2 CAS Aircraft remain unknown. What if?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I'm am so sick of hearing about Indians and Pakistanis going at it. It is so stupid, like, what the hell is the deal between them anyway? Not that this has to do with the topic. But hey, don't think there would be a DLC for that, including another map. Much less need aircraft to go with that.

[Blue_Beret's 10]

Its amazing that NATO has 28 members, but people only seem to think of America lol

[Zergra 10]

I'm am so sick of hearing about Indians and Pakistanis going at it. It is so stupid, like, what the hell is the deal between them anyway? Not that this has to do with the topic. But hey, don't think there would be a DLC for that, including another map. Much less need aircraft to go with that.

you should be very very afraid. Those are two nations, NUCLEARnations, who have engaged in open warfare and are willing to do so again, as their generals have expressed a will to do.

I'd like to see something in South America. Probably involving Brazil as they are rising to new economic and military heights.

[mistyronin 1181]

I'm am so sick of hearing about Indians and Pakistanis going at it. It is so stupid, like, what the hell is the deal between them anyway?

Kashmir carpets xD

[Tacti-Cool 10]

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

*Cough* Arma 2: BAF Arma 2: Armies of the Czech Republic*Cough*

Excuse me, had something in my throat

[progamer 14]

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.

nm, my bad.

Edited October 19, 2013 by ProGamer

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Its amazing that NATO has 28 members' date=' but people only seem to think of America lol[/quote']

Maybe an updated/modernised Panavia Tornado?

[xXTHEPILOTXx 10]

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 have to admit, I am a pretty patriotic person when it comes to America, but he does have a point. A futuristic A-10 labeled the A-20 or something would be cool. And to answer why all of the military games out in the market right now have to do with America, and why everyone associates all war games with America is for one reason: We are kind of at the pinnacle of military might. Yes, Russia, China, India, etc. have huge military strengths still but we are (and I'm totally being un-biased here) viewed as the greatest military power.

And yes, before you start hollering back at me calling BS and all that, let me say this:

America, in 1940-1941 was in a depression. It just so happens at the same time Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and as they say "awoke a sleeping giant". We had the odds stacked against us from day one of WW2, and just as Britain is about to fall, Normandy happens. We gain a foothold in Europe, yada yada, we storm Hitler's bunker, and beat Germany to the nuclear bomb, thus ending WW2. Once again, being totally realistic here: What would of happened if America didn't join the war? Britain would of fallen, turned their strength towards Russia, and would of eventually annihilated them.

After WW2, us and Russia get a little unfriendly because of political issues, causing the cold war, which could of technically been probably the last WW the human race would of ever seen because there were nukes at every square inch of this earth. Despite being pressured from all sides, hell, even 90 miles from Key West, Florida, we prevailed, and even made it to the moon 20 years later.

Now I have already gotten way off topic, and I apologize but I just want to put an end to all of those "why is America always mentioned".

TLDR; America founded NATO in Washington D.C., April 4th 1949. That's usually why when people hear NATO they think of America.

[mistyronin 1181]

ThePilot you have a curious vision of history.

And yes, before you start hollering back at me calling BS and all that, let me say this:

America, in 1940-1941 was in a depression.

Quite right, since the 29s crash, FSA, bla bla...

It just so happens at the same time Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and as they say "awoke a sleeping giant". We had the odds stacked against us from day one of WW2, and just as Britain is about to fall, Normandy happens. We gain a foothold in Europe, yada yada, we storm Hitler's bunker, and beat Germany to the nuclear bomb, thus ending WW2. Once again, being totally realistic here: What would of happened if America didn't join the war? Britain would of fallen, turned their strength towards Russia, and would of eventually annihilated them.

Japan had already start its expansion in the Pacific since the 30s ( invading Manchuria and so on ), but true, they attacked the US in 1941, and then Germany declared war to US ( not otherwise ).

Germany couldn't invade UK because of the RAF pilots. In 1941 the germans started Operation Barbarossa ( the invasion of the USSR ). And in 1943, the war in the easter front ( which was the main front in Europe during all the war ), turned shifts in Kursk / Stalingrad and the sovietics started to win ground. So by then, Germany was in serious problems. Specially after the lost of Africa and most of Italy to the Allies ( which were lots of countries ).

