Plane transport needed!

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If those military outpost are a long way from the US...say in the Black Sea (well thats where I like to believe they might be) and there is no US presence to speak of closeby or the mainland is far away then they would have to get supplies there somehow...ships take far too long. People do need to eat and vehicles and aircraft need fuel, so someone has to drop it off.<span id='postcolor'>

Agreed. Occasional arrival/departure of a cargo plane would be nice indeed. However, since missions usually last a few hours, much less a month, then the possibility of a player seeing the weekly cargo plane arrival is highly unlikely. However, you misinterpreted my comment. When I said "outposts" I was referring to the tiny satellite islands surrounding the major ones.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The plane doesn't need to land...set the AI flying off in one direction after it has dropped you off and you can use you imagination as to what happens to it then. If it does ditch it'll be so far away you would see or hear it and you certainly wouldn't be affected. In any case a mission has a maximum duation...about 30minutes...maybe an hour...a C-130 isn't going ot run out of fuel that fast.<span id='postcolor'>

You misinterpreted me again. I was addressing madmike's comment where a player pilot would fly the plane, such as you or me. If C-130 would be a regular unit, capable of being flown by either an AI or a human player, then that particular scenario would require an airport, or the ability to fly between the current islands to ensure the survival of its pilot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Says who? I fail to see your point. It has already been pointed out that it would have uses<span id='postcolor'>

Says common sense and basic military logic. Other than the fact that a C-130 would make occasional arrivals with supplies/troops to reinforce the main fighting forces, the C-130 would hardly be deployed to drop paratroopers on such a tiny island when both sides occupy it at the same time. Companies/Platoons would likely be organized and dispersed to strategic strongholds and make their assault accordingly. Airdrops are usually conducted behind enemy lines to quickly strike vital areas with the strongest sense of surpirse. Conflicts that would take place on small islands like these would hardly make dropping of paratroopers into the enemy territory logical. You must take into account that two sides faced off on an island the size of Staten Island would call for numerous defensive positions established throughout each side's sectors, which would almost certainly include anti-aircraft defenses. A C-130 would not only be greatly visible, but would hardly succeed in dropping anything behind the enemy lines, and even if it did, the Paratroops would find themselves in an ambush within minutes. Majority of battle scenarios and any conceivable contingency plans on such Islands would call for a heavy armor assault with Infantry and light Air support deployed once majority of enemy's anti-aircraft capabilities have been eliminated. Paratrooper airdrops would only be considered if the entire island were to be occupied by enemy forces. However since this game disallows flying/travelling between the Islands, this option is thus rendered useless.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then what is the problem? I don't think that BIS are planning to release any more individual units to us for OFP. If they do they will be models from VBS (like the weapon pack), Independence Lost or Resistance.<span id='postcolor'>

I was merely clarifying my point, as it appears that these topics aim at convincing BIS to implement these units.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes it is daft to have these enguage a target on the same island since the target wouldn't be more than 4km away (map area 14km squared). But by the use of scripting you can have targets be seemingly hit by artillery shells...possably from another island? You can deny it wouldn't be cool to see an heavy artillery piece or MRLS fire into the sky in a mission...you needent see the impact...just imagine that it is hitting enemy forces on another island...I am assuming you have an imagination.<span id='postcolor'>

I do have a great sense for imagination. Though this is not a place for it. Yes, artillery fire shooting into the night sky would indeed be quite an eye candy, though it would almost certainly be waged from a well defended position. As I've said it before, since travelling between individual islands is not possible, this option would hardly have any use as artillery shooting at moving targets 8 kilometers away is hardly effective. Instead mortars should be implemented.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many are forgetting that is product is a game. One that will allow us to simulate almost anything so long as our imagination stretches that far.<span id='postcolor'>

If you want this game turned into one that has all possible military units, including B-2 Bombers and old russian 150 Megaton thermonuclear warheads, then be my guest, see how much fun you'll have with your "imagination". My point is that this game is best at what it is, an infantry simulation with air/water/vehicle additions to diversify the experience. Though it is not taking place on a mainland thousands of hectars in size. It is taking place on tiny islands, on which many units would not be used in real life - which this game is based on in the first place. I therefore state that units should first be examined for their logical military use in such conflicts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">advocatexxx:".....should be ignored by BIS"

