Jump to content
Raklödder

Fixed Wing Aircraft Discussion

Recommended Posts

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/15/could-this-airplane-replace-the-a-10-warthog.aspx

Could This Airplane Replace the A-10 Warthog?

The Air Force floats an idea that sounds really attractive... to Textron.

Rich Smith

(TMFDitty)

Mar 15, 2015 at 1:13PM

G

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt. Armed and... in danger? Photo source: Wikimedia Commons.

After more than four decades in service, the A-10 Warthog is due for a replacement. So says the U.S. Air Combat Command.

What's more, ACC says it's already "thinking about" fielding such a replacement. But what might that replacement be?

Last week, we got a clue. As reported by Reuters, the Air Force has recently begun evaluating Textron's (NYSE:TXT) Scorpion fighter jet as a potential 21st-century replacement for the 20th-century Warthog.

Quoting Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of ACC, Reuters reports that the Air Force has done "some research" on Textron's new budget-priced Scorpion. And Carlisle thinks the plane just might be what the Air Force needs to perform close-air support in "contested environments" that could prove lethal to the A-10.

But what exactly is Scorpion, and how does it stack up against the A-10 Thunderbolt Warthog?

Scorpion

Source: Textron AirLand.

Introducing Scorpion

Textron describes Scorpion as a modern "surveillance and strike" aircraft boasting:

twin turbofan engines, producing 8,000 lbs. of combined thrust

a 45,000-foot top altitude

a top speed of 520 mph

six hard points for carrying weapons on its wings (6,200 lbs. capacity)

room for 3,000 lbs. more payload in an internal weapons bay

a flyaway cost of less than $20 million -- and an hourly operations cost of about $3,000

Relative to the A-10 Warthog, Textron's Scorpion has about half as much engine power -- but also half the weight. The aircraft's range is roughly equal to the A-10's, but the Scorpion is a better "sprinter," featuring both a faster maximum speed and a slower "stall speed" -- important for flying low-and-slow on ground support missions.

Of course, the biggest difference between Scorpion and the A-10 Warthog is the absence of a "big gun" -- specifically, the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon that is both the A-10's primary weapon and its defining feature. Designed to kill Soviet tanks in a circa-1980s Cold War confrontation -- and actually used to destroy nearly 900 Soviet-vintage Iraqi tanks in the 1990s Gulf War I -- the A-10's big gun is notably absent from Textron's Scorpion.

It has cannons on its wings instead of nose and top speed is 60mph faster than A10. The scorpion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a flyaway cost of less than $20 million -- and an hourly operations cost of about $3,000

 

The Air Force would never buy this, it would mean they'd be purchasing planes that actually retail and fly at a reasonable price. Then how would Lockheed Martin siphon billions of taxpayer dollars through a fighter jet program that produces barely flight worthy aircraft that cost more than the GDP of most African countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Air Force would never buy this, it would mean they'd be purchasing planes that actually retail and fly at a reasonable price. Then how would Lockheed Martin siphon billions of taxpayer dollars through a fighter jet program that produces barely flight worthy aircraft that cost more than the GDP of most African countries?

Scorpion looks like a good replacement for A10.....and it even really looks better and sleeker. A modern aircraft with even stealth perhaps. And it even can fly slower with lower stall speed than A10. These aircraft go P51 speeds.

Top speed of P51 Mustang is 437 Mph nearly same as A10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love planes, but I have to be honest, I wouldn't want to see them in squad.

Obviously, it's the devs that have all their design docs on hand, but I just want to say that jets in PR always struck me as a joke, something done for its own sake rather than contribute to tactical options. By far, the most immersion breaking aspect of that game. An entire team of like, 30 people and later 60 could either get a significant boost or a significant handicap from two positions on said team. You didn't notice them much when they were decent but when they weren't... I mean, even the commander didn't have as much relevance. Of course, gameplay with virtually all air assets aside from transport helos made no sense in terms of realism, though most of that will probably be solved in Squad with the proper view distance. 

 

The only suggestion that comes to mind is: skip pure air superiority fighters like F-15Cs and do light multiroles like F-16s and Mig-29SMs with A-G and heaters only, maybe with a button to jettison the A-G stuff for better performance. There's just not enough room for radar guided missiles, even in a 16 by 16km area. Or maybe no fighters at all, just ground attack.

