Jump to content
Derek Thompson

BIS Aircraft Carrier

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Janez said:

Silly or not I would love to see CSAT carrier. Surely China would come up with some glorious monstrosity by 2035. It would allow for great 3-sided scenarios, like NATO carrier as base on one side of i.e. Altis, CSAT's on the other and AAF holding the island.

 

There already are some Chinese (serious) concepts floating around the internet for their planned carrier fleet. I hope I can find some of them again.

 

EDIT: http://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-carrier-gets-ski-ramp (currently looking for more sources because as far as I remember they planned to introduce a catapult launch capability on their second planned domestic carrier of the Type 002 class.)

 

EDIT 2: As mentioned before the Kuznetsov-class is pretty outdated and has got many serious issues so it wouldn´t make sense for CSAT to adopt any carrier of that class. A modern Chinese carrier based on the Type 002 class or higher would make a lot more sense. All this is just wishful thinking anyway... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Janez said:

It would allow for great 3-sided scenarios, like NATO carrier as base on one side of i.e. Altis, CSAT's on the other and AAF holding the island.

 

And yet you still run into the same issue of redundancy. No CSAT fixed-wing aircraft are capable of STOL like Nightmare mentioned (mods not included for obvious reasons).

 

4 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Also, using the Kuznetsov wouldn't be as silly as it might seem. The Chinese are building a new carrier, the Shandong, based on Kuznetsov design sans the missiles. Well, either that, or one could use the Shtorm (if it's so important to keep NATO and CSAT "balanced"):

 

As above. It is not so much a case of keeping things "balanced" but rather that there are no official assets for CSAT that would be able to use this aircraft carrier.

 

So unless you intend to make CSAT's carrier a dedicated (and smaller) helicopter carrier for just Y-32's and Mi-48's, then there's little point in having an actual aircraft carrier for CSAT. And with Jets release just around the corner the chances of BI making a dedicated airframe just for use on this hypothetical carrier on REDFOR are less than zero.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel tanks. Based on the armaverse, CSAT used territory under their control to fly missions from, hence the CSAT jets flying south southwest towards Altis. =P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, drebin052 said:

As above. It is not so much a case of keeping things "balanced" but rather that there are no official assets for CSAT that would be able to use this aircraft carrier.

Actually, there's nothing that would prevent Shikra from being "navalized" (Su-33 is a relative of Su-35, from which Shikra takes some elements). I can imagine it and Y-32s operating from the Shandong. The Iranian part of CSAT has little need for a carrier, but Chinese are another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Fri Apr 14 2017 at 5:49 AM, dragon01 said:

ArmA is an infantry simulator first and foremost, and ships other than carriers don't contribute much to infantry warfare, except acting as powerful artillery (for which static ships suffice).

Now that you mention this, that would be really cool, to have a static ship that acts as basically an MLRS. You could call in cruise missles and whatnot through support modules or directly by being in it and using the arty computer. Maybe they could even use that CTRG Submarine static in such a way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of lore/gameplay purposes to get a CSAT aircraft carrier. For example it would open up game modes to creating proper invade the island. Pitting teams to have to logistically deploy assets from the carrier to the island. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nodunit said:

 it does not reflect B01 and does not mean we will be creating it or even entertaining it.

 

Why not? Just another Static Object would be fair, just add it please :D

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/max-kuznetsov-carrier-airwing-fighters/651631

https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-chinese-aircraft-carrier-cv-16/850067

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Which is exactly why they'd be a perfect fit for ArmA3's setting. :) They certainly look futuristic and stealthy, just like the most of the NATO lineup. 

 

Also, it'd be fitting from a gameplay standpoint - it's optimized for land attack and littoral warfare. This is far more relevant both in game and in the modern warfare than ship to ship combat.

 

Actually the Littoral Combat Ships would be more perfect for ArmA's close shore asymmetric warfare.  Give it another 20 years of fine tuning the Littorals could very well be the jack of all trades with advance, compact surface warfare missiles such as the Hellfire, 105mm deck cannon, increase speed, automated systems, compact automated ship defense systems, helipad, boat launches, submarine bays and mission adaptable modules Littorals fit in nicely within the scope of ArmA.  The Zuwalt, as cool as it is, is just an expensive test bed for advance systems that will find their way into frigates and littorals.

 

Edit: In real life they'll keep the 57mm but the 105 might be useful as an infantry support weapon.