BIS will do what they please and add into the game what they please when they please if they see fit. They don't need people to tell them what they should ignore.<span id='postcolor'>

If you noticed I said "should be ignored", not "must" be ignored. It is in my opinion the right thing and I will stand by it. You should not turn words around to suit your argument. Pick up a copy of English dictionary and understand these words for what they are, not what you want them to be.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maintainence is harder than you'd think. Hard surfaces are subject to numerous weathering phenomenon. Many runways find themselves subject to freeze-thaw, salt crystallisation (particularly in hot desert areas), continued pressure addition and release by the movement of aircraft weakens concrete and tarmac, insolatin weathering, chemical break down, hydration and break-up by tough vegetation pioneering cracks in the hard surface. If all this is left to go unhindered then the runway cracks and breaks up and degredation of croncrete and tarmac venders the runways incapable of supporting many aeroplanes. <span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for that neat little geophysical breakdown of an asphalt surface under extreme wear and tear. Now tell me, how many times during a few-hours-long mission will you need to apply general maintnance to such a runway ? Thank you, my point exactly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I thought the game prided itself on its realism. So how come adding a C-130 for paradropping is wrong...but using a chopper for it is ok? Should the addition of a jumping platform be welcomed by such veterans of realism? After all there are needs for paradropping...on to Kolgujev for example...they do it in the Flaspoint Campaign.<span id='postcolor'>

Aforementioned. C-130 dropping troops from one island to another is quite conceivable. C-130 dropping an Infantry platoon near an enemy's base 8 kilometers away is not. Again, don't turn my words around to suit your argument. I never said dropping troops with C-130 is wrong.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No they do not have their own natural fuel supplies...they have fuel stations and fuel trucks. Who said the C-130 needs to come all the way from the US? It could come from anywhere...may not be a long trip.<span id='postcolor'>

I did not make a statement where it was mentioned that C-130 would fly from US to Everon, madmike did. I was addressing him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No-one said they would be based on these tiny islands to conduct paratrooping over a zone 8 km from the airport. But you did say before that these planes wouldn't fly to these island on realistic terms...therefore you have majorly contradicted yourself.<span id='postcolor'>

I said cargo planes would be used to transport troops to and from these islands as well as deliver supplies/food, etc. Nowhere did I state that C-130s would never, under any circumstances whatsoever fly near or to these Islands.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...wouldn't happen...the Russians don't use Stinger missiles <span id='postcolor'>

Pardon me, I meant a Strela missile.

[Wadi 0]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 01 2002,031)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pardon me, I meant a Strela missile.<span id='postcolor'>

It would take more than one Strela missile to take out a Herc. And they would be well hard to target.

What's wrong with a Huey or something? The world doesn't revolve around you, advocatexxx. Other people might want one and they have just as much right to them as you do.

[advocatexxx 0]

Strela tracks its target based on its IR signature.  Since an aircraft's engines produce the most heat, it is quite likely it might strike the wing or the actual engine.  Surely that would cause the fuel tanks to explode and send the plane tumbling down : )

As for Huey, I'm sure others agree, that since NATO side already has 5 god damn choppers while the Russians only have 2, I don't see a single reason why Huey would be needed.  There is nothing that a Blackhawk or Chinook can't do that Huey can.

Blackhawk:  Transport troops/partial armament

Blackhawk MG:  Transport troops/minimal armament

Kiowa:  Recon/Laser Target Designator

Chinook:  Large cargo capacity for troop transport/Minimal armament

Cobra:  Ground assault/Close Infantry support

Apache:  Ground assault/Close Infantry support

Now what does Huey do that's so special ?  Give me a break, stop asking for units that will turn this great game into a helicopter arcade shooter.  There is absolutely no use for the Huey, as there are other choppers that do all the things a Huey can, and better. I swear you people watch too many Vietnam movies and are determined to have pointless units despite their total lack of use in the game.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

Why not this:

Bombardier Learjet 45

TYPE: small to mid-sized corporate jet

PERIOD BUILT: 1998-

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: United States

ENGINES: Two Honeywell TFE731-20 turbofans of 3,500 lb / 15.7 kN.

DIMENSIONS:

Wing span: 47 ft 10 in / 14.58 m.

Length: 58 ft 5 in / 17.81 m

Height: 14 ft 4 in / 4.37 m.

