Project RACS

[manzilla 1]

I would be happy with what ever you guys put out.  It seems silly to critize/insult what content someone decides to work on or implement. If they want to make something what's the beef? Just don't use any of the god damn things you don't think is reasonable. You may not like it but others do. Myself included. I could give a f$%k what they want to make, I'll use it. I'm just grateful they want to make some RACS stuff. I find it difficult not to show respect and appreciation to all the community members whom, so charitably, give their time to make ArmA more enjoyable for us all.

Now there's nothing wrong with objections to what is planned or discussions on what RACS is capable of procuring. But a small few don't know when they are crossing the line between objective criticism and insults, or they just don't give a f$&k.

I think RockIslandMarine really summed it up well.

[wld427 1705]

Thanks RockIslandMarine and Manzilla for the kind words.

Truth be told... the debate on this thread has really helped develop us into wider goals. We started off as a couple APCs and planes to what will be essentially a full blown army.

Our goal all along has been to get alot of equipment for mission makers to use. Thats also why we are breaking down our PBOs a lil more too. That way you can pick and choose what equipment you want the RACS to have.

I really do not want to point to specific people cause everyone is entitled to thier own opinion... but if you take the time to write me several PMs jsut to say "the RACS suck and they would not have F-16s or even a cessna"...(thats a quote by the way.... you know who you are). well really thats counter productive. If you want to PM me and say yeah they would have alouettes couse they make great cropdusters for the vineyards int he south... ok then we wil look for an alouette.....but do you guys see what i am saying..... debate all you want on this thread about what they could have or would have... THAT HELPS OUR MOD... make suggestions and give input on what you would like to see and on what we have. But once we have decided to do something, understand there has been much debate over it. So don't trash something we are working on just cause you dont want to use it.....

thats my 2 cents and its my thread  

[fritz160 wolf 0]

no worry WLD were with you till the end. no matter what.

and rock island marine your cv idea is acuttlly not bad. after ww2 several Essex class Cvs were converted to have angled decks @ upgraded catapults And strenghed landingdeck. "case in point USS intrpid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_(CV-11)

the proposed design could work unsept most of the bofers be rid of @ her 2 of her 5 inch guns were replaced by Cwis 20mm @ several sea sparrow anti aircraft missle launchers. Also room for her airfleet of harriers A4s @ ents

[suhsjake 1]

I'm not the authority on CVAs or CVLs.  CVLs could probably fit one steam cat and three wires. It would probably cost a fortune to refit a CVL anyways to support light jets.  CVAs are probably out of the range of the KS and are large (about double the size of most CVLs).

I suggest the way the Spanish used the Cabot/Dédalo, a light aircraft carrier, or as an Amphibious Assault Ship (similiar to the USS Tarawa or USS Wasp).

Probably a good loadout for a KS CVL is 8 jump jets, 6 light transport helicopters (Hueys or Sea Sprites), and 4 Heavy Lift Helicopters (Sea Knight, Osprey, or Chinook), and about 250 Marines and light vehicles.

[ricoadf 0]

Carriers are expensive tho, even the small amphibious ships cost an arm and a leg lol.

An example is the Canberra Class that the RAN is buying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class

They aint cheap lol, even britain and US are cutting down on their carrier spending.

[suhsjake 1]

You are actually contradicting yourself. Yes new ships are costing an arm and a leg because they are brand new, state of the art ships, with modern electronics, but older ships are easy to get and cheaper, especially small ships, they cost money to refit though.

Off-Topic

Also the UK and US are not cutting the cost of buying aircraft carriers. The US is building a brand new state of the art Super Aircraft carrier, with 2 more planned in the works. The UK is building a new aircraft carrier and their treasury department just added extra funds towards it.

On-Topic

[da12thMonkey 1943]

If you ask me it's not a matter of whether they could afford a carrier or not; it's whether they'd need one or not.

Sahrani's a tiny, tiny island in the middle of nowhere. Why on earth does it need a carrier? Carriers are used to provide air assets for fleet protection and for air support for ground troops in expeditionary warfare.

The coastline of Sahrani (all of it, including the north) is only a few hundred km long and their territory will only extend out into open ocean for a few miles. You wouldn't need a fleet of more than a handful of ships to patrol all that, and you can easily defend a small group of ships with shore-based aircraft (to be honest you could probably defend it with shore-based missiles and gun batteries).

As for expeditionary warfare; I think that's out of the question for Sahrani isn't it?

Just because they have Skyhawks and Etendards, it doesn't make a carrier a necessary addition. Both aircraft have been operated by countries that don't posses carriers.

Like wld427 said, people can argue the toss all day about which kit Sahrani could and could not have. At the end of the day it's up to the blokes behind the mod to decide whether they want to put the effort in to make it, and they've said they wont be making a carrier.

[wld427 1705]

If you ask me it's not a matter of whether they could afford a carrier or not; it's whether they'd need one or not.

Sahrani's a tiny, tiny island in the middle of nowhere. Why on earth does it need a carrier? Carriers are used to provide air assets for fleet protection and for air support for ground troops in expeditionary warfare.

The coastline of Sahrani (all of it, including the north) is only a few hundred km long and their territory will only extend out into open ocean for a few miles. You wouldn't need a fleet of more than a handful of ships to patrol all that, and you can easily defend a small group of ships with shore-based aircraft (to be honest you could probably defend it with shore-based missiles and gun batteries).

As for expeditionary warfare; I think that's out of the question for Sahrani isn't it?

Just because they have Skyhawks and Etendards, it doesn't make a carrier a necessary addition. Both aircraft have been operated by countries that don't posses carriers.

Like wld427 said, people can argue the toss all day about which kit Sahrani could and could not have. At the end of the day it's up to the blokes behind the mod to decide whether they want to put the effort in to make it, and they've said they wont be making a carrier.

