2 CAS Aircraft remain unknown. What if?

[clydefrog 3]

I've not defended my argument by getting personal, I've defended it by making valid points that you have no come back to.

So in Arma 3 when the 2 new planes come out making a total of 3 different planes, there will be more planes than there are tanks - true or false? (and don't try to debate what classes as a tank, you know what they are and there are only 2 of them).

By the way all that thread shows is Arma 2 has more content which is what I was saying, so what are you trying to prove? Your argument falls down yet again even on the one little thing you picked out of the post that you thought you could prove me wrong on.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[mistyronin 1181]

I've not defended my argument by getting personal, I've defended it by making valid points that you have no come back to.



Uhm...



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.


On the other hand...

By the way all that thread shows is Arma 2 has more content which is what I was saying, so what are you trying to prove?


Oh, I thought you said:



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



Unless you mean that: A2 = the other games in the series... 



If you really want me to continue listing all, I see no point to keep it here ( as its getting personal ), so feel free to PM me.

[clydefrog 3]



Uhm...




Oh, I thought you said:



Unless you mean that: A2 = the other games in the series... 



I'll say it again for you:

"I've not defended my argument by getting personal, I've defended it by making valid points that you have no come back to". Whatever you have taken personally is not what I've used to defend my argument, I've already done that by showing you you're wrong about planes only being in the game to support infantry. I'd already defended my argument before I got personal.

I don't compare to Arma 1 or OFP as I never played them excluding the Arma 1 demo, so my only reference is Arma 2 which is another game in the series, and it has a lot more content.

Anyways enough of that, to bring this back on topic and I was saying before that stuff:

A plane that combines CAS and cargo instead of having one that specialises in each is a bad idea for the reasons mentioned.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[mistyronin 1181]

I don't compare to Arma 1 or OFP as I never played them excluding the Arma 1 demo, so my only reference is Arma 2 which is another game in the series, and it has a lot more content.

Ok, that makes sense. But then you shouldn't make comparisons with the content of all the other games in the series, if you don't even know them in deep; neither talk about the role of planes in the series.

Well let me explain you why A2 has such huge amount of content ( you can then ask other veteran players to see if what I'm saying is right ). Mainly (95%) is ported content from the previous games. Not stuff that has been exclusively worked for that game.

With A3, is the first time since OFP ( the first game ) that we have so many new and exclusive stuff.

People may complain about retextures in some vehicles ( like UAV or ships ), and they are completely right, also with the turret sharing. But that doesn't mean that compared to the previous games, there has been a huge step forward in a lot of features ( infantry control, driving, IA, lighting, textures, CQC, etc. ).

I understand that for people that have only played A2, the A3 release may have been disappointing, but it's because they don't realise that most of A2 work was already done and sold before the A2 development began.

[clydefrog 3]

I don't want to carry on with this as it's off topic but you do realise some of the stuff in arma 3 is ported too don't you, from both Arma 2 and Arma 2 DLC just with slight modifications? That includes helicopters (KA-60, little bird, merlin), the plane (the L-159 Alca from ACR), buildings (some of the buildings on Altis are Arma 2 buildings), one of the vehicles I believe is from ACR (can't remember which one) then there is stuff in the editor for example the camo nets which are just recoloured. So it is not like Arma 3 uses only newly created content.

Anyways let's just leave it now.

Edited October 2, 2013 by clydefrog

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That was silly, and almost off topic, but anyway, CAS/AA are reasonable. Mixing CAS with transport, should ONLY be done by helicopter. It would be really awesome if they did something like the MI-8/17's, and had attachable wings to the sides of the Ghost Hawk, that can carry rockets and missiles. Hell yeah. Besides that aspect, trainer jets? You know trainer jets are not only designed for "training" right? Take a look at the F-5E. Was good in conflicts. How about the M-346. That is a trainer, but in fighter config it packs one hell of a punch. Same thing with the YAK-130 on the front page. Look like a trainer? Course not, its a cross bread. Built for combat, but built well and is used for training. Its a Fantastic aircraft. Maneuverable, Capable, and Stealthy. You cant get a more perfect aircraft.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Mainly (95%) is ported content from the previous games. Not stuff that has been exclusively worked for that game.