Then in 1944, being afraid that Rusia will arrive to Berlin before the Allies, the allied command started Operation Overlord ( Calvados Coast Disembark ) to get there before the Soviets, so they could take all the German technology advances and resources ( uranium and so on ). Also to keep their area of influence ( their costumers ) Europe.

But the allies were quite late, cuz the ones who took Berlin were the soviets ( and no one stormed Hitlers Bunkers, as it was already empty ). Which was the start of the Cold War in Europe.

BTW the WW2 ended in aug-sep 1945. When the US use nuclear bombs after Japan had already started to speak about negotiations, as was a demonstration of power.

Conclusion the WW2 main combatants in Europe were Germany ( and its allies ) and USSR. And in the Pacific, US ( and allies ) and Japan Empire.

NOTE: its not they, it was probably admiral Yamamoto who talked about sleeping giants.

---------------

But said that, yeah, US is the country of the world who spends more in weaponry and armed forces ( more than 4% of their interior product ). But that doesn't mean that games have to only focus on them. There are lots of interesting armies and wars, besides the US ones.

Edited October 22, 2013 by MistyRonin
Adding links

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I have to admit, I am a pretty patriotic person when it comes to America, but he does have a point. A futuristic A-10 labeled the A-20 or something would be cool. And to answer why all of the military games out in the market right now have to do with America, and why everyone associates all war games with America is for one reason: We are kind of at the pinnacle of military might. Yes, Russia, China, India, etc. have huge military strengths still but we are (and I'm totally being un-biased here) viewed as the greatest military power.

And yes, before you start hollering back at me calling BS and all that, let me say this:

America, in 1940-1941 was in a depression. It just so happens at the same time Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and as they say "awoke a sleeping giant". We had the odds stacked against us from day one of WW2, and just as Britain is about to fall, Normandy happens. We gain a foothold in Europe, yada yada, we storm Hitler's bunker, and beat Germany to the nuclear bomb, thus ending WW2. Once again, being totally realistic here: What would of happened if America didn't join the war? Britain would of fallen, turned their strength towards Russia, and would of eventually annihilated them.

After WW2, us and Russia get a little unfriendly because of political issues, causing the cold war, which could of technically been probably the last WW the human race would of ever seen because there were nukes at every square inch of this earth. Despite being pressured from all sides, hell, even 90 miles from Key West, Florida, we prevailed, and even made it to the moon 20 years later.

Now I have already gotten way off topic, and I apologize but I just want to put an end to all of those "why is America always mentioned".

TLDR; America founded NATO in Washington D.C., April 4th 1949. That's usually why when people hear NATO they think of America.

Hey, don't forget who put America in space. Canadian Engineers and Scientists, and Aero Experts decided to put their knowledge to use in NASA, after an Industry sabotage on Aero Canada, leading to the destruction of the Avro Arrow. The Canadians back in the cold war were world renoun for producing the best titanium alloys used in war plane designs, and technology at that time, far better than that of the US. unfortunately, after the cold war, and the collapse of Avro Canada, it is sad that after such success with those designs and technology, they didn't brush it off and start something better. Now all that good stuff was learned here in the US. Although, Russia is now the one who took it to be the best in Titanium Alloys.

Back on topic how ever, i could see BI going with some sort of Trexton Scorpion Stealth make over or something along the lines of that. not sure though.

[progamer 14]

Hey, don't forget who put America in space. Canadian Engineers and Scientists, and Aero Experts decided to put their knowledge to use in NASA, after an Industry sabotage on Aero Canada, leading to the destruction of the Avro Arrow. The Canadians back in the cold war were world renoun for producing the best titanium alloys used in war plane designs, and technology at that time, far better than that of the US. unfortunately, after the cold war, and the collapse of Avro Canada, it is sad that after such success with those designs and technology, they didn't brush it off and start something better. Now all that good stuff was learned here in the US. Although, Russia is now the one who took it to be the best in Titanium Alloys.

Back on topic how ever, i could see BI going with some sort of Trexton Scorpion Stealth make over or something along the lines of that. not sure though.

Wasn't the Avro Aero destroyed because people thought it was too powerful for a jet?

The reason I find the united states is used in war games is because they have more public information about there armies than anyone else.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, it was due to the fact other companies and politicians felt they had to do what ever it took to destroy it, i guess you can say it was too powerful, but in the end game, it was simply like coming out with the next best thing. The next best technology. It was great. But of course, corporate politicians as usual. It was such a pride to Canada. Until the days turned dark. Although, there is hope. Take a look at this picture.