WEIGHTS:

Empty: 12,550 lb / 5693 kg

Basic operating: 13,550 lb / 6146 kg

Max. takeoff: 20,500 lb / 9298 kg

PERFORMANCE:

High speed cruise: 468 kts. / 867 kph

Normal cruising speed: 457 kts. / 846 kph

Max. range: 2,120 n. mls. / 3926 km. with 4 passengers and reserves.

Max. certificated altitude; 51,000 ft.

CAPACITY: Flight crew 2. Seating for 8-9 passengers.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

Or a bigger one

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ April 01 2002,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Strela tracks its target based on its IR signature.  Since an aircraft's engines produce the most heat, it is quite likely it might strike the wing or the actual engine.  Surely that would cause the fuel tanks to explode and send the plane tumbling down : )

As for Huey, I'm sure others agree, that since NATO side already has 5 god damn choppers while the Russians only have 2, I don't see a single reason why Huey would be needed.  There is nothing that a Blackhawk or Chinook can't do that Huey can.

Blackhawk:  Transport troops/partial armament

Blackhawk MG:  Transport troops/minimal armament

Kiowa:  Recon/Laser Target Designator

Chinook:  Large cargo capacity for troop transport/Minimal armament

Cobra:  Ground assault/Close Infantry support

Apache:  Ground assault/Close Infantry support

Now what does Huey do that's so special ?  Give me a break, stop asking for units that will turn this great game into a helicopter arcade shooter.  There is absolutely no use for the Huey, as there are other choppers that do all the things a Huey can, and better.  I swear you people watch too many Vietnam movies and are determined to have pointless units despite their total lack of use in the game.<span id='postcolor'>

We need a UH-1 because its cool and fast and small,

The goddamm chinook is too big and the UH-60 aswell

we need a Huey, we dont care about the russians, the wars are never balanced.

Q. If this is NATO, why do USA Fight alone against the Ruskies?

[rdfox 0]

Ah, it gets down to the "Americans have more choppers than the Soviets" argument again. OK, let's cover it from two sides here.

First off, the Soviets designed their helicopters to be all-purpose vehicles. The Hind, for example, is equivalent to both the Apache AND the Blackhawk, being used as a "gunship" attack helicopter AND a troop-carrying assault/cargo/utility helicopter. Likewise the Mi-17 was used in both roles. The US, however, used more specialized designs for various jobs. Imagine trying to use an AH-64 to transport a squad. As for the OH-58, that actually is related to the fact that the US Army's first combat helicopter units were the Air Cavalry, and the Cavalry traditionally has had a role as scouts. The Soviets, not having that role required of their helicopter units, did not build a small scout helicopter, at least during the game's era.

On the other hand, to answer the question about, "What can a Huey do that a Blackhawk can't," the answer, of course, is nothing. The Blackhawk was bought to provide MORE capability than the Huey. However, you might as well ask, "What can a Cobra do that an Apache can't?" They're both in the game because, in 1985, they were being used side-by-side in Army Aviation units. Likewise, in 1985, the Blackhawk hadn't fully replaced the Huey yet in frontline units, much less in the "less important" units like the garrisons on Malden and Everon are examples of; for realism, you'd have the Huey in the game to fly alongside the Blackhawk.

(As a note, there are STILL some military Hueys flying today, as evidenced by my occasionally hearing one from my town's Air National Guard base. And by 1985, there were a large number of Hueys on the civilian market; if you want a resistance helicopter that's a bit more accurate than the "Armed Jetranger" repainted OH-58 on OFPEC, a Huey--or Bell 47--would be an ideal choice.)

RDF

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

Ok we could give this to the ruskies:

KA-60 Kasatka "Killer Whale" SpetzNaz Chopper

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rdfox @ April 01 2002,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, it gets down to the "Americans have more choppers than the Soviets" argument again.  OK, let's cover it from two sides here.

First off, the Soviets designed their helicopters to be all-purpose vehicles.  The Hind, for example, is equivalent to both the Apache AND the Blackhawk, being used as a "gunship" attack helicopter AND a troop-carrying assault/cargo/utility helicopter.  Likewise the Mi-17 was used in both roles.  The US, however, used more specialized designs for various jobs.  Imagine trying to use an AH-64 to transport a squad.  As for the OH-58, that actually is related to the fact that the US Army's first combat helicopter units were the Air Cavalry, and the Cavalry traditionally has had a role as scouts.  The Soviets, not having that role required of their helicopter units, did not build a small scout helicopter, at least during the game's era.

