]

I wonder if the jet has 2 seats (or could come in a 2 seat version), with dual controls like some of the heli's, so we could use it as a training aircraft too?

[b00tsy 28]

Rather convenient that they seem to have chosen lack of fixed wing assets under the guise of modern warefare/realism. I was excited for the commanche but not at the expense of the A10 f35 etc.

Make the physics/immersion realistic not the scenario, the community can do that quick and easy all we need are the toys!

Indeed, ArmA3 is more like ´take on helicopters (more then enough heli´s in the game!)´ with some ground vehicles and infantry, one lonely jet was added and not even like an advanced futuristic jet that is in line with all the other futuristic looking content. Also the huge airfield with many hangars and landingstrips looks just silly with only 1 jet in the game.

[celery 8]

The A-143 Buzzard is based off of the L-159 fighter -- not the L-39 trainer -- so yeah, they did do the name change.

L-39, L-59 and L-159 are all basically the same plane with some minor changes along the way.

[chortles 263]

He seemed to be using the L-39/L-59 identifier as if the Buzzard was somehow supposed to be incapable of combat.

[EVO] Dan, unfortunately it looks like the jet's a single-seater in-game; in the livestream there's only two jet variants shown, one AA and one CAS, and the CAS one used in the video had no "Release controls" or "Take controls" option in the action menu during takeoff (just the standard "Engine off", "Landing autopilot", "Eject", "Gear up", "Flaps down", "Lights On" and "Collision lights on") while weapons are immediately under the pilot's direct control: in this case that's three hundred (300) rounds of 20 mm HE, two Skalpel ATGMs (using the "broken diamond" reticle with the "diamond over square" lock) and two GBU-12 bombs (no idea whether they're actually supposed to be Paveway IIs or merely same designation, but in-game they use the single-circle reticle without a line).

[maffa 29]

Indeed, ArmA3 is more like ´take on helicopters (more then enough heli´s in the game!)´ with some ground vehicles and infantry, one lonely jet was added and not even like an advanced futuristic jet that is in line with all the other futuristic looking content. Also the huge airfield with many hangars and landingstrips looks just silly with only 1 jet in the game.

To be completely honest, it si pretty pretty reasonable having UCAVs instead of a multitude of planes. Several analists predict this way of progress: drones are cheaper and faster to build by a LOT and most of all they are expendable.

What is honestly seems to me is that people is not ready to full accept this scenarioand its consequences. What most keep asking is another 2013 scenario ARMA, with better graphics and so on. This si not possibile anymore, for some reasons. It is notte eventi possibile calling existing weapons with their own James, like the cheytac .408 that has become an m320 -the same as the grenade launcher.

This is not A2 anymore. The ambientation, the weapons, the balance is not that anymore and now it's too late to change course.

And i will repeat myself again: don't use a hammer to screw a bolt. This physic engine manages to male people run poorly. This is the wrong timeline, wrong scenario, wrong maps to have fixed swing jets running a round. Managing helos wheeled and tracked vehicles together with foot soldiers sounds plenty combined to me.

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Damn italian T9...

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

James=names...

[dna_uk 30]

Not going to lie, it is a disappointing fact indeed that there will only be one fixed wing aircraft in the game. However I have completely confidence BIS will get around to at least finishing the F35 and the Osprey for a patch or DLC.

Don't think I'll be gagging for them on release though, plenty of awesome helicopters and UAVs to play with :)

For those that really want fixed wing aircraft, just wait for release, there will be plenty of mods no doubt.

[b00tsy 28]

@Maffa , if it was supposed to be realistic ´futuristic´then Iran would not be in Greece in the first place. A more realistic future scenario would be Iran invading Israel or something, but I guess that would have meant even more Devs in jail as israel is way more paranoid about ´spies´. The point is that we have this great ArmA2 where the airforce can be a big part in missions, but in ArmA 3 it is not even optional, because there is 1 basic jet (on the biggest map ever). If you don´t want to fly jets or don´t want to see them in missions thats fine, but they should be in the game for the ones that do think it is a vital aspect of military. Also in 20 years from now there will still be jets in action, you can´t tell me that an army will be totally depended on a bunch of drones. I mean , nice that they added drones, but I probably will not be using them as I like more conventional warfare. Good chance (hoping) that there will be a whole bunch of AiA servers after release with conventional ArmA2 content.

