reconteam

I'm not certain what that first aircraft drawing is but I don't think it is the ASF-14. As far as I know there are no official drawings or plans of the ASF-14 that are part of the public record. Grumman themselves wasn't entirely enthusiastic about the concept as it was significantly more costly than the ST-21 and for the amount of money even they figured starting with a clean sheet of paper might be a better choice. The ST-21 was a much more concrete proposal and existing F-14Ds could be upgraded to this standard. There was also a "Tomcat II" proposal at some point which like ASF-14 was also a significant departure from the existing F-14 yet I haven't been able to determine where on the timeline that idea occurred. The bottom picture looks to be an artists conception of what the Lockheed Martin NATF would have looked like in squadron service. This aircraft would have shared as many components and systems with the ATF (F-22) as was viable. The most obvious change is the variable sweep wing but there is no relation to the F-14. Some of the basic features of Lockheed's NATF carried over to their A/X and A/F-X proposals. A/X was the successor program to the A-12 Avenger II after that mess of a program had been cancelled, it was later changed to A/F-X after additional air-to-air requirements were added when NATF was cancelled. A/F-X itself was soon cancelled and instead the USN got a place at the table in the JAST and JSF programs ultimately culminating in the F-35C. Of course this isn't exactly the aircraft they were looking as the goal of JSF was a smaller shorter-ranged aircraft aft than the USN's earlier programs.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not certain what I was doing wrong then.

Any chance you will return to the F/A-181 mod at some point to add variants with internal loadouts only? Even when unloaded the outer weapons pylons are still attached. A vanilla-type "blank" skin might be nice to have too.

Why about 0? The USS Nimitz mod already has some interior areas. I doubt anybody will add such things to the Freedom however, which is unfortunate because it's a nice looking ship. But the lack of a hanger or any interior spaces sucks.

One very minor bug I noticed is that there is no sound when you change firing modes, the selector switch should make some sort of "click". Qinetix do you know what the CZ military intends to use for optics on these carbines as they come into general service use? From the videos I've seen it looks like a well designed weapon, maybe I'll try to get my hands on the civilian version someday.

On the AH-64E and late AH-64D Block II you have the CMWS on the wingtips covering the rear arc, any idea where those are relocated if there are Stinger launchers or some other systems placed there? I should probably go ask this in the AH-64 addon thread.

Maybe this is a bit off topic but can the six 120mm shells carried in the hull of the M1 Abrams be accessed from inside of the tank or do you have to access that compartment from the outside? Could they justifiably be added to the tank's loadout in RHS? All of that shiny new Russian armor is making me jealous when you compare it to the slow pace of AFV development back in the US. At least the Army is looking at some functional prototypes for NGCV which is a start.

Yes if I recall correctly they're not allowed to use any of the external hardpoints for any weapons and the only one that gets used is for a Sniper XR pod. Originally those external hardpoints were going to carry a large number of ALCMs or ACMs. At some point planners must have envisioned B-1Bs approaching the Soviet coast at a low altitude at near-supersonic speed, firing off all of their externally carried AGM-129 ACMs, then their internal payload of AGM-131 SRAM IIs, then dropping a gravity nuclear bombs on something. A pretty impressive combination for nuclear doomsday.

Awesome mod, the barrel looks awfully long for just 11" and 14" respectively. Is it like that on the real gun?

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.

Glad to hear the OV-10 will soon be arriving. My grandfather once owned a Cessna Skymaster and from what my mother says it was a piece of junk, rear engine was constantly overheating and would bleed a lot of speed in any sort of turn. I'm sure hanging munitions on the wings and stuffing it full of radios wouldn't have helped much either. I'm amazed it saw such use as an observation/FAC aircraft.

Great addon by any standard but I've noticed a few issues here and there, should I list them here or is there somewhere on your website I haven't found where problems can be reported?

You do great work, I've noticed in a lot of cases the levels of recoil are pretty inconsistent however. For example the G36 seems to kick like a mule when in reality its recoil is pretty light. Most of the 5.56mm weapons in general seem to have too much recoil. Also there are a few almost-duplicate ACRs with the only difference being a different shape of the shell case deflector (at least that's what I think that is), what's with that?

What's with the AIM-120D having a blunt seeker cover? In reality it is the same exact pointed shape as that of the AIM-120C which oddly enough the AAF jet gets. Also I must admit I am a bit disappointed in the carrier. No below deck hanger, working elevators, or command spaces. A certain addon is much more detailed.

Early in the F-15's career they were used but as time went on they were generally removed just for ease of access. I've got to assume there is a whole cargo container full of them in a USAF depot somewhere. Future F-15 variants Boeing likes to offer to the USAF sometimes shows them, sometimes don't. I just think it would be a nice customization option to have.

I'm not certain how much of an F-14 fanboy you are (I certainly am one) but it's tragic how the aircraft's life was cut short. Would you ever consider returning to that particular addon and perhaps doing an "F-14E" which would have the features planned for the "Super Tomcat 21" proposal. Also the F-14D was planned to have AMRAAM capability and actually fired one in testing but these plans (and those for AIM-9X and HMS) were axed along with further F-14D production/conversions.