Well said..... precisely the reason we decided not to have a carrier. Also with a carrier think of logisitcs. We would need a small fleet of capitol ships just to service and take care of it. Going much beyond just the patrol ships we have planned. Thats why we shyed away from it.

Heads up guys

Once we get these damn binarizing issues sorted out we will begin releasing some of the planes such as the Mirage III and F-16 right off the bat. We have also gotten alot of progress on hammered out on the M113 pack. So units on all fronts are progressing well.

Thanks again fellas

Eddie

[fritz160 wolf 0]

i just realized.. THE Racs navy gots US naval carriers to provide ocean going suport Lol stupid me.. but dont slap me or ya get the wolf fangs....

back onto topic.

FINNALY some aircraft any chance seeining the a1 skyraider in action Doing a classical straffing run... "ok i watch to many air battle movies"""""""""

[wld427 1705]

its gonna be a while before we handle the skyraider. it still needs alot of work as we have not touched it in a while...... right now we are trying to clear the mod folders of stuff thats very close. As soon as we ge tover a binarization hurdle the first release will most likely be the MirageIII and they will follow after that.

Heres a look at the upcomming M113s we have. Not pictured are a couple of versions like the M960,M901, and a couple others.

Mk19

M240

105mm Recoiless Rifle and the TOW II variant

the FSV and M2 with the Up Armor

[ricoadf 0]

You are actually contradicting yourself. Yes new ships are costing an arm and a leg because they are brand new, state of the art ships, with modern electronics, but older ships are easy to get and cheaper, especially small ships, they cost money to refit though.

New or old, carriers cost alot to keep running, if anything older ones cost more due to the age of the ship, not to mention supplying the buggas. And where iN Sahrani can they dock to replenish? :P

Damn nice M113's there, looking great

[Benoist 0]

I like the fact that you made versions of the M113 insted of adding a lot of expensive, and irealistical (for Sahrani), vehicles.

[fritz160 wolf 0]

NICE m113s. just a few suggestions..

take the sheild off the 105mm version @ possibly make the rear roof hatch open. so it looks like it loaded from there.

idk get a reloading animation going on maybe a simple one were the gun  aims up a bit so were the breech of the 105 falls down near the rear roof hatch.    

"God did i just get techneical..  

everything else looks good though nice. keep up the good work @ always keep an eye out for SLA SPIES"""""""

[MontyVCB 0]

Nice stuff there wld427, could I be cheeky and ask if you have any wip pics of the infantry?

[-HUNTER- 1]

Is the turret mount of the m113 able to take the backblast of a 105mm cannon?

I like the recoilless rifle one but dont really like the others, yes the ones with normal turret and the machine gun, and grenade launcher perhaps, but not the cannon one...

As for the TOW launcher one, why not use the proper m113 or

well actually the YPR PRAT tow launcher unit, will be much more

realistic looking!

How about mortar version?

[Blackhawk 0]

Awesome M113's!

New Pictures have been posted in the Armaholic topic.

Keep it up!

[da12thMonkey 1943]

the FSV and M2 with the Up Armor

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk11/wld427/RAFSVM2.jpg

May I suggest opening up O2, selecting the ERA blocks and pressing U to give them sharp edges?

Good idea making more M113 variants.

[wld427 1705]

thanks for the tip da12thMonkey....

Over the many years of the M113s existance there have been many different versions using turrets and heavy weapons... my dad tells of a story in Vietnam they bolted a M101 howitzer to the roof of one so they could move it around in the mud..... the Australians have been very famous for putting scorpion and other turrets on the roof of a M113. Actually can a standard turret ring take that kind of kick.... no.... but upgraded ones do exist. The recoiless rifle version is built similar to the Peruvian ones in service. Not all M113s got upgraded to the M901 standard with the TUA ( TOW unit attachment). Ive seen some as recent as the 2003 Iraq invasion still mounting the old TOW system. My unit even has the ITAS sights mounted in similar fashion. We rarely used them these days in Iraq but we have them....Our mod will have a Hammerhead i just need to finish the mapping but its coming soon.

[itim_tuko 0]

..... the Australians have been very famous for putting scorpion and other turrets on the roof of a M113.

Hehe, not even the Australians use the Scorpion turret on thier M113. The Philippine Army uses them too as FSV (Fire Support Vehicle).

One other intereting variant I have seen there is the 1 meter turret

[Curious 0]

Hey wld427 did you get my private message, I PMed you about a week ago.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Hey wld427  did you get my private message, I PMed you about a week ago.

You too, eh? I offered him some stuff for his mod but he never even bothered to acknowledge it.

[wld427 1705]

Col Faulkner, i forwarded your PM to FA Dalai Lamar who is handling the troops.... i am sure he is committed to Vilas weapon pack but we are alwasy open to new possibilities...

rikabi... no i did not get a PM....please send again

[ricoadf 0]

Hehe, not even the Australians use the Scorpion turret on thier M113. The Philippine Army uses them too as FSV (Fire Support Vehicle).

Actually the ADF used the scorpion turret on some M113's and called it the MRV (Medium Recon Vehicle), it was basically a standin vehicle until we got our ASLAV's  

See:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg

I've done alittle MRV in arma for fun value (model), havent coded it or anything, might be interesting to finish tho  

[Curious 0]

Col Faulkner, i forwarded your PM to FA Dalai Lamar who is handling the troops.... i am sure he is committed to Vilas weapon pack but we are alwasy open to new possibilities...

rikabi... no i did not get a PM....please send again

Ok, check if your inbox is full, maybe thats the problem. Anyway Footmunch gave me his permission, you can ask him or take my word for, it's up to you.

[wld427 1705]

roger