And why should anyone care? I dont give a shit about how it got into the game, the only thing that matters is that it was THERE. Bohemia set a certain standard for ArmA II, and now they should have improved upon this standard with ArmA III. It doesnt matter if they ported models, or found a box of gold and could afford more 3D artists, or whatever.

The only thing that matters is that customers expect improvement over the previous title, and if that improvement doesnt happen, they will be disappointed. And rightfully so.

Fanboys like you would attach a huge note on every box, explaining to the customers in detail why this is missing and why that got not implemented and why this didnt made it into the game...But hey you are not allowed to be angry! There were REASONS! Yeah in the business world, it doesnt work like that. Customers are NOT your friends. They are people who give you money and want something in return for it.

[mistyronin 1181]

And why should anyone care? I dont give a shit about how it got into the game, the only thing that matters is that it was THERE. Bohemia set a certain standard for ArmA II, and now they should have improved upon this standard with ArmA III. It doesnt matter if they ported models, or found a box of gold and could afford more 3D artists, or whatever.

So you wouldn't mind having all the A2 stuff ported to A3? I wouldn't, but seen how many people complain about the copy&paste this last years... maybe that was the reason that moved BI to try to make a difference.

Fanboys like you

It's awesome how people use certain adjectives to try give more strength to their weak points. As I said before I've been called in this forums from "complaining crybaby, self-entitled" and "fanboy" , depending on what are trying to defend the one that calls me that. Grow up, personal attacks are not the way to go.

But hey you are not allowed to be angry!

Of course you can, you can have as much tantrums as you want. You can shout, scream, cry, insult, etc. but is it gonna change anything? Nope.

If you care about the game try to give constructive criticism and maybe BI will improve the game. If not, you better beg Steam Customer Attention to give your money back or use your time in something more useful.

--------

Going back to topic, I do think that at this moment would be better some kind of Bell V-280 Valor / C130, that can be used both as CAS and transport, to have the basics. And in future DLCs or expansions more kinds of planes.

[chortles 263]

Bohemia set a certain standard for ArmA II

Funny thing is that Maruk's Report In! interview basically had BI's CEO overtly regretting that:

The library of content present in Arma 2 is simply overwhelming, and in hindsight might not be commercially justifiable for a single game.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Seeing as it is a massive sandbox, Arma III with a bigger map, and better detail and optimization than Arma II, should have more, or at least the same amount of content in it. But not ports, finely detailed things that fit. The SUV and trucks are good example for the civilian faction. Would be nice to have some more civilian things, such as prop planes, and helicopters.

[mistyronin 1181]

Seeing as it is a massive sandbox, Arma III with a bigger map, and better detail and optimization than Arma II, should have more, or at least the same amount of content in it. But not ports, finely detailed things that fit. The SUV and trucks are good example for the civilian faction. Would be nice to have some more civilian things, such as prop planes, and helicopters.

Agree, the game deserves more content, I hope that we'll have more and more in future dlcs and maybe some expansion.

[chortles 263]

Seeing above... "at least the same amount of content" wasn't in the cards for this game (whether from the beginning or as a result of the changeover in project leads), and Maruk's quote suggests that in the future Arma 2 may be the exception, not the rule...

I'm still interested in the Textron AirLand Scorpion if we were going the jet route instead of the turboprop route, since the proposal is a subsonic jet (claimed top speed of 450 knots, or 833 km/h) with six hardpoints (all underwing) plus an internal payload bay, and supposedly the capability to go 150 nautical miles (277.8 km) out and do 5 hours time on station (loiter?)... would be more than enough time for any "usual" mission on Altis and and Stratis... haven't heard anything about a gun for it though.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I do agree, the Scorpion is a good CAS jet. On the other hand, it doesn't look too maneuverable, so as an Air to Air... Well... Even the ALCA (Buzzard) could out manuver a Scorpion, just judging by its air frame and wing span configuration.

[jelskipro 32]

i hope the new blufor jet is going to be a F22

[chortles 263]

I do agree, the Scorpion is a good CAS jet. On the other hand, it doesn't look too maneuverable, so as an Air to Air... Well... Even the ALCA (Buzzard) could out manuver a Scorpion, just judging by its air frame and wing span configuration.

