RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[reconteam 19]

Those Mk.17 SCAR-H rifles look nice. I thought the 20" barrel version never saw service though, being essentially replaced by the Mk.20 variant.

 

Shame the US Armed Forces have more or less dropped the Mk.16 SCAR L, although I can understand their reasoning when it doesn't offer much over the M4A1.

[payne2010 53]

5 hours ago, Richards.D said:

Alright, a little update about a feature request someone asked for a really long time ago. In our first release of the old FMTVs, they had overhead protection fitted. When we injected the new model, we got rid of that. Now, I am happy to announce a lot of the US MRAPs and trucks will get some new customization options for the Objective Gunner Protection Kit (O-GPK) turrets. 

OH I've been waiting for these to come back for so long THANK YOU!!!!

[NAS_Juno 66]

2 hours ago, reconteam said:

Those Mk.17 SCAR-H rifles look nice. I thought the 20" barrel version never saw service though, being essentially replaced by the Mk.20 variant.

 

Shame the US Armed Forces have more or less dropped the Mk.16 SCAR L, although I can understand their reasoning when it doesn't offer much over the M4A1.

 

Yeah, but when you factor in the conversion kits that allow 5.56, in all honesty it ends up being unnecessary. Especially since most SOF's purposely use the Mk 17 for those larger rounds. Accuracy with those Mk 16s in comparison to base M4's is one thing, but you can't justify the weight.

[PuFu 4591]

On 1/17/2019 at 1:14 AM, reconteam said:

Those Mk.17 SCAR-H rifles look nice. I thought the 20" barrel version never saw service though, being essentially replaced by the Mk.20 variant.

 

Shame the US Armed Forces have more or less dropped the Mk.16 SCAR L, although I can understand their reasoning when it doesn't offer much over the M4A1.

There was no point not doing the 20" barrel if i already did the other 2, especially considering I also made the European SCAR-H.
As always, you can choose not to use it.

 

Regarding the MK16, to be honest i have no idea why the entire thing is not more modular to begin with (only the barrel assembly and the receiver would have ideally needed to be replaced, but all parts but the stock and some furniture are different between H and L).
There no real reason to switch from a M4 to a MK16, despite the SCAR-L being a bit more reliable overall (but with the love/hate relationship about that moving charging handle).
There is also this:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/29/potd-caliber-converted-scar-mk17/

 

On 1/17/2019 at 4:12 AM, NAS_Juno said:

Accuracy with those Mk 16s in comparison to base M4's is one thing, but you can't justify the weight.

SCAR-L and M4A1s weight pretty much the same (~3.35kgs). yes the converted SCARH models to 5.56 weight more for little to no additional benefit.

The prime reason of course for the lack of adoption would be the price per unit rather than anything else. The decision overall is/was not nearly as weird as the P320 over Glock 17 adoption.

[dakilla12601 12]

In one of the last updates you added P-37 and PRV-13 radars to the russian VPVO faction, but they do not seem to work.

Are they still WIP or is there a centain way to make them work?

[reyhard 2082]

54 minutes ago, dakilla12601 said:

In one of the last updates you added P-37 and PRV-13 radars to the russian VPVO faction, but they do not seem to work.

Are they still WIP or is there a centain way to make them work?

Can you elaborate a little bit? I tested them in game and they are detected by air radars & they are also sharing targets via data link

[dakilla12601 12]

2 minutes ago, reyhard said:

Can you elaborate a little bit? I tested them in game and they are detected by air radars & they are also sharing targets via data link

I cant access them from the UAV terminal

[reyhard 2082]

1 minute ago, dakilla12601 said:

I cant access them from the UAV terminal

They are not meant to be controlled from UAV terminal but neverthless, it's still possible to do so. Just connect to it via map & then use "Take UAV turret controls" action from action menu

[dakilla12601 12]

3 minutes ago, reyhard said:

They are not meant to be controlled from UAV terminal but neverthless, it's still possible to do so. Just connect to it via map & then use "Take UAV turret controls" action from action menu

I will try that.

Thank you.

[SnakeDocc 72]

What range do they have? same as the vanilla radars?

[da12thMonkey 1943]

10 minutes ago, SnakeDocc said:

What range do they have? same as the vanilla radars?

No, 20km vs ~16km for the vanilla Rhea

[Dallas Medina 50]

RHS T-55 and MiG-21 when? (I know CUP has the ported T-55, and it looks like garbage)

[soul_assassin 1723]

1 hour ago, Dallas Medina said:

RHS T-55 and MiG-21 when? (I know CUP has the ported T-55, and it looks like garbage)

Refer to our FAQ.

[il_padrino 1530]

Here's 2S1 Gvozdika in its SAF colors :)

 

 

 

[da12thMonkey 1943]

On 1/16/2019 at 6:46 PM, Richards.D said:

Alright, a little update about a feature request someone asked for a really long time ago. In our first release of the old FMTVs, they had overhead protection fitted. When we injected the new model, we got rid of that. Now, I am happy to announce a lot of the US MRAPs and trucks will get some new customization options for the Objective Gunner Protection Kit (O-GPK) turrets. 

 

Here you can see the features demonstrated on the RG-33L 6X6 (M1232) MRAP. There are 2 customization options: the Overhead protection kit, which is functional, and a turret bustle, which is cosmetic. Both can be enabled independently.

 

We've also added a few other customization options to existing MRAPs, such as hiding the Rhino Counter-IED system. Enjoy!

Another update:

Have decided to add one more little optional extra, to make the O-GPK crews a little less visible to sniping through the gap at the back of the overhead protection kit

[mihal190 79]

33 minutes ago, da12thMonkey said:

Another update:

Have decided to add one more little optional extra, to make the O-GPK crews a little less visible to sniping through the gap at the back of the overhead protection kit

 

YAY! i was arleady Excited, but something is missing for me...

 

Spoiler

NOW! im even more excited, thats what i was missing :p Keep up good work guys!

 

[ayylmao 30]

Will we see the US army OEF-CP changed to OCP in RHS? as it will be mandatory on October the 1st.

[ballistic09 241]

57 minutes ago, ayylmao said:

Will we see the US army OEF-CP changed to OCP in RHS? as it will be mandatory on October the 1st.

 

Probably not, unless somebody decides to make a new uniform model for the new OCP style ACU cut...

[Wiki 1558]

Question:

you're currently working on LAV-25.

How will you set the passengers position?

Face to face or back to back?

Thanks

[Dallas Medina 50]

I'm super excited to play with the T-90MS. That thing looks so damn sexy.

[Greensnack 20]

It does look excellent, I hope more for the 2s1, arma is in sore need of good soviet steel that aren't just a2 ports. Both look good anyhow.

[Poentis.K 125]

18 hours ago, da12thMonkey said:

Another update:

Have decided to add one more little optional extra, to make the O-GPK crews a little less visible to sniping through the gap at the back of the overhead protection kit

YES! I KNEW YOU WOULD! <3

[islesfan186 83]

In the editor, when you go to pick camo colors for vehicles like the T-80, are the numbered camos supposed to be like bright pink, blue, yellow on purpose?  Or is that a big?

[da12thMonkey 1943]

12 minutes ago, islesfan186 said:

In the editor, when you go to pick camo colors for vehicles like the T-80, are the numbered camos supposed to be like bright pink, blue, yellow on purpose?  Or is that a big?

 

[Bolec 13]

On 6.01.2019 at 6:01 PM, da12thMonkey said:

You ask this every few weeks. Kindly stop it

im not asking about it .. coz i can do nothing, i just see weird things .. :D  combo weapons