2 CAS Aircraft remain unknown. What if?

[progamer 14]

The jets that Opfor and Blufor get need to be able to be the independent jet on a regular basis. There is no reason the AAF would have something as advanced as two superpowers would.

We don't need any canceled jets or jets that are going out of service. We don't need hybrids or anything like that.

[tempestriser 10]

You are right, i hope BI continues with this "line of models" for BlueFor CAS like the Buzzard for AAF and the future OpFor "yak130", nice jets at all.

[odie0351 67]

The jets that Opfor and Blufor get need to be able to be the independent jet on a regular basis. There is no reason the AAF would have something as advanced as two superpowers would.

We don't need any canceled jets or jets that are going out of service. We don't need hybrids or anything like that.

Definitely agree with you on how the Main faction's birds should be superior to the AAF's & the over the hill aircraft as well, not so much on the canceled/fictional/hybrid birds though. BIS already has the cancelled Comanche, the fictional[although based on the stealth blackhawks] ghost hawk & the MI-48 kaimen in game, and although a little different at first they have kinda grown on me:) so I say if they wanna go hybrid and get a little crazy with it than go right ahead, that would be a lot better than picking some real world aircraft that doesn't fit the US or Iran factions, giving it a fictional name and claiming its futuristic *COUGH*Slammer*COUGH* & you can say NATO is supposed to be a combination of nations in this game but as I've said elsewhere, it's made up of American aircraft, aircrews, armor crews, infantry and special operations. So as the saying goes if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, its a duck.

As for whats been shown for the CSAT CAS aircraft, I like it. I would prefer something a little more full size but I guess it fits. I just hope they don't go the same route with the NATO bird. I'd rather they go with their "F-38" as they were calling that F-35 model from early screenshots than some trainer turned warbird. If they do use the "F-38" I just hope they change the model a little so it makes a little more sense to give it a new name.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Odie0351

[laverniusregalis 10]

As for whats been shown for the CSAT CAS aircraft, I like it. I would prefer something a little more full size but I guess it fits. I just hope they don't go the same route with the NATO bird. I'd rather they go with their "F-38" as they were calling that F-35 model from early screenshots than some trainer turned warbird. If they do use the "F-38" I just hope they change the model a little so it makes a little more sense to give it a new name.

+1, I hope NATO gets something nice and quick.

[mistyronin 1181]

+1, I hope NATO gets something nice and quick.

Besides that the vstol capabilities of a tunned F35 would excel in the small airstrips of Altis ( if it was for me, I would add a F35 on one hand and a Osprey like aircraft in the other ).

[millerhighlife 1]

I really want nothing more then an updated a-10, like they did with the ghost hawk. That would be fucking sweet with popper PIP

and some kinda of futre ac-130 varient would be great as well for transport and high altitude cas.

[jgbtl292 0]

dont forget the the us pentagon stealth propaganda wonder is not a wonder ^^ all new radar systems can see the planes - the old gepard can see this planes all artillery radars can see this planes . looks cool give many money for the industries not more ^^ and extra money for more planes then the weapon load is small ^^

not one super stealth aircraft is stealth - maby only for old b band radar for very old armys .... same the f-35 its only optimization b-band. no problem to see that plane with the right radar and algorithm ( no bird fly 800 kmh or faster )

Edited November 22, 2013 by JgBtl292

[progamer 14]

Definitely agree with you on how the Main faction's birds should be superior to the AAF's & the over the hill aircraft as well, not so much on the canceled/fictional/hybrid birds though. BIS already has the cancelled Comanche, the fictional[although based on the stealth blackhawks] ghost hawk & the MI-48 kaimen in game, and although a little different at first they have kinda grown on me:) so I say if they wanna go hybrid and get a little crazy with it than go right ahead, that would be a lot better than picking some real world aircraft that doesn't fit the US or Iran factions, giving it a fictional name and claiming its futuristic *COUGH*Slammer*COUGH* & you can say NATO is supposed to be a combination of nations in this game but as I've said elsewhere, it's made up of American aircraft, aircrews, armor crews, infantry and special operations. So as the saying goes if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, its a duck.

As for whats been shown for the CSAT CAS aircraft, I like it. I would prefer something a little more full size but I guess it fits. I just hope they don't go the same route with the NATO bird. I'd rather they go with their "F-38" as they were calling that F-35 model from early screenshots than some trainer turned warbird. If they do use the "F-38" I just hope they change the model a little so it makes a little more sense to give it a new name.