CF-105 Super Arrow

http://www.hooler.com/superarrow/Gallery/_A3.jpg (132 kB)

[xXTHEPILOTXx 10]

ThePilot you have a curious vision of history.

Quite right, since the 29s crash, FSA, bla bla...

Japan had already start its expansion in the Pacific since the 30s ( invading Manchuria and so on ), but true, they attacked the US in 1941, and then Germany declared war to US ( not otherwise ).

Germany couldn't invade UK because of the RAF pilots. In 1941 the germans started Operation Barbarossa ( the invasion of the USSR ). And in 1943, the war in the easter front ( which was the main front in Europe during all the war ), turned shifts in Kursk / Stalingrad and the sovietics started to win ground. So by then, Germany was in serious problems. Specially after the lost of Africa and most of Italy to the Allies ( which were lots of countries ).

Then in 1944, being afraid that Rusia will arrive to Berlin before the Allies, the allied command started Operation Overlord ( Calvados Coast Disembark ) to get there before the Soviets, so they could take all the German technology advances and resources ( uranium and so on ). Also to keep their area of influence ( their costumers ) Europe.

But the allies were quite late, cuz the ones who took Berlin were the soviets ( and no one stormed Hitlers Bunkers, as it was already empty ). Which was the start of the Cold War in Europe.

BTW the WW2 ended in aug-sep 1945. When the US use nuclear bombs after Japan had already started to speak about negotiations, as was a demonstration of power.

Conclusion the WW2 main combatants in Europe were Germany ( and its allies ) and USSR. And in the Pacific, US ( and allies ) and Japan Empire.

NOTE: its not they, it was probably admiral Yamamoto who talked about sleeping giants.

---------------

But said that, yeah, US is the country of the world who spends more in weaponry and armed forces ( more than 4% of their interior product ). But that doesn't mean that games have to only focus on them. There are lots of interesting armies and wars, besides the US ones.

The one thing that gets me about your information is the fact that:

You are way too tunnel visioned when it comes to facts about WW2.

About your first point. Yes, Japan had started their expansion in the 30s, and they were successful at it until, guess who arrived late to the party: The US. No one else in the pacific had a big enough military to stand up to the Japanese during that time. Secondly, Germany couldn't invade Britain because they were deterred by Britain's "Chain Home" radar system. It wasn't because of the RAF Pilot's, as Germany was far superior in technology and resources. These radars were such a deterrence that Hitler, in 1943 signed the Horten brothers to construct a "flying wing", much like today's B-2 Stealth bomber. (Which I would kill to see in as an Arma 3 mod) At the time, Hitler nor the Horten brothers had known about stealth, they just knew about speed. This Horten Ho 229 flying wing would of been done in 1946: the same time that Germany would of finished their version of an atomic bomb. Germany was advanced in rocket/jet technology so much that without America's extra umph dedicated to the defense of Britain, Hitler would of unleashed mass destruction against Britain. But yes, I will give you the facts that Germany did make a big mistake when attacking the Soviet Union, and pushing more than they could handle. However: the USSR was several years, maybe even a decade behind in air technology, and if it wasn't for the help of the other allies, (specifically the US) the Luftwaffe would of absolutely annihilated the Soviet Air Force and perhaps even the Soviet Army with their Ju-87 Dive Bombers. (Because the Soviet Union DID have a bigger and better armored unit that Germany did) Oh, and I almost forgot: The Soviet Union had been pressuring the US & the UK to open up a second front to ease pressure off of the Soviet troops on the Eastern Front, which you indirectly claimed that the USSR won by themselves. Not to mention that the USSR took 22 million casualties fighting on that one said front...

Another point that got me: The North African Front. You do know that somewhere in 1941 that campaign came to a hold because the British in Tunisia and Libya couldn't push the last of the German/Italian forces out right... It wasn't until the US tank regiments led by none other than George S. Patton & Dwight D. Eisenhower, landed in North-West Africa. They eventually pushed East, and encircled the last of the Italia-German forces in Tunisia, ending that front. And, did what the Soviet Union needed, which I stated in my previous paragraph: that was to take pressure off the Eastern Front.