 

It's a lot of work for potentially no gain, and I'm glad that Offworld seems to be considering this thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scorpion looks like a good replacement for A10.....and it even really looks better and sleeker. A modern aircraft with even stealth perhaps. And it even can fly slower with lower stall speed than A10. These aircraft go P51 speeds.

Top speed of P51 Mustang is 437 Mph nearly same as A10.

I agree entirely and I would love to see the armed forces return to buying cheap, proven and effective technology. Or at the very least demand reasonable development budgets with real contractor oversight. The government may well buy some of these, I just wanted to take a shot at how out of control the military industrial complex is these with the F35.

 

But the Airforce has made it pretty clear that they want as many broken ass F35s as they can convince congress to purchase because they don't like flying CAS when they could be daydreaming about hoards of imaginary super advanced Russian fighter jets that will totally someday maybe be a threat (as in literally never) so they just gotta keep shoveling out taxpayer money for these overpriced garbage planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who flew fighters including the A-10 in combat and I mentioned to him that it was too bad it was being phased out, "bbbbuuuuuuurrrrrrrrp" and all that at slow ground attack airspeeds. He just rolled his eyes and said he was glad it was going, attacking fast and from a distance is far safer and more accurate these days. They don't need to strafe tanks anymore. If you want to take out infantry hiding in the wadi like in the vids you see, attack helos are a better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who flew fighters including the A-10 in combat and I mentioned to him that it was too bad it was being phased out, "bbbbuuuuuuurrrrrrrrp" and all that at slow ground attack airspeeds. He just rolled his eyes and said he was glad it was going, attacking fast and from a distance is far safer and more accurate these days. They don't need to strafe tanks anymore. If you want to take out infantry hiding in the wadi like in the vids you see, attack helos are a better choice.

US shouldn't give up CAS ability, in Gulf War 1 the A10 was do for retirement but it turned out they were still needed and killed all those tanks saving tank on tank battles from happening and ground troops engaging heavy armor. They should not give up this at all, never know when it will be needed again. The Scorpion has long range attack ability as well as straphing capability on ground targets; best of both worlds with Scorpion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US shouldn't give up CAS ability, in Gulf War 1 the A10 was do for retirement but it turned out they were still needed and killed all those tanks saving tank on tank battles from happening and ground troops engaging heavy armor. They should not give up this at all, never know when it will be needed again. The Scorpion has long range attack ability as well as straphing capability on ground targets; best of both worlds with Scorpion.

 

Air Force is desperate to kill off the A-10 in order to sure up funding for the F-35. The only reason it is still flying is thankfully Congress won't let them kill it off. A-10 is perfect for most of the conflicts we are facing in the Middle East and is cheap to operate, but is almost useless the second advance SAM emplacements are considered. 

 

Air Force won't acquire a new CAS aircraft for a long time, their budget is already FUBAR and they will do whatever it takes to protect the F-35 program. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there be an option to play on non-vehicle servers?

Games pretty solid as it is. Sometimes I'll just want some inf on inf combat other times I'll want the whole 9 yards.

I'm sure others feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's really the lack of attention in this thread is the fact that this image exists:

 

airvehicletypes.jpg

 

But there is a debate as to whether or not jets will be in.

 

Directly above that same image in this link, it even says 

 

 Below is a chart of air vehicle types you will encounter in Squad. 

 

How can we be sure any of the things mentioned in that post are even going to make it, despite being shown as the which you will find in the game? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there be an option to play on non-vehicle servers?

Games pretty solid as it is. Sometimes I'll just want some inf on inf combat other times I'll want the whole 9 yards.

I'm sure others feel the same way.