They shouldn't change the F-35 model. Their wouldn't be any licensing issues, so why change the name so that the modding community can change it back?

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Irans stuff is more like how china makes bad rip-offs of other countries equipment and Natos is just equipment and vehicles sold between NATO countries. No need to add more hybrids or fictional vehicles to make less Arma 2 players come play Arma 3.

[CrazyBaron 10]

You are right, i hope BI continues with this "line of models" for BlueFor CAS like the Buzzard for AAF and the future OpFor "yak130", nice jets at all.

su-34 would be good too

Edited November 22, 2013 by CrazyBaron

[merc591 10]

f-35 and the osprey probably wont be added since BI had working models for both of them and scrapped them because it wasnt "the direction" they wanted to be going in

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

As of right now actually, im curious if NATO will even recieve CAS. Think about it, they have a decently powerful Attack helos. The mission of NATO is to withdraw from the battlefield, and seeing as the way it's playing right now, i actually don't see NATO getting much more for CAS, as downing as this must sound. But there is still alot of things to be added for all factions, including 3 new vehicles for AAF including a light transport/attack helo. Not to mention the SCAT CAS for the second episode.

[antoineflemming 14]

As of right now actually, im curious if NATO will even recieve CAS. Think about it, they have a decently powerful Attack helos. The mission of NATO is to withdraw from the battlefield, and seeing as the way it's playing right now, i actually don't see NATO getting much more for CAS, as downing as this must sound. But there is still alot of things to be added for all factions, including 3 new vehicles for AAF including a light transport/attack helo. Not to mention the SCAT CAS for the second episode.

Well, if Turkey in this story isn't overrun by CSAT (like it was supposed to be by Iran, back in 2012) then CAS could come from there, or from Greece.

[spanishsurfer 58]

If they want a sub-sonic aircraft for BLUFOR this could be one of them: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/at-6b-light-attack/

It's a modern turbo-prop and it's as manueverable as an F-16.

I learned to fly in the trainer version (T6-B Texan II) of that a few years ago, sexy plane.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, if Turkey in this story isn't overrun by CSAT (like it was supposed to be by Iran, back in 2012) then CAS could come from there, or from Greece.

True, Turkey could provide support with the JF-17.

It's a pretty sexy aircraft i may say. Chinese made, given to Turkey, the Turkish upgraded the hardware, and now the thing is a beast.

Edited November 27, 2013 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[chortles 263]

It's a modern turbo-prop and it's as manueverable as an F-16.

I learned to fly in the trainer version (T6-B Texan II) of that a few years ago, sexy plane.

While I actually did think of this (and the A-29B Super Tucano) when thinking of a BLUFOR "CAS aircraft" for Arma 3, and in fact I probably would have gone in this direction... I believe that BI may (will?) go instead in the "fast air with a bomb truck loadout" direction.

This is based on the presumption that the CSAT jet is indicative of what BI has in mind as for "official fixed-wing CAS", and on the presumption that the A-143 Buzzard is at all indicative of how BI will represent both BLUFOR and CSAT's jets, as having both AA and "CAS" loadouts... can the AT-6B even support Sidewinders, like the A-10 did in prior games?

P.S. I'm going to guess, DarkSideSixOfficial, that you meant JF-17 and that in your version it would be a Turkish-modified version of the 'basic' Chinese JF-17...

[spanishsurfer 58]

can the AT-6B even support Sidewinders, like the A-10 did in prior games?

It can support a lot of weapon systems, even air 2 air.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

P.S. I'm going to guess, DarkSideSixOfficial, that you meant JF-17 and that in your version it would be a Turkish-modified version of the 'basic' Chinese JF-17...

Yes, JF-17. Simple typo thanks. Though, the Prop Texan/Tucano, are made for precision CAS only, i doubt they would have problems wiring the hardpoints on the tips to support AA missiles, in 2035. Therefore, it's quite possible.

[chortles 263]

@ DarkSideSixOfficial: I would've found it interesting to see BI go with the JF-17 as CSAT "fast air" with both PRC and some "BLUFOR" weapons compatibility (Sidewinders, Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs and their laser-guided versions, CBU-100/Mk 20 Rockeye II, and the Durandal anti-runway bomb) giving it a built-in excuse for copy-pasting BLUFOR weapons onto it. :p

I've taken a new look at the seemingly Yak-130/M-346*-based concept renders, and interestingly the left wing appears to carry two probably-air-to-air missiles (they don't look the same in the first render but do in the second), a rocket pod, and two GBU-12s, suggesting that in the concept renders the devs either gave the CSAT jet an additional hardpoint per side/wing (over those on the Yak-130/M-346) or it could be using a multiple ejector rack (MER) to hold two GBU-12s on the same inboard pylon; if that's mirrored on the other wing as the second render suggests, then we'd be looking at a total of four GBU-12s, two rocket pods, and four missiles -- ten weapons stores -- in all, although the under-fuselage hardpoint could carry a gun pod.