And for you to say that Operation Overlord was for the Allies to, "get to Berlin before the Soviet Union did to get all of the technology" is just downright ignorant. The US (Eisenhower as the supreme allied commander at the time of D-Day) had been planning to regain a foothold in Europe since the day France was taken. Operation Overlord was an offensive to end the defensive. How about you take your ignorant remark and you look at it this way: The British had been losing innocent civilian lives and had been having giant casualties for over 2 years now, so the US took initiative to land in Europe and gain a foothold. Of the 150,000 troops that landed in Normandy, over 70,000 were American. Half of the attacking force were American, and for you to say that it was "to gain technology" is just downright disrespectful.

However, I will admit that I was wrong as to who stormed Hitler's bunker. I can't remember where I heard the false information. But hey, we all make mistakes. And again, here we go again with the ignorant remarks from you with the whole "US used the nuclear bombs as a demonstration of power". Either I'm dyslexic or I'm just reading your comment wrong. You say it's a demonstration of power when really it is just ending the war quicker. Without the A-bomb we would of had to land on the Japanese mainland and take even more casualties than we already had. You're telling me that if you, as the President of the United States would rather land on the Japanese mainland and take only god knows more casualties, rather than ending the worst conflict the earth has ever seen? You obviously wouldn't make a good leader. Yes, we killed civilians, but there were incidents where the civilians kill themselves in fear of the American occupation. (Which was far from needed as there are little to no civilian abuse accounts in the Pacific Front during WW2)

But wait... What's this? Your ignorance reaches a new level? WOAHHH! Main combatants in Europe were Germany/Italy & Russia. Ha. Think where Germany's military would of been if Britain/America weren't counted as "main combatants". Think about what you said, notice how stupid you sound, and get back to me. The true "main combatants" in Europe were the US, Britain, and Russia. Not to mention all of the other countries that gave support like Canada, France, Greece, etc. And again, you are wrong about the main combatants in the Asian/Pacific campaign, as they were the US & Japan as yes, the main combatants, but countless other countries gave minor support to the Pacific campaign such as Russia, China, Australia, etc.

Lastly, about the "sleeping giant" quote. Yes, it was stated by Isoroku Yamamoto, but it caught on and was our nickname during WW2. You're taking things way too literal and I doubt you even read any of your supposed "sources" which are ALL on a website that I could go and change right now. But hey, ignorant people gonna' do what they gonna' do.

By the way, you might want to start copying & pasting your paragraph into Microsoft Word so it can grammar check your... "Statements".

Edited October 23, 2013 by xXTHEPILOTXx

[mistyronin 1181]

First, this is completely off-topic, so I'll try to be brief.

Germany couldn't invade Britain because they were deterred by Britain's "Chain Home" radar system. It wasn't because of the RAF Pilot's, as Germany was far superior in technology and resources.

So the radars blow up magically all the german planes? I thought it were the RAF pilots ( and also the AAA ). BTW in that specific case British technology was better, as you well said, they had the radar... ( you were contradicting yourself )

the USSR was several years, maybe even a decade behind in air technology, and if it wasn't for the help of the other allies, (specifically the US) the Luftwaffe would of absolutely annihilated the Soviet Air Force and perhaps even the Soviet Army with their Ju-87 Dive Bombers.

Even in the later 1944, with the allies knocking Germany's door, there was more than half more Luftwaffe planes in the Eastern front. So, as much you could say that the allies were a distraction for the Luftwaffe, but in any case a deterrent. On the other hand the main german problem was lack of resources ( people, oil, etc. ). If you compare at any time the ORBAT of the Eastern Front and the rest of Europe, you'll see than more of the 70% of the troops were clashing there ( ergo, the main belligerents ).

Another point that got me: The North African Front. You do know that somewhere in 1941 that campaign came to a hold because the British in Tunisia and Libya couldn't push the last of the German/Italian forces out right... It wasn't until the US tank regiments led by none other than George S. Patton & Dwight D. Eisenhower, landed in North-West Africa.

I always thought that it was in El Alamein where the British ( and their allies: polish, australians, Greece, Free France, etc. ) stopped decisively the Axis under the orders of Montgomery.

And for you to say that Operation Overlord was for the Allies to, "get to Berlin before the Soviet Union did to get all of the technology" is just downright ignorant.

