2 CAS Aircraft remain unknown. What if?

[[evo] dan 79]

Could just do the age old strap bombs to a transport thing (or guns like AC130). Plenty of WW2 examples, and potential planes that could be converted today.

[runekn 3]

Well think of a low flying PSY-OPS plane blasting motivational phrases for the troops on the battlefield which also doubles as a logistics plane for all the locally sourced organic field rations.

It's part of NATO's 2030 resolution to cut costs by reducing the volume of ordnance dropped in combat and purchasing essentials locally, thus cutting logistics cost while supporting the local economy.

/Offtopic :bigglasses:

Ahh, yes. This is successor of the motivational papers. Which sometimes backfired when the wind made them blow to the enemy, motivating them.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Ok, ok, lets try and keep it realistic here. It has to fit in 2035, fit the factions backed by who supports them, and a plane that actually exists, or is in making, or is on the drawing board phase. In my opinion, a turboprop, even though sub sonic, could work, but i don't feel it being used in a 2035 era. Than again that Mig looks rather interesting, but doesn't fit the sub sonic rage quite like the Yak-130/131. The Yak-141? I remember comparing it to the F-35.

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/yak141_3.jpg

It has VTOL just like the F-35, made for naval operations as well. Looked cool, but the maneuverability is not so great, and the era... not too sure.

[[evo] dan 79]

What about the T-50 Golden Eagle in an attack form?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Golden eagle? Wait, i thought the CY-47 (Su-47 Burket) was classified as golden Eagle? But, the T-50 (SU-50, or PAK-FA-50) goes over the speed of sound meaning it is not sub sonic. Though, that would be really cool, but than BI would have to find a way to calculate Thrust Vector into the flight model.

[LoneCrow66 10]

I can't see any other heavy lifters out there changing in the next 50 years. The C130, C5 etc will all be similar in the future, so might as well not beat around the bush and make them in this game. Including the spectre version

[[evo] dan 79]

Golden eagle? Wait, i thought the CY-47 (Su-47 Burket) was classified as golden Eagle? But, the T-50 (SU-50, or PAK-FA-50) goes over the speed of sound meaning it is not sub sonic. Though, that would be really cool, but than BI would have to find a way to calculate Thrust Vector into the flight model.

The South Korean T-50, yes I know its confusing but not the same plane, I should have realised.

[mistyronin 1181]

IMO the best option for NATO would be a modernized version of the AC 130, which can also have a cargo version.

BTW using a jet for CAS is not the most intelligent option. Just read about this future CAS USAF program

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Ahh yes, the South Korean T-50, is very comparable to the role of the Yak-130, which would make it a nice fit for Blufor. CAS in the form of Prop is more for recon, and low threat environment as it states. Now, having a Kamysh, and Cheetah AA system in the area would have me sweating bullets if i were in a Bronco. Ahaha, but in a low threat Environment, the Bronco would be down right awesome as a COIN craft. Now if only BI could fix the problem with the countermeasure modes from Burst to Single.

[chortles 263]

Despite BI stating that both planes will be sub-sonic, I still wish the CSAT one will be something similar to the YAK-141.

Hmm, I don't recall where BI confirmed that both aircraft would be subsonic?

BTW using a jet for CAS is not the most intelligent option. Just read about this future CAS USAF program

That program was subsequently turned into the Light Air Support program, which ended up being instead about arming the Afghan Air Force instead of "USAF COIN", neither incarnation is/was "future CAS USAF", and if I recall correctly both were (LAS definitely was) won by the A-29B Super Tucano.

I'm eyeing the Scorpion more though lately...

Now, having a Kamysh, and Cheetah AA system in the area would have me sweating bullets if i were in a Bronco. Ahaha, but in a low threat Environment, the Bronco would be down right awesome as a COIN craft.

Speaking of Broncos, USCENTCOM/USSOCOM's Combat Dragon II evaluation program just concluded after the funding expired today, having used a pair of OV-10G+ Broncos on loan from NASA, both of which were formerly USMC OV-10D+'s.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

http://www.combatreform.org/killerbees3.htm

A good article, but the historical context its presented in makes a much better arguement. There are plenty of combat aircraft out there without the need to "reinvent" stuff for 2035.