Hey now, we're talking "CAS aircraft", not how it does in air-to-air. :p Even its "Aerospace Control Alert" (read: intercept) blurb admits that it's for "unidentified low and slow aircraft" such as what's in the example image, to say nothing of being such being the only overtly air-related mission out of six offered (and only one that talks speed instead of duration), and even Textron's CEO talked up the design goal as being "the world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft capable of performing lower-threat battlefield and homeland security missions" with no mention of how it would do in air-to-air. Hell, it's influenced by the Cessna Citation business jet line, Cessna being a Textron subsidiary, with supposedly as much as 70% of components being commercial-off-the-shelf and some degree of modularity in the design...

Unfortunately the main thing against it for Arma 3 is that some of its "sales pitches" -- that is, some of its purported strengths relative to other potential CAS platforms -- just aren't simulated in Arma due to the limited gameplay mechanics*... the A-10 conceptually has "the big gun and a bunch of hitpoints (Hull)", the AV-8B/F-35B (stop laughing) has VTOL... whereas the main "statistical" (numerical) strength for the Scorpion that Textron marketing advertised that is simulated in Arma is "time on station", presumably represented as fuel consumption, but again, five hours is more than most missions take and even the aforementioned travel-to-AO distance (and travel back after 5 hours' time on station) is longer than Altis' area (in square kilometers) of only 270 km2... I won't call it so much "overkill" as "Altis is too small for that loiter time to be noticeably better than other fixed-wing CAS platforms over the course of a probable unaccelerated Arma mission duration."

* The most obvious are cost per unit and cost to operate (intended to be $3,000/hour or less) but just-as-relevant-in-the-real-world-yett-just-as-irrelevant-in-Arma-ones are readiness (compared to, say, the B-2) and maintenance (number of maintainers, total time to prepare for takeoff, collective person-hours)...

Edited October 4, 2013 by Chortles

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, your very precise on the Scorpion, though, i do believe since the setting is 2035, and by that time, most of NATO will be using F-35's (with the exception of Canada's CF-105 Super Arrow), i do believe it would be necessary for BI to produce top notch CAS aircraft due to the setting. It would fit with the other top notch technology they have on ground forces, and rotary forces as well, making for a more polished, full feel of Arma 3.

[chortles 263]

Therein lies an issue though... what exactly is BI's "vision" of alt-2035 fixed-wing CAS?

I mean, we basically have five visions for real-world 2013 fixed-wing CAS: big jet (basically just the A-10), bigger fixed-wing (again, basically just the AC-130), "fast air" strike fighters or other multirole fighters with "CAS" loadouts, "small" jets that are usually light attack-capable trainers (although the A-4 Skyhawk and Su-25 Frogfoot are iconic examples of such purpose-built attack/CAS aircraft), and "small" turboprops whether also light attack-capable trainers or purpose-built attack aircraft. Heck, apparently one of the would-be entries for the LAAR/LAS program was an uparmored/armed version of the AT-802... an aerial firefighter and cropduster. Seriously.

Whatever real-world militaries choose has no real bearing on what BI will choose, but BI has also given no insight into what they have in mind for what NATO and CSAT fielded in their alt-2035. All we know is that the AAF chose to go the fast air route... well, fast air for them, more like "small jet of the light attack-capable trainer variety albeit with an air-to-air loadout" to others...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, i wouldn't call the SU-25 light attack. More of a moderate, and it is not very maneuverable as well. But over all, I dought BI is going to throw in some out of the ordinary make shift CAS aircraft, like say, some kind of cargo plane with cannons out the side, or like the armed crop duster. From the looks of right now, they are going by Factions, and gear that fits the faction. The ACLA was ok for Greenfor, yes it is small, and not the best of tech for 2035, but that is expected of the supposed rebel group. They don't even have an attack helo, or even an MBT. Just a standard APC. Now, looking as NATO and CSAT are more organized, and super power based factions, it would only fit for BI to take more of a route they did in past games. Every Super Faction has its APC, Tank, Helo, Ship, and Aircraft. Blufor had F-35, Harrier, and A-10, as where Opfor had SU-25, SU-25M, SU-35. So for Arma III, as id noted, should follow the basic route of how factions would pace themselves against each other, based on their weapons, and vehicles, and assets. After all, it is a military simulator. Back on topic now, the SU-25, i believe was the main CAS aircraft of Arma 2. But now technology serves better, and the YAK-130 is not only more advanced in all shape, form and ways. It is more maneuverable, and can do the same job as the SU-25 did, 110% more efficiently, would be perfect for Opfors technology. It would surley solve the Hex painted ALCA we saw in a placeholder picture back when Arma 3 was in ALPHA/BETA.