 

There was "skirmish" versions of maps in PR which was an infantry only gamemode. It was meant to be played while a server filled up, but you could use it to host an infantry server if you wished, and im sure some people will do this in Squad as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want A10's or any other fixed wing aircraft in Squad. It encourages mad lone-rish behavior and not to mention selfish behavior which is counter to Squad's team based play

 

However can we get some black hawks please? Need some Air Cav in squad! And it would set up some nice "black hawk down" situations, rescuing downed team mates from a downed black hawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fixed wing aircraft worked so well--imo--in PR! idk y its not given that it would be in squad--it worked so well in PR! i never pilot in PR and wont for Squad, but love it when a mig comes in and saves the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing says he will not later on larger map ... in all cases the blackhawk me enough , it will added a nice touch of gamplay ... let their time to dev .
" ProjectReality " has not done in 1 month , already the experience of insurged mod with vehicles and make you well ied waited until the next update. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the message below on another topic(though this one is slightly edited) because I didn't know such a topic already existed, my bad, so i apologize if i'm violating any rules regarding double post, warning, Wall of text:

 

As a player who has flown jets in PR until 2011, for -maybe- hundreds of hours, both on public servers and organized tournaments (CATA veteran here) i'd say we definitely need them. I know they are already on developers' to-do list but i just want to share my opinion and hopefully convince people who are against implementation of jets that also haven't played PR, or haven't played in an organized tournament/organized pub match, or haven't dedicated too much time for jets in PR or haven't played against or in a team with good CAS . This post is also written for people who think jets are lonewolf assets, or assets that promote lonewolfing:

Right of the bat, summary of my wall of text, or TLDR version: If implemented correctly, jets add realism, depth, immersion to the gameplay, regardless of map size and view distance. Teams working together and communicating with each other will be rewarded even more ingame when it comes to jets and CAS. And since Squad is a game which aims to reward teamwork and communication, i don't see why they shouldn't be added. Btw i don't intend to suggest that they should be added immediately, or ASAP, just saying in the long run, in the following years, they should be a part of the arsenal...Also the marketing value of a heli or a jet, make them worth the while, and i'm sure devs know of this. :)

Now the longer part, trying to argue why they should be added:


1) From a realism perspective: 

Most of the CAS  in Afghanistan for NATO and ANA between 2001 and 2014 was provided by fighter and CAS jets. Again, fighter jets or CAS jets are widely used by every modern or semi-modern army, and more importantly on every imaginable target. For example, this liveleak video shows an a-10 strafing run against a single taliban fighter/commander here(WARNING, it shows a headshot from a-10 canon!):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6f7_1347368336 

Here are additional videos, showing your normally designated air superiority/fighter jets (f-15 and f-16 respectively) on strafing and bombing runs. So "add only Su-25, a-10" arguments doesn't apply in regards to realism.

 

 

 

Also, fighter and/or CAS aircraft are used by Syrian Arab Army against every opposition target (FSA, JAN, ISIS), USAF jets fly over Syria and Iraq and provide direct CAS  to everyone fighting against ISIS(SDF, YPG, KRG, Iraq Army, Delta Force), Russian Airforce uses jets instead of assault choppers in support of SAA, Saudis use them against Houthis in Yemen etc. Mind you, all of the mentioned theaters are asymmetrical warfare theaters. So, if we want Squad to reflect a real battlefield, they should be added to militant/insurgency maps as well.

So, in conclusion,  placing jets in asymmetrical maps in Squad makes even more sense than placing assault choppers.Because they have longer ranges compared to choppers IRL, they are faster than choppers, and will be ready to assist ground troops in a shorter amount of time, they can loiter for longer periods of time around target area and most importantly, they have higher durability than chopppers. For example US/NATO/US allies only lost 1 aircraft due to enemy fire since 2001, on all theaters of conflict, be it Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Yemen. For these reasons, they are likely to come to your aid in a modern/regular army than an assault choppers .So their presence shouldn't be limited to vehicle warfare maps IMO. 

Their relative invulnerability in insurgency type maps could be countered in Squad with long rearmament, landing and take off times, and with the exception of su-25 and a-10, jets don't carry much ordnance; A few jdams or antitank missiles at most... In comparison to a RPG kit in Squad, that's almost tiny, and as a result,  their impact on asymmetrically balanced maps wont be game breaking even if shooting down the jet proves to be very hard/or even impossible for the insurgent/militant team.