On the other hand, to answer the question about, "What can a Huey do that a Blackhawk can't," the answer, of course, is nothing.  The Blackhawk was bought to provide MORE capability than the Huey.  However, you might as well ask, "What can a Cobra do that an Apache can't?"  They're both in the game because, in 1985, they were being used side-by-side in Army Aviation units.  Likewise, in 1985, the Blackhawk hadn't fully replaced the Huey yet in frontline units, much less in the "less important" units like the garrisons on Malden and Everon are examples of; for realism, you'd have the Huey in the game to fly alongside the Blackhawk.

(As a note, there are STILL some military Hueys flying today, as evidenced by my occasionally hearing one from my town's Air National Guard base.  And by 1985, there were a large number of Hueys on the civilian market; if you want a resistance helicopter that's a bit more accurate than the "Armed Jetranger" repainted OH-58 on OFPEC, a Huey--or Bell 47--would be an ideal choice.)

RDF<span id='postcolor'>

They could give an Unarmed UH-1 for the USA, then people would repaint it.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ April 01 2002,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They could give an Unarmed UH-1 for the USA, then people would repaint it.<span id='postcolor'>

or the other way round

[Darkhawk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rdfox @ April 01 2002,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"What can a Cobra do that an Apache can't?"<span id='postcolor'>

In the game not much more right now but in real life I would go for the cobra any day!

The cobra can use Tows and hellfire missles and the Apache can only use hellfire missles, The cobra has a smaller profile and I do belive it can out turn and out run a Apache also it has a lower cost of operation.

For more information check out the companys web site

Bell Cobra

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

Russian choppers:

Mi-26

Ka-50 Hokum, Year: 1982-84

Mi-28 Havoc

Yes the Russians also have many choppers. One of these would increase the balance that everyone want's to broke.

"we need a Huey, we dont care about the russians, the wars are never balanced" LOL

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

the only chopper that id give for the Ruskies is a KA-60 Kasatka

all the other ones are uglyness as hell

[Wadi 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ April 01 2002,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why not this:

Bombardier Learjet 45

TYPE: small to mid-sized corporate jet

PERIOD BUILT: 1998-

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: United States

ENGINES: Two Honeywell TFE731-20 turbofans of 3,500 lb / 15.7 kN.

DIMENSIONS:

Wing span: 47 ft 10 in / 14.58 m.

Length: 58 ft 5 in / 17.81 m

Height: 14 ft 4 in / 4.37 m.

WEIGHTS:

Empty: 12,550 lb / 5693 kg

Basic operating: 13,550 lb / 6146 kg

Max. takeoff: 20,500 lb / 9298 kg

PERFORMANCE:

High speed cruise: 468 kts. / 867 kph

Normal cruising speed: 457 kts. / 846 kph

Max. range: 2,120 n. mls. / 3926 km. with 4 passengers and reserves.

Max. certificated altitude; 51,000 ft.

CAPACITY: Flight crew 2. Seating for 8-9 passengers.<span id='postcolor'>

I like it - a plane that can transport over 3 infantry units!

It is small as well, but doubtless advocatexxx will find something wrong with it.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

2 crew 9 passengers, nearly a whole group, for me its really good, because a 3 passenger planes suck

[madmike 0]

IM not nitpicking but wouldnt that jet go too fast???

I dont know

[§nake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Darkhawk @ April 01 2002,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rdfox @ April 01 2002,16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"What can a Cobra do that an Apache can't?"<span id='postcolor'>

In the game not much more right now but in real life I would go for the cobra any day!

The cobra can use Tows and hellfire missles and the Apache can only use hellfire missles, The cobra has a smaller profile and I do belive it can out turn and out run a Apache also it has a lower cost of operation.

