A-143 Buzzard Far too Slow / Weak

[progamer 14]

You guys aren't getting a faster fire rate until BI fixes the limitation or gives us back Arma 2's solution.

We don't need someone who "thinks" the jet should be like this. We need someone who knows how the jet should be realistically. BI will not change things because you "think". BI changes things when provided with credible real world sources of the real vehicle.

---------- Post added at 04:20 ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 ----------

There should be mixed ammo load, the Mi-48 Kajman already has MP-T and APFSDS-T options with its 30mm I believe.

20mm is fine, in PvP or TvT its enough to suppress enemy field position or destroy an enemy urban position. Its not OP which means you'll need good aim. Fire rate could use a boost for sure. I guess I want the cannon to behave like an A-10 Warthog. That is the battlefield effect I'd like to have with the A-143.

I'm always confused when people want super overpowered toys in games. ie they want an F-22 on Altis.

just baffles me

Why would someone care about the stupid "overpowered" and "underpowered" crap that arcade games are filled with.

[UltimateBawb 1]

To those saying that the L-59 Super Albatross (after which the A-143 is presumably based) is no different than the L-39 Albatross other than radar and cockpit modernizations, the L-59 carries the newer DV-2S engine while the L-39 carries the older AI-25 engine.

DV-2S:

- First run in 1987

- 24.50 kN maximum thrust

- 5.69 thrust to weight ratio

AI-25:

- First run in 1966

- 16.9 kN maximum thrust

- 4.9 thrust to weight ratio

So as you can see the L-59 has far greater engine power than the L-39.

[derk yall 0]

UltimateBawb: The A-143 is based on the L-159 ALCA and not on the L-59 Super Albatros. The L-159 use the Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan

Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan

- First run in 1979

- 28 kN maximum thrust

- 5.3:1 thrust to weight ratio

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Meh.

The worst about the Buzzard is the useless autocannon. The rate of fire is so unrealistically low, either you won't hit anything when going fast or you'll have to go so slow to hit something anything can shoot you down with ease.

And even if you hit something, the hits are hardly ever effective because of the unrealistic low damage.

Here is the real gun:

http://www.zvi.cz/download/PLAMEN.pdf

It can fire in two modes, slow with 780 and fast with 2600 rounds per minute (or 13 respectively 43 rounds per second!!).

Plus it can carry a variety of different types of ammo, and at the least with the armor piercing type this gun should be easily capable of penetrating and destroying any type of vehicle below the MBTs. Or turn any building into swiss cheese with 1 or 2 bursts.

Remember, the caliber is 20mm! This thing packs a punch in reality.

where can i purchase one of those.

Anyway, the L-159 though design based off the Albatross, it's a lot lighter, and designed for training, and very light attack/precision missions. I wouldn't expect too too much from it. Though, would have been nice if it had a rocket pods option.

[John Kozak 14]

UltimateBawb: The A-143 is based on the L-159 ALCA and not on the L-59 Super Albatros. The L-159 use the Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan

Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan

- First run in 1979

- 28 kN maximum thrust

- 5.3:1 thrust to weight ratio

Quite credible.

Although this aircraft still has low T/W ratio (0.66 at min weight, 0.36 at max takeoff) and does not possess afterburner - so it won't fly like a dedicated fighter.

[fraczek 4]

where can i purchase one of those.

Try the Czech Ministry of Defence? They were selling the L-159 to individuals (armament-less of course), although the bids came too low so the auction got scrapped last year...

Of course it's not a fighter. L-159A is a subsonic light attack aircraft, for light CAS, with just slightly above 2 tons worth of hard-points (incl. the Plamen pod). It can accommodate GBUs, Mavericks, Plamen gun-pod, and AIMs for self-defence. The probable load-out for Stratis would probably be two GBUs, two Mavericks, (or two rocket pods instead), two AIMs and the Plamen pod. The more real-world combat load-out is two ext fuel tanks, two bombs/missiles, two AIMs, and gun-pod.

Anyway, the L-159 though design based off the Albatross, it's a lot lighter

That I don't understand much. L-159 is an evolution of L-59 (itself a better L-39), not a lighter version. On the contrary, L-159 is heavier than its predecessors (thanks to a more modern engine)

Although I can't comment how it handles in-game, not had much of A3 lately.

[the_demongod 31]

I too have noticed the engine's limitations on rate of fire. Sometimes when you ever get a burst of high framerate, you will get guns (especially miniguns or the Blackfoot's cannon) to shoot a whole lot faster than you are used to. It would also be nice to have the gunpods on the AA version carry lighter, non explosive rounds that sacrifice their explosive effects for better ballistics. It is very hard to hit enemy aircraft from anything but point blank range with the current setup.

just a thought.

ave,

the_Demongod

[-Gews- 1]

It would also be nice to have the gunpods on the AA version carry lighter, non explosive rounds that sacrifice their explosive effects for better ballistics.

In today's world, that would mean APDS or APFSDS.