2) Gameplay benefits:

Here is the real deal imo, the immersion jets brought to the PR was unbelievable! And this is true both from ground perspective and pilot's perspective. Let me elaborate:

Lasing a target and the watching a friendly aircraft coming down from sky, deploying flares and firing a missile or dropping a JDAM  or strafing a target was super cool to watch. It was fun to organize as a squad leader, and the feeling you had as a pilot, after destroying a tank, costing enemy 22 tickets, being praised by your teammates and relieving your ground troops from some kind of threat was extraordinary. It was also fun to be strafed and bombed because it was scary and exciting, well at least i enjoyed it. :)

Jets also add another layer to the gameplay; In organized tournament  maps, or on pub matches with decent teams, the armor squads always had to advance in the envelope of AAA (Tunguska for example). Presence of jets also limited the lone-wolf capabilities of armors and APCs, because it  was too risky to roll around on your own, as long as there were enemy jets in the air. However attack helis were considered easier targets, because you could ambush them with your APC if they were flying low, so armor players took risks if there were only CAS helis on map.

When CAS was requested, experienced pilots asked about the presence of Antiaircraft vehicles to the lasing friendly troops, but sometimes you had to attack targets that were covered by enemy AA to save a flag/friendly infantry squad etc. And sometimes you were ordered to execute a dangerous CAS run by your SL or commander to save the match/flag. 

As a result, you saw organized stuff like an infantry squad spending their last TOW/HATmissile on a Tunguska AAA, instead of other 5 MBTs/IFVs approaching to their position, in order to pave way for a CAS run, and then CAS attacked and stopped an armored attack on a critical flag.

Teams had to time their attacks by taking enemy AC into consideration. For instance delaying an attack until enemy jets were downed or initiating an assault when your jets were airborne was common practice.

Yes, assault choppers could accomplish all those tasks too, but they were always easy or easier targets for MBTs, IFVs, 0.50 cals in PR, so they always had to employ weird attacking tactics, ( a 90 degree dive from the top for example). I believe the basics will remain the same in Squad, they will be feared less by ground vehicles due to their slow speed. 

Also, it's important to note that in PR at least, it was easier for assault choppers to lonewolf, since they were slower, they had more advanced optics, had a wider range of weapons at their disposal and  had a dedicated gunner. So  it was a lot easier and tempting for them to look out for targets on their own( just as in IRL). Jets however, as will be explained below, required a higher level of teamwork and couldn't be used as lonewolf assets.

3) As for jet vs jet combats, they were, unlike what you may think, extremely stressful, punishing engagements that also required teamwork.

Evading an enemy jet once he was on your 6 was extremely hard, so you had to rely on your wingman or friendly AAA to shake him off, 

You had to scan the skies all round you when you were airborne(constantly pressing hotas buttons on my joystick: look left, right, up, roll over and look down, check 6, repeat in every 3 seconds) and you had to think before initiating a CAS run, maybe even plan on egress and ingress routes, you also had to listen for spotted enemy jets and where were they spotted to catch them or avoid them, you had to adjust your altitude in order to avoid detection if you were commanding a slow CAS plane when flying against fighter jets, some teams flew their jets very close to each other and used bait tactics to lure enemy aircraft. 

So there was a lot of tactics, teamwork, experience and skill involved in air to air combat.

A side note: if you add attack helis on either team of the map instead of jets, this will bring down the realism element too much in Squad, because then,  helis will start to engage each other, and in the history of warfare, there was only a few instances of enemy helis engaging each other (Only happened in Iran-Iraq War), but jet vs. jet combat happened in Korea, Iran Iraq War, Kosovo War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, 6 days Way, Yom Kippur War, Falklands, etc. 

4) Last but not least, jets always required teamwork to have an impact on battlefield,and likewise, you needed teamwork to negate their effect on the battlefield. Jets, unlike bf series, were not assets that could have been used for lonewolfing.

