2 CAS Aircraft remain unknown. What if?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Here is a good video of just the great power this aircraft has, even with full armament.

Don't under estimate it.

[mistyronin 1181]

I wish we would get real jets and not trainer aircraft. Who knows, maybe down the line we can have as many jets as Arma 2 has.

Are trainers but also light attack jets.

And though they may not be able to travel as far or as fast as its big brothers, they can give lots of hell. For maps like Altis are way better than the bigger ones ( more manoverable and fly at low speeds ). BTW more fun to play.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Are trainers but also light attack jets.

And though they may not be able to travel as far or as fast as its big brothers, they can give lots of hell. For maps like Altis are way better than the bigger ones ( more manoverable and fly at low speeds ). BTW more fun to play.

I wouldn't exactly call them slow... just moderatley paced. The ALCA or, A-143 Buzzard goes roughly 650 in speed, as where the Yak can go access of over 1000 with its twin engines. After all, the small Buzzard is for the rebel forces. Opfor and Blufor are more of super powers really.

[mistyronin 1181]

I wouldn't exactly call them slow... .

I meant that they are slow compared to their big brothers ( for example the F22 Raptor can reach speeds above mach 2). Which is good in "small maps" like Altis.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

True. Did you know the Yak-130 can simulate 4+ and some 5 generation aircraft flight models, including the Russian 5th Gen SU T-50? That is damn cool. Flying a yak, but having it maneuver like a thrust vectoring T-50, MIG-35, SU-33-37, F-16, F-18, or any plane in it's program. That is kinda cool. The thing can fly like any plane if they know the flight characteristics.

[blu3sman 11]

Better alternative for CSAT is something like chinese L-15. It's developed in cooperation with Yakovlev, has same engines as Yak-130, but with afterburners. And it's supersonic :cool:.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yeah, i thought it was a pretty cool aircraft. Those were my two suggestions though, but it seems the Yak-131 varient has made the cut,

http://i.imgur.com/pRP8FcA.jpg (151 kB)

The L-15 would go too fast with afterburners on a map like Altis. Maybe in the future, when they can make maps the size as the one they did in TOH (Take On Helicopters).

[theevancat 277]

Having in mind that until now the two other CAS planes are trainer/light attack jets with a single engine... And BI is trying to keep balance between the two main belligerents. I still think that the most probable option for the third would be the BAE Hawk, probably the 200 variant ( single seat ). Thought as Smurf has wisely said would make sense that include some stealth tweaks to keep the doctrine of the BI NATO 2035 force.

I wasn't being serious - I don't think you really can stealth an A-10. Or would need to.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

You could use stealthy features on an A-10, but as you said, being a Close Air Asset, it would be almost useless. Very vulnerable to small arms, and static AA as it is, it would be wise to keep it's armor. Though, ECM's, and Jammer's would do well, but i don't think BI knows how to implement that into the game. Though, if they were to use a good method of Flares, for example, When one is being locked, deploying flares would cause the lock to sway onto the deployed counter measures instead of the aircraft. But, I'm not going to get too much into detail about how that would be more effective.

[mistyronin 1181]

Maybe a hint for the last plane?

http://i.imgur.com/1XcjEwu.jpg (241 kB)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Nah, i dought it. That looks like one of the images of the filler aircraft F-35 (P-38A They called it) simply put onto a phone screen. I wouldn't expect anything out of that pic.

[chortles 263]

Yeah, i thought it was a pretty cool aircraft. Those were my two suggestions though, but it seems the Yak-131 varient has made the cut,

Any evidence on it specifically being the Yak-131 version? Rumor has the jet in-game being a two-seater, while all I could find for "hard data" on differences from the Yak-130 being that the Yak-131 is supposed to be a single-seater that uses the previously-backseat space for avionics and/or fuel.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yes, take a look.

http://i.imgur.com/pRP8FcA.jpg (151 kB)

Zoom in. The cockpit is one seater (unfortunately, would have liked a two seater variant), and the layout fits the Yak-131 profile. The only difference of this, is that either they havn't finised the wing split (The front edge of the wing where the frontal flaps are located), or, that is a feature they meant to take off of it in order to make it look somewhat original. Over all, it does appear to be the Yak-131 Light Attack varient.

---------- Post added at 16:00 ---------- Previous post was at 15:57 ----------

Than again, as you said, rumors of a two seat of this... I would only hope so. That is something Arma 2 lacked. It would be uberly fantastic to have the two seat version of all aircraft in Arma 3.

[dezkit 28]

I wish we would get real jets and not trainer aircraft. Who knows, maybe down the line we can have as many jets as Arma 2 has.

Yeah. I really wanted a transport airplane.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

What about the CC-117? (C-17) would be a good NATO transport. After all it is a STOL capable aircraft.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Royal_Air_Force_C-17_August_2010.jpg (1255 kB)

Edited October 17, 2013 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[progamer 14]

What about the CC-117? (C-17) would be a good NATO transport. After all it is a STOL capable aircraft.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Royal_Air_Force_C-17_August_2010.jpg (1255 kB)

In this thread here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?161576-A-Large-Fixed-Wing-transport-aircraft-for-Arma-3

We found the A-400M would be a good transport plane due to the fact it can also back up on its own, is a STOL, Can carry all of our in game vehicles if you check out the video posted in the thread and it's not much bigger than the C-130 from Arma 2.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I agree, that would be a fantastic choice. Would love to see it in the NATO low visibility splinter camo like on the Speedboat.