In a conversation yesterday I threw up some figures regarding weapons and weapons systems/airframes:

Firearms:

M1911 (.45 cal Pistol) 1911-Present 102 years

M-16 1962-Present 51 years

AK-47 1949-Present 64 years

AK-74 1978-Present 35 years

RPG-7 1961-Present 52 years

FN FAL 1951-Present 62 years

Aircraft:

OH6(AH6) 1963-Present 50 years

A-10 1972-Present 41 years

Vehicles:

Jeep (M151 MUTT) 1959-1982 23 years

Jeep total service life 40+ years

UAZ 469 1973-Present 40 years

To assume that in 22 years many current and last few Gen's of weapons/weapon systems/airframes will not be in service just doesnt make sense.

[clydefrog 3]

To assume that in 22 years many current and last few Gen's of weapons/weapon systems/airframes will not be in service just doesnt make sense.

Tell that to BIS.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

To be fair to BI, there may be things that are beyond their control that maybe they are just not sharing with us. Things like TradeMarks and licensing issues. IDK, just a guess on my part really.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

FOUND SOMETHING. The germans were building a trainer jet, i believe it is sub sonic, and was cancelled, just like how the Comanche was cancelled.

EADS Mako/HEAT

http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2006/m02006120200156.jpg (116 kB)

Was being built by the Germans, but could be used as a NATO thing. Stealth looking, air frame is similar to the Italian M-346, but more stealthy looking. What do you think?

Edited October 7, 2013 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Looks a little bit like a (modified/derivative) F-5 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/F-5N_from_VFC-111_Sundowners_taxiing.jpg

[the_demongod 31]

The melodic death metal sold me on the YAK-130 haha. I'd prefer if the transport aircraft would be separate from the CAS planes... I would not be surprised if the devs pulled a Kajman on us. "Why don't we just have the V-22 Osprey be the transport AND CAS plane for BLUFOR?" "Yeah, that's such a great idea, why don't we just put a hexagonal pattern on it and give it OPFOR as well?

[mistyronin 1181]

I'd prefer if the transport aircraft would be separate from the CAS planes... I would not be surprised if the devs pulled a Kajman on us. "Why don't we just have the V-22 Osprey be the transport AND CAS plane for BLUFOR?" "Yeah, that's such a great idea, why don't we just put a hexagonal pattern on it and give it OPFOR as well?

It wouldn't be anything out of reason, you know: Valor V280

BTW I always thought that the capabilities of the Mi Hind ( which Kajman is based on ) have more tactical advantages, as it can be used as transport and then bring hell as CAS for the troops it has just deployed. Which is way more logical IMO than having to have additional vehicles with their cost.

[clydefrog 3]

Some of you guys have low standards, it's almost like some of you are happy to have hardly any planes. The idea of having a C130 etc. for both CAS and transport is laughable, yeah I'd like to see that thing defend itself from and evade/outmaneuver intercepting enemy aircraft. You can't combine the roles if you need the thing to be maneuverable and versatile enough to also be able to fight other aircraft apart from drop bombs on things.

By the way the Kajman is based on an Mi-28 Havoc, they've just added the Hind idea of it being able to carry troops too and invented their own helicopter. If you meant that the Kajman is based on the capabilities of the Hind and not the Hind itself then yeah, it's a gunship with troop transport.

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------

FOUND SOMETHING. The germans were building a trainer jet, i believe it is sub sonic, and was cancelled, just like how the Comanche was cancelled.

EADS Mako/HEAT

http://i43.tinypic.com/fa0f7m.jpg

http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2006/m02006120200156.jpg (116 kB)

http://blog-imgs-35-origin.fc2.com/s/t/u/studiotomochan/mako1602.jpg (179 kB)

Was being built by the Germans, but could be used as a NATO thing. Stealth looking, air frame is similar to the Italian M-346, but more stealthy looking. What do you think?

I think it's a trainer jet. We've already basically got one of those in the game, no more thanks. I don't think in 2035 countries like the USA are going to be relying on training aircraft in wars.

So now we've had people suggesting more trainers and turboprop planes, what's next? A glider?

I'm not a fan of the F-35 but I'd take it over a lot of these other suggestions even if it was a straight port from Arma 2, jesus.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[mistyronin 1181]

Some of you guys have low standards, it's almost like some of you are happy to have hardly any planes. The idea of having a C130 etc. for both CAS and transport is laughable, yeah I'd like to see that thing defend itself from and evade/outmaneuver intercepting enemy aircraft. You can't combine the roles if you need the thing to be maneuverable and versatile enough to also be able to fight other aircraft apart from drop bombs on things.

As far as I know, Arma has always been a combined arms game, were planes in game are only to support infantry. And having in mind that in A3 BI has already said that will focus more on infantry... Besides we also have been told that there is only one CAS plane in production for each main side. So I prefer a good plane that can have different functions, that one that can only have one.