Jets flew fast and it was hard to spot targets on your own, so even if you spotted something, you had to make another turn, and by the time you came back target would have relocated, or just hide, and you exposed yourself to AAV. In order to make use of your limited ammo, you required friendly laser targets and/or intel from ground troops, you had to listen to the infantry/armor squad leaders to avoid friendly fire or enemy AAV, against skilled pilots you needed ground troops' or friendly jets assistance once you were in trouble. And ground forces required higher levels of teamwork to advance and assault on a position. So you had to ask yourself these questions before attacking a position: Are there enemy jets airborne, if not, were they shot down or did they just land to rearm, do we have AAA cover, how good are their pilots are performing etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't Fly Jets in PR only some Supply runs with Trans as a average Pilot are possible. I prefer Inf. way more, if your on the Battlefield and a take Jet flyby and/or do some Airstrike its sounds and look pretty amazing.

I don't care about the Release date (2016/17/18 or even 19 dosent matter), i only hope their will be implement somedays :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents (and first post)

For the record, I love flying and have played flight sims since before most ppl here was even born (This is what it looked like), but I hope they wont make it into this game anyway soon.

 

There are a few different aspects to consider in this matter:

1. It's just not fun being killed by Aircraft, since it's often random and instant. You rarely understand what happened. You can perform textbook on the ground, bounding across the terrain and stay in a fortified positions, but that wont matter much when that rocket hits. A single A-10 could turn a village to ruins in minutes and for the players on the ground it would be just a feeling of dying randomly all the time. It is very cool when you are in the cockpit, but that's just one player causing grief for alot of guys on the other side of the barrel.

2. The size of the maps are just waaaay to small. Even Altis (Arma 3) is to small and it's 17 x 17 km. I ported a "Take on Helicopter" map for Arma3 and made a few airbases. That map is 200 x 200km in size, and for the first time I felt it actually worked rather good. We could get ppl in, climb to cruising altitude, form up and head towards the AO and engage the ground targets.

3. Turning down the speed and damage of the crafts would just turn the game into what Battlefield once was, and would just turn a realistic game into something else. It's a design decision, but I think that would make alot of ppl leave the game.

4. *If* used in the game, the only way would in my opinion would be to make it into some kind of support asset; i.e. The attacking team get one airstrike if the other team controls more than half the objectives or similar. That way it could be turned into a equaliser in a way. It would be more or less scripted, like attacking a target designated by the commander, maybe making it neccessary for more then half of squadleaders to agree on the target or something.

5. Flying Aircraft is quite tricky, why games like Arma or similar Always dumb it down to a level where anyone can fly it like driving a car. Even so the people that can't fly are always first in line, grabbing them and *always* losing these multi million assets in cheap ways. Making each team only have one of these, won't help, since one of these guys just will lose it in a matter of minutes.

6. Score is important for alot of ppl. Not making plane kills count would maybe keep some away from the cockpit.

 

Final Words: I hope Squad can keep the focus on small tactical engagements with (reasonably) light weapons. Once you put main battle tanks, ships and fixed wing Aircraft in the equation, you end up on a whole other arena, and im not sure if that will do well with a 70 ppl server.

There once was a game (that failed on launch) called WWII online. It was a fantastic game for what it was worth though. Entire europe in 1/3 scale. Full system for production, transport logistics and Everything. A full blown flight sim for the pilots, complex armor penetration system for tanks, models with systems that could fail (gearboxes, hydralics and so on). One server only with hundreds of players online at the same time. The only problem was that it was before it's time, and they just couldnt get the game all the way on the budget they had. If anyone managed to make a game of that scale, with the quality Squad makes small scale infantry combat and with servers wíth 1000+ ppl online it would blow my mind, but it's one hell of a chance to take. WWII online turned into Battleground Europé by the way, and it still seems to be alive.

I think Squads decision to keep the scale to about 2 - 8 km (squared) is pretty good. Its a good enough scale to use helicopters for transport, and maybe a MBT or two on certain maps but fixed wings just wont work. It will at best be a compromise.

What would be cool however, would be making models of them fly by for atmospheric reasons, or using them through scripts, like attacking an important bridge if the enemy team capture the village at the river.

 

Share this post


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

My 2 cents (and first post)

For the record, I love flying and have played flight sims since before most ppl here was even born (This is what it looked like), but I hope they wont make it into this game anyway soon.