Hi Firewill, love your aircraft. I've a quick question though. When trying to use GPS weaponry I see an option to manually input either an eight digit or ten digit GPS location, yet by going off the grid squares on the map I can only get six digits. Am I missing something here? For your F-15 series would you consider the option to add the "turkey feathers" that cover the engine nozzle but are commonly removed in real life (at least on the P&W powered Eagles). This could either be in the "vehicle appearance" menu BIS uses for some settings or the usual editor attributes menu. I find not having the turkey feathers on the F-15SE rather odd since having the engine nozzle's workings fully exposed like that would be have a pretty terrible impact on radar cross section.

I love the mod but I've noticed a lot of weapons like the various CIWS have pinpoint accuracy and no spread/dispersion while firing. Considering what they are designed to do being so accurate would actually be a disadvantage. Hopefully it's a small thing to adjust next time you're messing with the numbers.

Is the Pedagne mod team still planning a release with naval units in the future? I recall having a lot of fun with them in ArmA 2 and it would be even better in ArmA 3 now that you can go diving if necessary. I noticed a few minor mistakes in vehicle weapon names. For example most of the Italian AFVs with 25mm cannons (the Oerkilon KBA I think) use the popular 25x137mm cartridge but in game are listed as using the 25x184mm cartridge which has only seen rather limited use. Some vehicles with 30mm cannons like the Mk.44 Bushmaster II are also listed as using 25mm ammunition instead the correct 30x173mm.

I just saw "Sparky Was Wrong" on the barrel of an M1A2 Abrams. Is that a reference to the same crazy M113-obsessed Mike Sparks I'm thinking of?

I understand the idea but it doesn't seem to be a huge improvement over the days when one guy in the squad would be given what was basically an M16A1 with a bipod slapped on it and told to fire on automatic more often. Several of the other contenders in the IAR competition were more suited to use as an automatic rifle. One had a feature that would automatically switch from closed-bolt to open-bolt operation if the weapon got too hot for example. The fact that they went with the HK416 derivative always suggested to me that they were also shopping for something they hoped would also replace the M4/M16. Good luck getting that past Congress though. I wouldn't expect an IAR gunner to carry only larger magazines but I still think a number of them would be useful for situations where the IAR has to serve as a base of fire for a fireteam or squad. A quad-stack design would theoretically fit in the same pouch as two 30 round magazines. I've heard that 60 round Magpul drum is also reliable but drum magazines are inherently rather cumbersome as you've said. Really it's just an item I would have expected the Marine Corps to put out a request for, get all of the civilian vendors to offer what they can come up with, and hopefully choose one if it works well enough. Do Russian automatic riflemen with RPK-74 carry only the larger 45 magazines or do they carry a mix of those and standard 30 round ones? SDM is the new M38 right which is really just a M27 with some different accessories? I don't know why they gave it a new designation. Then again nothing seems to use designation system by the book these days. M38, F-35, B-21, etc.

Oh my mistake, looks like a nice rifle. I believe UK special forces types do make some use of the C8 series though. Anyway turns out I had my parts for the M249 pretty wrong. I thought the M249s without the gas collar were missing something important. Turns out the new style gas regulator doesn't need to be messed with or something. The way the gas cylinder looked hollow in RHS threw me off.

I thought the collapsible stock that is currently in the RHS is the one that is pretty much standard? The other one seems to be the same as used on the M240L though now that I'm looking for it specifically it seems they are a lot more common than I thought. Regarding the topic of the SCARs discussed earlier one strange difference between the "European" SCAR L STD and the "American" variant is that the European version has a 14.5" barrel versus 14" on the American Mk.16, plus it has a bayonet lug.

Oh I wasn't aware that newer M249s don't have them. Shame, it tied the whole look together. In theory they're still interchangeable and you could fit one to a newer SAW right? It doesn't look like the weapon has changed much over time besides for rails, stock, etc. I think I've seen that alternate collapsible stock in an Army press release but never seen any photos of it in the wild. So it's more than a one-off prototype? L129A1 is a Colt Canada C8 variant I think? It has that new integrated upper receiver that I didn't recognize at first. Okay I'll try to get the actual problems down there one of these days. Thanks for the info about the Surefire magazine. Low priority is infinitely better than never. I think they'd be a good addition like the Beta C magazines in the addon. In my humble opinion the Marines should find a good higher capacity magazine for the M27 IAR when it's actually used in its intended role. Yet last I saw they were trying to make the M27 the standard issue rifle which may have been their plan all along.

I don't really know if any of the ArmA3 dev team visits these forums but it seems to me like there is not enough contrast when using thermal imaging sights. You can hardly determine the objects or "cold" vehicles in the background. Looking through the FLIR in a fighter aircraft and the terrain below is just a shapeless grey blob. Even with the 1980s-era TIS on the original M1/M1A1 and there is enough contrast in the image to make out buildings, trees, all sorts of things. Since then the technology has greatly improved. When you first look at something with the thermals in game there is a short period where the image seems better defined but then it returns to its normal dullness. It seems strange. So is there anyway we could see the better image quality for thermals in ArmA 3 as part of another "encore" update?