However, the jet can't use those safely, because the sabots could be sucked into the engines, and traditional capped, full-bore armor-piercing rounds have been outdated for decades now, and besides they have, for the most part, almost identical weights, speeds, and external ballistics compared to the high-explosive rounds.

[wipman 1]

Hi, the A-143 is one of the most ugly planes that i've ever seen and don't really know what's doing on the game; there're thousands of other planes that are more pimp, will fit better and would be more useful as CAS plane in game. Come with this is like come with an A-4 Skyhawk or an F-5, really don't makes sense to me... , also, i miss the ArmA2 planes aswell the choppers too, those at least would make sense and work and fit better IMO. Let's C ya

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Hi, the A-143 is one of the most ugly planes that i've ever seen and don't really know what's doing on the game; there're thousands of other planes that are more pimp, will fit better and would be more useful as CAS plane in game. Come with this is like come with an A-4 Skyhawk or an F-5, really don't makes sense to me... , also, i miss the ArmA2 planes aswell the choppers too, those at least would make sense and work and fit better IMO. Let's C ya

I lol'd.

The L-159 is by no means ugly, it's a trainer/light attack plane. It's elegant in it's design, and for what it's meant to do. Honestly, i think it's sexier than the A-4.

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/l-159/gallery/l-159a_1.jpg (170 kB)

Further more, the Arma 2 planes were ok in there time... maybe. The SU-34 was ok, so was the Harrier, but those are out dated in 2035 era as i see the storyline going. The F-35 was ridicule, it maneuvered like an F-22 with 30% fuel, the jets sounds sounded like a dryer with distortion... The L-39ZA was a two seater and had only one seat option which made the bread stale, the A-10... did it's job. So did the SU-25, but it's being replaced with updated Russian tech (Yak-131). The F-5? No. As for the A-143, it's honestly doing it's job on the rebel side, unfortunately, the AAF no longer follow the Greek back story, therefore, i don't see them getting any Air Force upgrades anytime.

Helos from A2 i see fit would be the Mi-17. I would like to see the Greenfor Moehawk with Rockets. As for the A-134 being too weak, this could be fixed with my Feedback tracker post. It's the idea to bring a Hardpoint option to aircraft. For example, pull up beside ammunition truck, and scroll, gives you the option to re-arm, under re-arm, is various Hardpoint options. AGM, JDAM, Rocket POD, AA missiles, and 25-30mm Gun Pod.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15214

Edited December 12, 2013 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[wipman 1]

Hi, i would have used an AMX A1, instead or an Alpha Jet or a OV-10D... even an EF 2000 or an X-32B, all this is fictional so they could have used any thing instead; is that the L-159 makes me puke, really; i can't stand it and aside of that... IMO don't makes much sense... . They should've go for EU things, the Eurocopter... the NH-90... and the EF-2000 & also the CV-90 family on the ground, instead; now that's done we gonna have to live with that crap, k... but i don't like and keep thinking that were much better options for their choice. In my eyes is use a trainer for a role that it can't do as well as it should. Let's C ya

[maffa 29]

So the perfect aircraft should have:

- possibily non fictional

- an operative speed between 90 and 300 kmh

- plenty of weapons

- a good ceiling

- able to transport troops and goods

Mh. So, in short, a helicopter that cant hover.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I agree with the NH-90, realistically, all of NATO, even in 2035, would NEVER get an American stealth helicopter. Thats like lending NATO F-22s, which is only an American air superiority plane. NH-90 is perfect in all senses. Back to the L-159, its for the rebels, and its all they have. Personally, i don't have a problem with it, for me, it's not always about the plane, but who is in the pilot seat. :cool:

Besides that, you'll have to wait till Adapt for the 2 other... well, one other confirmed plane. Can't speak for Nato.

[progamer 14]

nm not relevant.

[WhiskeySixx 10]

The only thing I really want from a CAS plane in this game is the ability to have a co piliot and be able to laze / tv guided missles that is something I miss... The Buzzard does its job as a SUPPORT craft...

[progamer 14]

The only thing I really want from a CAS plane in this game is the ability to have a co piliot and be able to laze / tv guided missles that is something I miss... The Buzzard does its job as a SUPPORT craft...

The discussion is about whether it is realistic or not. Not if it does it's job.

[WhiskeySixx 10]

I must have misread it, it says slow / weak.. where is the realism part? Also this game is based on realism not Arma 3 the real world.... I love realism but it isn't present in this game.

[merc591 10]

I must have misread it, it says slow / weak.. where is the realism part? Also this game is based on realism not Arma 3 the real world.... I love realism but it isn't present in this game.

ok first you say you dont understand a slow and weak jet as if they didnt exist then you say arma 3 is based on realism not based on arma 3 the real world ?? then you say that realism isint present in a game that is based on realism ??

[Flens 10]

The entire flight model for arma 3 is laughable, to complain about the implementation of a single aircraft is rather silly when the problems are so fundamental.