First I remember you that the allies were already in Italy, so Operation Overlord was designed to reach faster to Germany ( the allied command even thought that they could reach there in three months, that's why they designed operations like Market Garden. From 2005, but it will help you this BBC article.

And again, here we go again with the ignorant remarks from you with the whole "US used the nuclear bombs as a demonstration of power". Either I'm dyslexic or I'm just reading your comment wrong. You say it's a demonstration of power when really it is just ending the war quicker.

As I said before, its already proved that the Japanese had started negotiations with the Allies to cease the war. So the decision to drop the bombs was a demonstration of power, to terrorize the rest of the countries and show how strong was the US.

Which was far from needed as there are little to no civilian abuse accounts in the Pacific Front during WW2

You talk about things like these? BTW, most of the countries in WW2 committed war crimes ( check this book ), even in US continental soil there were concentration camps for japanese.

But wait... What's this? Your ignorance reaches a new level? WOAHHH! Main combatants in Europe were Germany/Italy & Russia

As said before, feel free to check ORBATs from Europe during all the war, and you'll see that in the Eastern Front there was always the majority of troops. The rest were subfronts.

BTW Germany allies were not only Italy... I was talking about countries like Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia, Spain ( División Azul ), Finland, etc. Besides all the Waffen SS volunteers.

I doubt you even read any of your supposed "sources" which are ALL on a website that I could go and change right now. But hey, ignorant people gonna' do what they gonna' do.

First, you can't go to Wikipedia and change or edit any article, because there are rules that require give sources and experts from all over the world checking every new addition ( check the "Talk" tab ). I link you those because they will let you learn about the subject and offer sources to get more deep if you wish.

Second, I've read those, and far beyond as I've just own in my library more than 500 books about WW2 ( which is quite annoying when I move, more than 250 kgs... ). Besides I've been in most of the places were that actions took place in Europe ( from Mauthausen to Ardennes, Karelia, Calvados Coast, etc. ). So I've a slightly idea of what I talk about ( obviously I can't know everything ).

Third, English is my third language from the six that I speak; so I beg your pardon if I'm not able to express myself clearly.

But to end the invasion of this thread, I'll invite you to continue this debate through PM ( there I can give you some titles of books you could read to improve your knowledge on the topic ).

Edited October 24, 2013 by MistyRonin
Orthography

[progamer 14]

As I said before, its already proved that the Japanese had started negotiations with the Allies to cease the war. So the decision to drop the bombs was a demonstration of power, to terrorize the rest of the countries and show how strong was the US.

More so related to CAS aircraft, didn't Japan have submarine aircarft carriers ready to launch a massive chemical attack on major US cities but the guy in charge called it off because he didn't believe it was very honorable to kill civilians? Then shortly after the US dropped the atomic bombs.

---------- Post added at 04:53 ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 ----------

Also why does the jet we have have an Anti aircraft setup? Makes no sense.

[xXTHEPILOTXx 10]

You sure do like to start fights on here don't-cha Misty. I am too tired to write any responses but all I have to say is go get some actual facts, instead of going to Wikipedia. There are reasons why you can't cite sources in papers for college off of that website. Plus, it seems you're on this website way too much... Go read a book or something. I'm sure these lovely people would rather read about the topic of the forum than see us bicker all day.

Now, back to the topic: I really think that NATO should have an F-35, whilst CSAT should have a PAK FA. However they can't really only have 1 aircraft for both sides... That would destroy the immersion in the entire Arma series. This game has always been about combined arms so for them to "only focus on infantry" is going to be a big no-no for the community... At least I know it will be for me.

[mistyronin 1181]

You sure do like to start fights on here don't-cha Misty. I am too tired to write any responses but all I have to say is go get some actual facts, instead of going to Wikipedia. There are reasons why you can't cite sources in papers for college off of that website. Plus, it seems you're on this website way too much... Go read a book or something. I'm sure these lovely people would rather read about the topic of the forum than see us bicker all day.

As long as I read, this was a debate not a fight.

And as I told you in my previous message in this thread, any answer related to this subject use PM.

I remember you that I've cited you books, websites, and so on ( I even told you that I own more than 500 books about WW2 ). Anyone can read it. So stop ridiculing yourself.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

More so related to CAS aircraft, didn't Japan have submarine aircarft carriers ready to launch a massive chemical attack on major US cities but the guy in charge called it off because he didn't believe it was very honorable to kill civilians? Then shortly after the US dropped the atomic bombs.