[Hartmann 10]

To be completely honest, it si pretty pretty reasonable having UCAVs instead of a multitude of planes. Several analists predict this way of progress: drones are cheaper and faster to build by a LOT and most of all they are expendable.

What is honestly seems to me is that people is not ready to full accept this scenarioand its consequences. What most keep asking is another 2013 scenario ARMA, with better graphics and so on. This si not possibile anymore, for some reasons. It is notte eventi possibile calling existing weapons with their own James, like the cheytac .408 that has become an m320 -the same as the grenade launcher.

This is not A2 anymore. The ambientation, the weapons, the balance is not that anymore and now it's too late to change course.

And i will repeat myself again: don't use a hammer to screw a bolt. This physic engine manages to male people run poorly. This is the wrong timeline, wrong scenario, wrong maps to have fixed swing jets running a round. Managing helos wheeled and tracked vehicles together with foot soldiers sounds plenty combined to me.

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Damn italian T9...

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

James=names...

Don't try and justify the lack of planes because those would've somehow been 'phased out' by that time. One it's an absurd notion, and two you know very well that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual reason.

[clydefrog 3]

If they're going to replace planes with UAV's they should do UAVs properly and not the lame way it looks at the moment where it is almost just like you're in the thing flying it yourself anyways. In the video when the guys soldier started using the quadrotor, the soldier just stood there with his weapon pointing out still, honestly to me that just looks like laziness.

When you use a UAV you should be sat at some terminal or something watching through a screen (since they have PIP now this should be doable, just like when you watch a screen in a vehicle), and with the quadrotor you hold some controller and watch through a screen, part of the handheld device or otherwise. The way it is seems like no thought or effort has really gone into making something that's supposed to be new to the game imo.

And yes the thought that jets will have been completely replaced by UAVs in the next 20 years is a joke.

Edited August 11, 2013 by clydefrog

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

Yes, the soldier standing with his weapon there is pretty lame, hope they will add somekind of animation, i don't like the PiP idea though, not because it is a bad idea, but because PiP isn't realiable, some people has to use it on the lowest settings, and some even wish to disable it because of fps issues, i think the first person in the UAV is pretty cool, the third person is just like the player 3rd person, it isn't meant to be realistic, its just a feature so i have no problem with it.

But surely it should work like the gunner seats on the Hunters,Ifrits and Striders, a PiP and when you toggle your sights it goes to the UAV view without PiP delay and clear image so it would be fair to those that have problems with PiP

And add some kind of animation of the operator operating the UAV, please!

[comp_uter15776 1]

Yeah I agree with Lucas, it should be PiP but unforced, where it's only PiP for the zoomed out optic and when you're zoomed in it'd be like it was in the ls.

[clydefrog 3]

Yeah I agree with Lucas, it should be PiP but unforced, where it's only PiP for the zoomed out optic and when you're zoomed in it'd be like it was in the ls.

That would be fine, when you look into it/zoom in it is just like it is already, you get a full screen clear image. But having the PiP screen with other stuff around it like this:

would greatly improve it.

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

Exactly! Hope it isn't too late to make it this way

[clydefrog 3]

Can't say I'm expecting them to bother doing something like this, hope I'm wrong but so far with 1 month to go to release, I'm not really getting the impression that they've thought about everything enough or just plain not bothered and there's going to be quite a bit lacking. A main thing that sticks out is the sound but that's another thread.

[*LK1* 10]

I don't see the reason for this fierce debate about planes in ArmA3. One faction comes with a jet and the others have armed UAVs instead. This means that all factions will able to do recon and attack missions. Is there a difference between a piloted aircraft and a drone in a video game?

not sure if...

[Alistair 10]

These are the planes we should be getting for the other factions:

NATO(F35):

CSAT(PAK FA/T-50):

Makes a lot of sense to me.

I hope they release something like this in a post-release patch.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Alistair

[valax 1]

Sorry if I missed someone confirming this (I skimmed through this thread) but do all 3 factions share the Buzzard jet fighter? Either way, I am quite concerned with the lack of fixed wing in A3. Hopefully the helis can make up for it though.

[Steakslim 1]

Honestly from what we've seen the greenfor gets the buzzard assuming the very very early screenshots of the opfor camo buzzard wasn't just a placeholder like many other things during the first announcements of the game.