[Zergra 10]

What about a futuristic A-10? I mean, can anyone say no to 30mm of LIBERTY and 'MURICA?m Its the future too..... so why not 40mm.

On a serious note, BIS talkn of keeping the sides balanced isn really making the sides more boring. EVery side has their advantages and disadvantages. These disadvantages should not be the same.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Zergra

[swiftn7 1]

I think what BIS means with balancing the gameplay is, that there would be no challenge any more if you put all the supercool overpowered weapon systems like A10, Spectre and whatsoever in the game. You just hop in, kill all the foes in 10 Minutes, mission accomplished...haha very funny. Not to forget that ARMA is focused on infantry, not on tanks, planes or ships

Talking from my own experinces, even on MP missions where quite a wide range of the vehicles is available for BLUFOR, the OPFOR is underpowered most times, because the mission desingers tend to give an advantage to the players side. Sure, PvP is totally different, but I think most of the missions played are COOP vs. AI. Ever seen an AI-OPFOR drone throwing some nice fancy missiles or bombs on your beloved tank? Not yet! The other way round it happens every minute.

Sure you can demand BIS to throw tons of powerful vehicles on the battlefield, but when the mission designers don't keep the balance between the factions it will get boring very fast. *Submarine with Tomahawk* Yeehaa!

Regarding the missing transport plane I totally agree with what has been said already. We should at least be able to do some nice paradrops, Special-Operations-HALO-stuff and to drop a supply box here and there.

[Zergra 10]

I think what BIS means with balancing the gameplay is, that there would be no challenge any more if you put all the supercool overpowered weapon systems like A10, Spectre and whatsoever in the game. You just hop in, kill all the foes in 10 Minutes, mission accomplished...haha very funny. Not to forget that ARMA is focused on infantry, not on tanks, planes or ships

Talking from my own experinces, even on MP missions where quite a wide range of the vehicles is available for BLUFOR, the OPFOR is underpowered most times, because the mission desingers tend to give an advantage to the players side. Sure, PvP is totally different, but I think most of the missions played are COOP vs. AI. Ever seen an AI-OPFOR drone throwing some nice fancy missiles or bombs on your beloved tank? Not yet! The other way round it happens every minute.

Sure you can demand BIS to throw tons of powerful vehicles on the battlefield, but when the mission designers don't keep the balance between the factions it will get boring very fast. *Submarine with Tomahawk* Yeehaa!

Regarding the missing transport plane I totally agree with what has been said already. We should at least be able to do some nice paradrops, Special-Operations-HALO-stuff and to drop a supply box here and there.

What I meant was that BIS is making both sides uniform. There's no big difference in the asssets of OPFOR and BLUFOR. I did not ask for superpowerfull vehicles. Did you not notice the tone I as writing in. or the "on a serious not" thing. I was not serious.

Now NATO and CSAT are basically the same army. Same vehicle weapons, largely the same vehicles. (Drones making me think "What?").

What i want is asymmetricall gameplay.

And yes, we need transport planes. that I can fully agree on.

[Blue_Beret's 10]

What about a futuristic A-10? I mean, can anyone say no to 30mm of LIBERTY and 'MURICA?m Its the future too..... so why not 40mm.

On a serious note, BIS talkn of keeping the sides balanced isn really making the sides more boring. EVery side has their advantages and disadvantages. These disadvantages should not be the same.

Why does everything in these games have to be something about 'America' .... jeez ....

Why not something unique and indifferent to any nations military asset. this game is supposed to be 2033 or thereabouts so why not something completely new and unheard of but in keeping with the time frame of the game

[swiftn7 1]

What I meant was that BIS is making both sides uniform. There's no big difference in the asssets of OPFOR and BLUFOR. I did not ask for superpowerfull vehicles. Did you not notice the tone I as writing in. or the "on a serious not" thing. I was not serious.

Now NATO and CSAT are basically the same army. Same vehicle weapons, largely the same vehicles. (Drones making me think "What?").

What i want is asymmetricall gameplay.

And yes, we need transport planes. that I can fully agree on.

Ok, got your point, so metaphorically, we need something like Carrier vs. SCUD launchers. I agree with you there.

[Zergra 10]

We just need sides with different strengths. That's what I'm talking about. Or would you rather have it be Call of Duty or Battlefield where the only difference between the sides is the camo they are wearing.

Can't you detect the sarcasm of my post? That first one was not serious. It was the message under it I was serious.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Why does everything in these games have to be something about 'America' .... jeez ....

Why not something unique and indifferent to any nations military asset. this game is supposed to be 2033 or thereabouts so why not something completely new and unheard of but in keeping with the time frame of the game

I agree on that. I would have been so much more interested, also, if they'd put individual factions underneath NATO. For example, NATO>Canada or NATO>Germany or NATO>US. Just to have some more variety or what not. Better than just NATO, and everyone has an American Flag on their shoulder. >.>

[Zergra 10]

what about India vs Pakistan. A realistic flashpoint in modern times.