---------- Post added at 04:53 ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 ----------

Also why does the jet we have have an Anti aircraft setup? Makes no sense.

First, no, they didn't change their minds because it was un honorable. They were gonna do it, but set backs such as fleet warfare just miles form their homeland, and one of the three Sub-Carrier Hybrids were compromised. Yes, Japan ha 3 Aircraft Carrier Subs.

Second, the AA setup is for versatility/interception. That is why it has 4 long range missiles. Also, the ALCA is decently maneuverable, so it can some what hold up in Air to Air combat... given you have a moderately skilled pilot.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

MistyRonin and ThePilot, please keep on topic here. This isn't a history class, i'm pretty sure we were all in high school back then for that.

[mistyronin 1181]

i'm pretty sure we were all in high school back then for that.

I've serious doubts about that.

BTW there were dozens of submarines that carried planes ( read "The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II" by, Carl Boyd)

But you are right, as I even said before, this was completely off-topic and we should continue in PM, so I apologize for derailing the thread a bit.

-------------------------------

On the AA setup, I believe that it's there, as the AAF doesn't have resources to have specialized planes for each task, they give different tasks to the Buzzard.

[xXTHEPILOTXx 10]

As I said,

Now, back to the topic

I don't know why Misty over here is continuing this "debate". Just drop it.

Anywho, I honestly believe that if BI took the time to make an AA setup for the Independent plane AND also took the time to make armored AA ground units there will certainly be more than one CAS on one side... That's just what I think.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

As I said,

I don't know why Misty over here is continuing this "debate". Just drop it.

Anywho, I honestly believe that if BI took the time to make an AA setup for the Independent plane AND also took the time to make armored AA ground units there will certainly be more than one CAS on one side... That's just what I think.

The fact that there is a BLUFOR armored AA tank strongly suggests an OPFOR jet. Unless it was designed just for shooting down Kajmans and Orcas.

Personally I don't like the feel of 4th gen/5th gen fighters on Altis. IMO it really ruins the immersion and feels like putting an elephant in a dog pen.

Altis, for all its size, is just too small to really use the larger, more advanced fighters. BI clued into this and added small aircraft like the A-143.

[progamer 14]

First, no, they didn't change their minds because it was un honorable. They were gonna do it, but set backs such as fleet warfare just miles form their homeland, and one of the three Sub-Carrier Hybrids were compromised. Yes, Japan ha 3 Aircraft Carrier Subs.

Second, the AA setup is for versatility/interception. That is why it has 4 long range missiles. Also, the ALCA is decently maneuverable, so it can some what hold up in Air to Air combat... given you have a moderately skilled pilot.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

MistyRonin and ThePilot, please keep on topic here. This isn't a history class, i'm pretty sure we were all in high school back then for that.

I know that but when playing Arma 2 you have multiple CAS aircraft and then you have fighters that are the very top of the battlefield food chain.

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:36 ----------

The fact that there is a BLUFOR armored AA tank strongly suggests an OPFOR jet. Unless it was designed just for shooting down Kajmans and Orcas.

Personally I don't like the feel of 4th gen/5th gen fighters on Altis. IMO it really ruins the immersion and feels like putting an elephant in a dog pen.

Altis, for all its size, is just too small to really use the larger, more advanced fighters. BI clued into this and added small aircraft like the A-143.

Check out Arma 2, notice all the jets we had. Now look back at Arma 3 and tell us on a bigger map we can't have those faster and better jets in addition to the many CAS jets arma 2 had.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

What we have in game right now and upcoming are light CAS jets. Over time hopefully we will get heavy CAS jets, Air superiority jets, and then even more advanced jets that prey on the air superiority jets. Just like Arma 2.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

I know that but when playing Arma 2 you have multiple CAS aircraft and then you have fighters that are the very top of the battlefield food chain.

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:36 ----------

Check out Arma 2, notice all the jets we had. Now look back at Arma 3 and tell us on a bigger map we can't have those faster and better jets in addition to the many CAS jets arma 2 had.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

What we have in game right now and upcoming are light CAS jets. Over time hopefully we will get heavy CAS jets, Air superiority jets, and then even more advanced jets that prey on the air superiority jets. Just like Arma 2.