[instagoat 133]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer This pls. Or a different super high performance turboprop driven attack craft. Prop driven planes make more sense than high speed jets, aside from the stealth aspect, but they can use small fields, carry heavy weapons, etc.

There's a reason why the A1 Skyraider was in use for such a long time. This is also why in south america, turboprop planes are used for ground support as well as hunting for slow moving opponent craft (in their case drug smugglers, in our case attack and recon helicopters and UAVs).

Another possible inspiration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A2D_Skyshark

[chortles 263]

DarkSideSixOfficial, the only reason I brought the Su-25 up in the "small jets" category is that the entries are usually small (certainly the A-10 is bigger than any of those that I had in mind), and the bit about "light attack" is because that's the general rule that the Su-25 Frogfoot and A-4 Skyhawk are exceptions to, while the Yak-130 and similar aircraft (namely, "small jet" trainers with hardpoints) are the general rule. :p Though the Su-25 has less than a quarter of the gun rounds than the A-10 does, too...

(The bit about the AC-130 and small "turboprops" such as the armed cropduster was just to illustrate existing real-world CAS implementations... remember, the Super Tucano is also a small turboprop, yet see the BI forums members' eyes light up when it's suggested... and all three of the aircraft that InstaGoat namedropped above this post were turboprop attack aircraft.)

As it turns out, back in 2012 the Russians passed on the Yak-131 (prototype for "light attack Yak-130 derivative") in favor of continued use and modernization of the Su-25 fleet to the Su-25SM standard (which from descriptions makes me think of the A-10C upgrade), with former Russian Air Force commander-in-chief Alexander Zelin is attributed as saying that the Yak-131 was deemed insufficiently protective of the pilot; as such the Russian Air Force's would-be Su-25 successor (to be fielded by 2020) may be in a similar vein as the Su-25SM. Might be that the Su-25 can also carry more and heavier weapons: 11 hardpoints vs. 9, and up to 4.4 metric tons versus the Yak-130's 3 metric tons. You may feel that it "can do the same job as the SU-25 did, 110% more efficiently", but the Russian Air Force would 'beg' (hahaha as if) to differ.

Still, BI may well decide to go with "small jet" CAS and use the Yak-130/Yak-131... but then they'd just be sticking weapons onto a jet trainer. ;) Still, apparently Irkut is moving ahead on light attack capability for the Yak-130 itself as well as developing a dedicated "light attack" derivative besides the Yak-131 with day/night and adverse weather target detecting by thermal imaging, and avionics to support laser-guided, satellite-guided (I imagine GLONASS instead of GPS) and apparently even television-guided weapons (i.e. the Kh-29T TV-guided air-to-ground missile).

Edited October 6, 2013 by Chortles

[NeuroFunker 11]

only T-50 PAK FA or Su-47 Berkut. Don't care about nato plane, no idea what it could be.

[ravenholme 50]

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:

[snip]

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.

Also, the ArmA-verse IS NOT our world. Because we do not have island nations such as Sahrani, the ArmA CWC ones, and mainland nations such as Chernarus/Takistan (The entire Green Sea Region, basically). It's a very close parallel with many of the same major players, but it is not Earth. Ergo, BIS can do whatever the heck they like with regards to military technology in service in the future of their variant of Earth and it could be made to make perfect sense.

However, that said, given something that Dwarden posted... somewhere (I saw this on Facepunch), a Gripen (Or something with the same engine) seems highly likely to be the BLUFOR CAS Jet

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That would be fair. Gripen for Bluefor, Yak-130 for Opfor, and the ALCA for Greenfor. All are light Attack/Multi-Role capable aircraft.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Just a suggestion, since VTOL seems to be somewhat relevant in the selection of planes in past games (F-35, Harrier, Osprey): Some russian VTOL plane based on the soviet "Freestyle" VTOL jets.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

We have mentioned that in previous posts. somewhere near page 3 i think.