[ajsarge 10]

Originally assumed by Most Everyone

Arma 3 = "Realism"

Arma 3 = "Authenticity"

(Mentioned before in interviews/forums/etc, I'm not going to find a reference)

I don't understand why everyone is so caught up in the realism thing. The purpose of Arma 3 has been stated as an authentic infantry simulation with combined arms elements. It's not to fly supah fast fighta jetz dogfighting other fighta jetz demolishing puny tanks and infantry from above. It's not to drive behemoth tanks and rule over everything you see either. And it's definitely not to do anything that requires knowing intricate details or useless mechanics that would detract from the over-arching goal of making you think "This is what it's like to have boots on the ground, rifle in hand, and shooting at enemies." The exception to a lesser degree is making you think "This is what it's like to be a [insert vehicle driver/commander/pilot/gunner/etc here] supporting the infantry on the ground."

The second you start overpowering one piece of the puzzle, everyone else stops having fun because of that one piece. Or that piece that could have been fun is never used. Or it becomes boring being overpowered without having the struggle to overcome even basic opposition. What's more fun...squishing ants with your feet, or beating an equal opponent in a sport/game.

In the end, everything needs to be fun. Because this is a game. If you want a no-holds-barred sim, you can go check out VBS, DCS, Flight Sim/X-Plane, or Steel Beasts where they dedicate their time towards making a single object as real as they can. When you come back to Arma because it has most everything available in one package, continues to make you feel the same feeling as when you were playing the dedicated sims, and remains fun, you'll know why BIS chose the "Authentic" design decision over "Realistic".

[b00tsy 28]

The Altis map is like the first map that is well suited for jets due to the size. When I play on the Altis map then I am 90% of the time in the air flying a jet or chopper. Making such a huge map for infantry focussed combat is throwing away half of the potential of the map. I also don't agree that jets are overpowered and will mess up the balance between sides. You already have armored vehicles that eat jets and plenty of AA options to counter jets. For my taste the airforce part of arma3 should be way more dominant and should have more active role in arma 3. This is why it also still annoyes me that we only have 1 proper airfield on altis and for the rest small soft airstrips where half of them are not suited for fixed wings. I am still hoping that BI will release stratis and altis on the same map so that we have 2 large airfields. Takistan is still the best map for air missions because it has 2 airfields on opposite sides of the map, to bad that map is not as big.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The Altis map is like the first map that is well suited for jets due to the size. When I play on the Altis map then I am 90% of the time in the air flying a jet or chopper. Making such a huge map for infantry focussed combat is throwing away half of the potential of the map. I also don't agree that jets are overpowered and will mess up the balance between sides. You already have armored vehicles that eat jets and plenty of AA options to counter jets. For my taste the airforce part of arma3 should be way more dominant and should have more active role in arma 3. This is why it also still annoyes me that we only have 1 proper airfield on altis and for the rest small soft airstrips where half of them are not suited for fixed wings. I am still hoping that BI will release stratis and altis on the same map so that we have 2 large airfields. Takistan is still the best map for air missions because it has 2 airfields on opposite sides of the map, to bad that map is not as big.

Mobile AA radar range = 3km

Static AA needs to knowabout the unit before you can lock

Jets can tab lock from longer range than any of the AA

Jets do not need any further lethality improvements.

[Flens 10]

The Altis map is like the first map that is well suited for jets due to the size.

In what sense? Being bigger than cherno is one thing but it's nowhere near big enough for fuel and loiter time to be any concern at all. At most you'll be off station for no more than a couple minutes when the time comes to rearm/refuel.

Now what would actually be suitable was if Stratis and Altis were both part of the same map and had at least 50km of sea between them.

I don't agree that jets are overpowered and will mess up the balance between sides. You already have armored vehicles that eat jets and plenty of AA options to counter jets.

That's hilarious, jets are stupidly overpowered against AI as long as you have the good sense to keep your distance. In a jet you will always have the freedom to strike with impunity from beyond the AI's detection range with munitions that are more or less guaranteed to kill. Player controlled AI fares little better since flares are a get out of jail free card and the pathetic absence of any radar feature in arma means pilots aren't even required to know the difference between flares and chaff and when to use which. Cannon fire is no more effective since you don't even get any CCIP on your HUD and can only adjust your aim by eyeballing the tracers.

The absence of radar also means it's impossible to set up any form of integrated air defense and the only way to deter enemy aircraft is by fielding your own air assets. This is a laughably juvenile approach to air combat from a developer that attempts to portray arma as a serious warfare simulator.

it also still annoyes me that we only have 1 proper airfield on altis and for the rest small soft airstrips where half of them are not suited for fixed wings.

Git gud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVhm6VOTzu4

[paecmaker 23]

Its not only that the map is to small for realistic speeds, you have to count the fact that not everyone got the longest view distance.

[UltimateBawb 1]

Overpowered. Overpowered? Are you fucking kidding me? This game has no place for that kind of thinking. Get out.

If it's powerful in real life, it's powerful in game. Period.