Edited by Delta Hawk
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think it will take that long to fine tune new navy technology. Those two ships would fit A3 timeline perfectly though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, McQuade said:


Eeehhh...I prefer making my own kit, theres not much experience to be gained by just buying everything up (if you want that experience and I do, not to mention avoiding any copyright issues that may come about using other peoples content officially.)
It's also a group effort and choice, I as an individual cannot decide "Oh hey I want to add this carrier to the game", I can make the ship sure for my personal library but implementing it much less, and officially is not even in the same playing field.

2 hours ago, imager6 said:

Where do you find the CVN to place on map??


It has not yet been released.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nodunit said:

Ooooooooo what is this magnificent beast?

Disclaimer: Since this is technically a company account, my interest in this ship is personally mine alone from interest of all things maritime, it does not reflect B01 and does not mean we will be creating it or even entertaining it.

Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed a great surprise. Hell, this is awesome! Do you guys know if a tow tractor will be added so that we can move the aircrafts properly like in a real carrier?

 

US_Navy_030127-N-4965F-504_An_aircraft_t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nightovizard said:

Indeed a great surprise. Hell, this is awesome! Do you guys know if a tow tractor will be added so that we can move the aircrafts properly like in a real carrier?

 

Doubt it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nodunit said:


Eeehhh...I prefer making my own kit, theres not much experience to be gained by just buying everything up (if you want that experience and I do, not to mention avoiding any copyright issues that may come about using other peoples content officially.)
It's also a group effort and choice, I as an individual cannot decide "Oh hey I want to add this carrier to the game", I can make the ship sure for my personal library but implementing it much less, and officially is not even in the same playing field.


 

 

It has now 1 Month, so im hoping for some more variations, i guess everyone from the Community would welcome another Static Object, but i know that some models of Arma are just being bought, something like the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember someone was asking whether max. object size was increased to be able to add the carrier. Unfortunately that's not the case. They used a trick to add it.

 

Description:
    - This is a sub function designed to delete dynamic aircrfat carrier in EDEN editor. Carrier consists of multiple sub-objects that are linked together bnased on precise memory point positions in 3D space.
    Function will delete carrier parts in EDEN editor after main object is deleted.

 

this was taken from

 

BIS_fnc_Carrier01EdenDelete

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, McQuade said:

 

It has now 1 Month, so im hoping for some more variations...

 

At this point nothing is going to be added unless it's already being worked on. If there was a second carrier I'm almost certain they would have revealed it by now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, R3vo said:

I remember someone was asking whether max. object size was increased to be able to add the carrier. Unfortunately that's not the case. They used a trick to add it.

 

Description:
    - This is a sub function designed to delete dynamic aircrfat carrier in EDEN editor. Carrier consists of multiple sub-objects that are linked together bnased on precise memory point positions in 3D space.
    Function will delete carrier parts in EDEN editor after main object is deleted.

 

this was taken from

 

BIS_fnc_Carrier01EdenDelete

 

Thanks for clearing that up, what a bummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, nightovizard said:

Indeed a great surprise. Hell, this is awesome! Do you guys know if a tow tractor will be added so that we can move the aircrafts properly like in a real carrier?

 

US_Navy_030127-N-4965F-504_An_aircraft_t

Its in CUP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DonbassCZ said:

Its in CUP...

So is an aircraft carrier. Hell, a lot of weapons are in CUP. Might as well stop developing ARMA since they are all in CUP

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the design layout of the carrier? Hopefully, it will be similar to Tetet's Nimitz or better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DonbassCZ said:

Its in CUP...

And so the carrier in the Nimitz mod. But since we are getting one in the vanilla game I was wondering if the tow tractor was going to be in too. Since many servers do not use any mods I think it would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WastedMike1 said:

Does anyone know the design layout of the carrier? Hopefully, it will be similar to Tetet's Nimitz or better.

 

The Freedom most closely resembles the new Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers being built for the US Navy.  Although the Freedom is significantly wider than the actual GRF for reasons I'm unaware of.  Possibly to give pilots more room to maneuver on the flight deck since we can't tow aircraft or reverse them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2017 at 0:32 PM, wsxcgy said:

Now that you mention this, that would be really cool, to have a static ship that acts as basically an MLRS. You could call in cruise missles and whatnot through support modules or directly by being in it and using the arty computer. Maybe they could even use that CTRG Submarine static in such a way. 

Great idea. Kinda like Mando's tomahawks in ArmA 2. In the Eagle Wing campaign for A2, there were Arleigh Burke DDGs firing off tomahawks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×