It's just dumb though, flying at quarter speed and doing loops around Altis.

Jets like F-15, F-22, etc in real life have targeting systems that can see targets 10-20x the length of Altis, can cross Altis in a just a few seconds, etc.

What fun/purpose (in Arma 3) is 'air superiority' when the realism of that is sitting at 40,000 feet, servicing targets with AMRAAMs at 100km (5x the length of Altis)?

Or are you saying we should just have the model of those jets and severely gimp (unrealistically) their capabilities?

I have tried the F-18 mod and I found it boring.

Flying from Kavala (bottom left) to Sofia (top right) in 30 seconds.

A-10?

Now there is something I get excited about.

F-18 and F-22? boooring. There are better sims for those, where you can actually stretch their legs and use them realistically.

JMO

---------- Post added at 07:03 ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 ----------

ArmA 3 is combined arms with an infantry focus.

Considering USA likely won't be able to fund any sort of F-22 squadron by 2035 (interest payments will have long eclipsed federal revenue by then), China is still 50 years away from becoming a military-projection threat and Russia will have zero population by 2035 (exaggerating but point stands), it almost seems plausible that wars will be fought with A-143 / Yak 131 type jets. I'm sure the US will still find the pennies to keep an F-15/F-18 squadron in the air somewhere, but a low (for air superiority) priority island like Lemnos will likely not attract any significant air force attention.

[progamer 14]

It's just dumb though, flying at quarter speed and doing loops around Altis.

Jets like F-15, F-22, etc in real life have targeting systems that can see targets 10-20x the length of Altis, can cross Altis in a just a few seconds, etc.

What fun/purpose (in Arma 3) is 'air superiority' when the realism of that is sitting at 40,000 feet, servicing targets with AMRAAMs at 100km (5x the length of Altis)?

Or are you saying we should just have the model of those jets and severely gimp (unrealistically) their capabilities?

I have tried the F-18 mod and I found it boring.

Flying from Kavala (bottom left) to Sofia (top right) in 30 seconds.

A-10?

Now there is something I get excited about.

F-18 and F-22? boooring. There are better sims for those, where you can actually stretch their legs and use them realistically.

JMO

---------- Post added at 07:03 ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 ----------

ArmA 3 is combined arms with an infantry focus.

Considering USA likely won't be able to fund any sort of F-22 squadron by 2035 (interest payments will have long eclipsed federal revenue by then), China is still 50 years away from becoming a military-projection threat and Russia will have zero population by 2035 (exaggerating but point stands), it almost seems plausible that wars will be fought with A-143 / Yak 131 type jets. I'm sure the US will still find the pennies to keep an F-15/F-18 squadron in the air somewhere, but a low (for air superiority) priority island like Lemnos will likely not attract any significant air force attention.

Why do you think I ment those specific jets? Did you even check Arma 2?

[reap66667 1]

Personally I find it disappointing people are trying to want to stick with older tech (f15, f16 etc....). Light CAS aircraft is what BIS is working on right now which really should be multi-role fighters like the F35. It would be a good multirole for NATO maybe instead of using its stealth and internal weapons bays, BIS will use its external hard points which would give it and far greater bunch (imo a better look). To me the L-159 is a great choice for a small country. I would rather see the Next Gen Jas-39 Gripen but the Alca is a good aircraft for the role it is required for. I agree to some point large aircraft like the f22, PAK FA/T 50, J-20 are alittle big but that didn't stop modders or BIS from making them for arma 2. To me the JF-17 would be a fair enough match for the f-35 and as a multi-role aircraft allowing the CSAT forces a bit of a punch themselves. Aircraft like the a10, f16 are being phased out and replaced with aircraft like the f35. As well for the people going along the lines of (in the future America's fiscal problem wouldn't allow purchase of operating squadrons of f22 which would make the f18 and f15 stay in service longer) we are using the stealth Blackhawk and Comanche, 2 projects that were cancelled and would cost billions upon billions to produce, restart and operate. None the less as long as BIS doesn't continue with using the same weapons systems and placing them on different chassis and adding one aircraft and painting them different colors and naming them different (coming up with a story that iran copied it and its not as reliable crap like that) ill be just glad to see more equipment and vehicles to allow for a more expansive gameplay.

Edited October 30, 2013 by reap66667