For more information check out the companys web site

Bell Cobra<span id='postcolor'>

whoa whoa..  backup...  the apache was built off the cobra, to improve it.  If you wanna read a shad bit... The AH-64 is a beautiful thing..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The AH-64 Apache is a twin-engine, four bladed, multi-mission attack helicopter designed as a highly stable aerial weapons-delivery platform. It is designed to fight and survive during the day, night, and in adverse weather throughout the world. With a tandem-seated crew consisting of the pilot, located in the rear cockpit position and the co-pilot gunner (CPG), located in the front position, the Apache is self-deployable, highly survivable and delivers a lethal array of battlefield armaments. The Apache features a Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) and a Pilot Night Vision Sensor (PNVS) which enables the crew to navigate and conduct precision attacks in day, night and adverse weather conditions. The Apache can carry up to 16 Hellfire laser designated missiles. With a range of over 8000 meters, the Hellfire is used primarily for the destruction of tanks, armored vehicles and other hard material targets. The Apache can also deliver 76, 2.75" folding fin aerial rockets for use against enemy personnel, light armor vehicles and other soft-skinned targets. Rounding out the Apache’s deadly punch are 1,200 rounds of ammunition for its Area Weapons System (AWS), 30MM Automatic Gun.

Powered by two General Electric gas turbine engines rated at 1890 shaft horsepower each, the Apache’s maximum gross weight is 17,650 pounds which allows for a cruise airspeed of 145 miles per hour and a flight endurance of over three hours. The AH-64 can be configured with an external 230-gallon fuel tank to extend its range on attack missions, or it can be configured with up to four 230-gallon fuel tanks for ferrying/self-deployment missions. The combat radius of the AH-64 is approximately 150 kilometers. The combat radius with one external 230-gallon fuel tank installed is approximately 300 kilometers [radii are temperature, PA, fuel burn rate and airspeed dependent]. The AH-64 is air transportable in the C-5, C-141 and C-17.

An on-board video recorder has the capability of recording up to 72 minutes of either the pilot or CPG selected video. It is an invaluable tool for damage assessment and reconnaissance. The Apache's navigation equipment consists of a doppler navigation system, and most aircraft are equipped with a GPS receiver.

The Apache has state-of-the-art optics that provide the capability to select from three different target acquisition sensors. <span id='postcolor'>

More here

The AH-64 is not only one of the first rotor tilt heuys created, but the thing has all the features that the Cobra does not.  I just wish BIS would express some of those features more fully.  

[Konyak-2 0]

This is the first model I made intending to import into OFP, and oddly enough, I envisioned it deploying a small group of special forces deep into enemy territory.  It´s waiting for skinning, but the animations for flaps and landing gear is all ready.  Anyone have a pic of what it could look like on the inside for such a loadout?

It´s only 1082 polygons as is. Oh, forgot to say, it's the Grumman Gulfstream. I saw some pictures of it in military paint, so it´s possibly not such a stretch.

Konyak

[§nake 0]

That is so awesome... you could skin that to look like the B-1 Lancer... I'll look for some interior pics for ya... looks like a civie plane kinda.. lemme see what I can find... I suggest skinnin the outer like the B-1 that would be cool.

[§nake 0]

Cockpit...

and for the rear of the plane..  instead of those comfy leather chairs...  how about black benches on the sides with OD Green cargo nets??

hehe  

hafta keep lookin for interior pics though...  oh, I got an idea..

this would work great...

http://www.au.af.mil/au....073.jpg (sorry about the size but it's worth it..)

[Placebo 29]

If a pic is over 100kb either edit it or post the url only please

[Wadi 0]

I want that plane.

[Wadi 0]

By the way, if you want a Hercules, go and vote in the "Do you want a herc?" poll.

[rdfox 0]

Sorry about this folks... but Air Force Learjets and Gulfstreams are used basically to haul generals around the US, with a secondary role of hauling light, need-it-now cargo and medevac patients. You can't parachute out of them, because the design of the door makes them unstable with it open, not to mention jumping out would result in either being bisected by the wing, or sucked into the engine...

A better choice might be the Pilatus PC-6 Turbo Porter. (If you've seen "Air America," it's the ugly beast that Mel Gibson landed into the fuselage of a wrecked cargo plane.) Slow, durable, ugly, needs about six hundred feet of runway at maximum gross weight, and is commonly used for skydiving--plus the military has used it in the past. Could probably hold, in a utility configuration, eight paratroopers and their weapons. It CAN'T, however, carry vehicles; it's just not large enough to fit them...

RDF

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can't parachute out of them, because the design of the door makes them unstable with it open, not to mention jumping out would result in either being bisected by the wing, or sucked into the engine...<span id='postcolor'>

*OucH*

I forgot about that

but then same should happen with the A-10 right???