* Despite their related designs, images of M-346s with pylons, much less weapons, are far rarer than images of armed Yak-130s, and images of Yak-130s with wingtip-mounted missiles are rarer than images of Yak-130s with ECM pods (with chaff and/or flare dispensers) or without wingtip stores.

[b00tsy 28]

Well, if Turkey in this story isn't overrun by CSAT (like it was supposed to be by Iran, back in 2012) then CAS could come from there, or from Greece.

Who really cares about the story? I don't. Just want to see nice content for the community and myself to work with. And of that content I want to see some modern jets or even a few badass MiG's.

[wipman 1]

I prefer this MIg-37E Ferret

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal8/7001-7100/gal7071-MiG-37-Chong/02.jpg

I had (and still have) that 1/72 scale model, but mine's is painted on russian winter/air supperiority camo; an that MIG-37E was a kind of F-117A but pimper to me.

[clydefrog 3]

As of right now actually, im curious if NATO will even recieve CAS. Think about it, they have a decently powerful Attack helos. The mission of NATO is to withdraw from the battlefield, and seeing as the way it's playing right now, i actually don't see NATO getting much more for CAS, as downing as this must sound.

This game should include the content for any scenario a mission designer imagines (within reason) and not be so limited that the only resources available to each faction are those that would be needed in BI's campaign story. I doubt most people who buy this game and make missions for it even care much/at all about the campaign and will be making up their own scenarios for their missions rather than going along with the BI one.

Edited November 29, 2013 by clydefrog

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Very true, especially within reason. It would be excellent if BI could add in the main things needed to create a variety of different scenarios within the sandbox editor itself.

[SharpeIP 10]

I've given up on decent CAS support in ARMA 3.

The flight model (if you want to call it that, I wouldn't) doesn't behave like anything any other sim models, and the map itself doesn't even really support the jets in game. Have you ever tried running the CAS jet off one of the dirt strips on Altis? The runways are just short of the maximum distance needed to take off. The one in the upper North West is bordered on both sides by trees AND power lines. I had a unique experience with that last night when I plowed into the power lines at full speed, and then just fell to the ground completely intact and barely damaged.

Anyway, to get my ARMA 3 CAS Fix, I've gone the other way and built a software bridge that lets me drop a GBU in Falon 4.0 BMS and have it land in ARMA 3.

No more bad physics for me when I'm flying, and I get all the benefits of Falcon 4.0 BMS Air-to-Air combat. Win-win-win.

Regrettably, Bohemia will not let me post new threads, or even links in my thread, or PM any users, but a quick YouTube Search for "Falcon 4 to Arma 3" will show you the quick little video we put together. Please PM me if you own both games and are interesting in testing.

EDIT: link:

Edited November 30, 2013 by SharpeIP

[progamer 14]

I've given up on decent CAS support in ARMA 3.

The flight model (if you want to call it that, I wouldn't) doesn't behave like anything any other sim models, and the map itself doesn't even really support the jets in game. Have you ever tried running the CAS jet off one of the dirt strips on Altis? The runways are just short of the maximum distance needed to take off. The one in the upper North West is bordered on both sides by trees AND power lines. I had a unique experience with that last night when I plowed into the power lines at full speed, and then just fell to the ground completely intact and barely damaged.

Anyway, to get my ARMA 3 CAS Fix, I've gone the other way and built a software bridge that lets me drop a GBU in Falon 4.0 BMS and have it land in ARMA 3.

No more bad physics for me when I'm flying, and I get all the benefits of Falcon 4.0 BMS Air-to-Air combat. Win-win-win.

Regrettably, Bohemia will not let me post new threads, or even links in my thread, or PM any users, but a quick YouTube Search for "Falcon 4 to Arma 3" will show you the quick little video we put together. Please PM me if you own both games and are interesting in testing.

Are you kidding? The flight model is bad. I can take off of all the airports on Altis easily. Too easily...

You should see about releasing it as a mod.

[chortles 263]

Regrettably, Bohemia will not let me post new threads, or even links in my thread, or PM any users

It's meant to be spam protection, post enough around here and those restrictions will be lifted. :)