 

There are a few different aspects to consider in this matter:

1. It's just not fun being killed by Aircraft, since it's often random and instant. You rarely understand what happened. You can perform textbook on the ground, bounding across the terrain and stay in a fortified positions, but that wont matter much when that rocket hits. A single A-10 could turn a village to ruins in minutes and for the players on the ground it would be just a feeling of dying randomly all the time. It is very cool when you are in the cockpit, but that's just one player causing grief for alot of guys on the other side of the barrel.

4. *If* used in the game, the only way would in my opinion would be to make it into some kind of support asset; i.e. The attacking team get one airstrike if the other team controls more than half the objectives or similar. That way it could be turned into a equaliser in a way. It would be more or less scripted, like attacking a target designated by the commander, maybe making it neccessary for more then half of squadleaders to agree on the target or something.

5. Flying Aircraft is quite tricky, why games like Arma or similar Always dumb it down to a level where anyone can fly it like driving a car. Even so the people that can't fly are always first in line, grabbing them and *always* losing these multi million assets in cheap ways. Making each team only have one of these, won't help, since one of these guys just will lose it in a matter of minutes.

6. Score is important for alot of ppl. Not making plane kills count would maybe keep some away from the cockpit.

 

#2 and #3 have some merit to them but I disagree with the rest.

 

#1 It's not fun to be killed in any scenario in the game. Getting shot by a marksman, having grenades or launchers kill you in an explosion, getting shot in the back... None of this is something you can have happen to you and go "Wow, I love this!" At the very least there is some coordination required for jets to be effective in this scenario, I would say that there is significantly less of course if someone says "Hey, go flatten that flag"

#4 Automated strikes are going to be more accurate than player controlled strikes 100% of the time. Having it deviate from the mark not only takes away from the idea of a precision strike but random deviation is dumb. Being killed by a computer controlled call-in would be less enjoyable than losing to another player.

#5 Making it tricky is another way to balance how often you have to deal with the threat. Some games you might have someone who is really damn good in one and he'll give you trouble, as he should. It'd be like going up against a guy who's spot on with his M203 in an infantry engagement. He'll kick your ass and there's not much you can do about it.

#6 Having a higher score means nothing if it's not recorded. I completely understand that there are still people out there who pile onto the first cap point in a match for a score boost but you cannot disagree that the entire reason why people employ assets like armour and CAS is because they like being the finger that pulls the trigger on killing the enemy. They don't do it for points as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rybec said:

#4 Automated strikes are going to be more accurate than player controlled strikes 100% of the time. Having it deviate from the mark not only takes away from the idea of a precision strike but random deviation is dumb. Being killed by a computer controlled call-in would be less enjoyable than losing to another player.

I think he means having a more interactive experience than just clicking a button for an airstrike on a cap or map. So, SL's mark a point like in RO2, or laser designate and then the commander can choose which target and calls in the airstrike. If it's not a guided munition, then there could easily be some deviation.

I agree, it's not ideal, I'd prefer player flown aircraft as it's a role I usually play in ARMA, but even if you could fit them, how do you balance it? You would have to have significant cooldown times on aircraft respawns and reloading or a single pilot who is good will fly laps and pummel the enemy like a full squadron could IRL. If you only get one sortie per map or every 20 minutes say, how fun would that be for a pilot? Fly in circles empty the entire map? Land and drink a beer while sitting at base?

I'd hate to see aircraft severely nerfed to make them fit, even in ARMA, which is more realistic than most, it's easy to shoot down fighters in a little bird since the jets are slowed down so much, it's comical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LugNut said:

 

I'd hate to see aircraft severely nerfed to make them fit, even in ARMA, which is more realistic than most, it's easy to shoot down fighters in a little bird since the jets are slowed down so much, it's comical.

exactly. people dont understand this. jets are so awesome of a force because they are so fast. I watch PR cas videos and its so bad how slow they go. Unlike in any other games, the player has to do very little with modern ordnance systems. This isnt the days of a P51 flying treeline level spewing hvars onto trucks. jdams have very little input from the pilot, same with lgbs (especially for your PR nutters that are all about laser designating targets, if its realistic then the AI pilot would be the same as the human pilot in such situations. If the pilot has to self designate (as is doctrine in some countries) then the pilot has more control)'

 

but really the human in the equation matters very little in modern warfare if its realistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×