BTW I've never seen aircraft fight as a part of the series, besides that the maps are way too small for that.

Anyway I prefer BI spend more time fixing and improving ground fight, than add more planes. They can wait until the combined arms is working at 100%.

[clydefrog 3]

As far as I know, Arma has always been a combined arms game, were planes in game are only to support of infantry. And having in mind that in A3 BI has already said that will focus more on infantry... Besides we also have been told that there is only one CAS plane in production for each main side. So I prefer a good plane that can have different functions, that one that can only have one.

BTW I've never seen aircraft fight as a part of the series, besides that the maps are way too small for that.

Anyway I prefer BI spend more time fixing and improving ground fight, than add more planes. They can wait until the combined arms is working at 100%.

Well as far as you know you are are wrong because if they're only to support infantry then why the hell are planes in Arma 2 equipped with AA weapons. And also why is there a buzzard with an AA loadout in Arma 3? So no matter whether you see aerial engagements as part of the series or not, it is part of it.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[mistyronin 1181]

Well as far as you know you are are wrong because if they're only to support infantry then why the hell are planes in Arma 2 equipped with AA weapons. And also why is there a buzzard with an AA loadout in Arma 3? So no matter whether you see aerial engagements as part of the series or not, it is part of it.

As an extra, but Arma is not pretending to be a combat flight simulator. And as developers have already stated, A3 specifically will focus on infantry combat.

[clydefrog 3]

As an extra, but Arma is not pretending to be a combat flight simulator. And as developers have already stated, A3 specifically will focus on infantry combat.

who said anything about a combat flight simulator? I'm just telling you that AA weapons are on planes for a reason. It's not pretending to be a simulator of anything, because it doesn't simulate anything. Also you said "Arma has always been a combined arms game", well if what you say is true and "A3 specifically will focus on infantry combat", it sounds like it isn't anymore and everything in it that's not infantry based is just "an extra" that has no had much focus or as much thought put into it.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[mistyronin 1181]

who said anything about a combat flight simulator? I'm just telling you that AA weapons are on planes for a reason. It's not pretending to be a simulator of anything, because it doesn't simulate anything. Also you said "Arma has always been a combined arms game", well if what you say is true and "A3 specifically will focus on infantry combat", it sounds like it isn't anymore and everything in it that's not infantry based is just "an extra" that has no had much focus or as much thought put into it.

Ok, I'm obviously wrong. Air combat has always been an important part in the series, that's why in A3 we have even more planes than any other kind of vehicles in game, more planes than any previous game in the series. And not only that, the devs have promised us that they will add even more in future free DLCs, they have specifically stated that they are making right now one specific AA plane for each main side...

Oh... wait... was it like that? :rolleyes:

It's always nice to build castles in the sky, and dream that BI will add lots of planes, but reality doesn't look that bright...

[clydefrog 3]

Ok, I'm obviously wrong. Air combat has always been an important part in the series, that's why in A3 we have even more planes than any other kind of vehicles in game, more planes than any previous game in the series. And not only that, the devs have promised us that they will add even more in future free DLCs, they have specifically stated that they are making right now one specific AA plane for each main side...

Oh... wait... was it like that? :rolleyes:

It's always nice to build castles in the sky, and dream that BI will add lots of planes, but reality doesn't look that bright...

We have one plane in Arma 3 because they couldn't be arsed making more and only decided to once there was outrage on these forums that the game only had one plane. Good job people complained about that or it would stay that way along with everything else this game is lacking. You might notice that once there are 3 planes in the game that will be more planes than there are tanks at least. Don't try to be sarcastic about there being less planes than everything else in Arma 3, because there is mostly less of everything in Arma 3 compared to the other games in the series except for useless hats.

By the way, you do know CAS aircraft have AA capabilities, weapons and the ability to defend themselves against other aircraft right? Don't try and twist my words to try and win an argument, you're wrong with what you said and that's it ("planes in game are only to support of infantry" - they are there to do whatever you want/can with them). But I do know you're one of those people on here who try to defend everything BI do and I've had discussions with you before on other topics on here. This is the last time I bother.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[mistyronin 1181]

because there is mostly less of everything in Arma 3 compared to the other games in the series except for useless hats.

Let me suggest you a nice read Objective look at A3 initial release content. :rolleyes:

I find interesting that in this forums some people tag me as a "crybaby that always complain about BI" and others as "I defend everything BI do". Maybe it's because I'm trying to be realistic? I don't know...

Anyway if your way to defend your arguments is to go personal, there's no point in more talks :)