Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

We need a military transport aircraft.
New, WishlistPublic

Description

Mobility is very important for an army.
Transport aircraft provides a big mobility, for soldiers, vehicles and support.
That's why we need at least one transport aircraft with features like, for example :

  • transport and deployment for soldiers, vehicles and ammo.
  • parachutage of those soldiers, vehicles and ammo.
  • ability to refuel other aircraft (CAS or AA).
  • ability to land on short and unprepared runways.

This aircraft could be available in different versions (for soldiers transport, vehicles transport, aerial refueling...)

I know that it's rather hard to do but, one more time, it's very important in an army. {F23487} {F23488} {F23489} {F23490} {F23491}

Details

Legacy ID
1401418319
Severity
None
Resolution
Open
Reproducibility
Have Not Tried
Category
Feature Request
Additional Information

The last military transport aircraft released seems to be the european A400M, sold to Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, France...
It's in service since 2013 and could be still used in 2035 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas

It's obviously just an idea and every feedback reporter can add his own point of view :)

Event Timeline

Mitrail edited Steps To Reproduce. (Show Details)Mar 17 2014, 9:49 PM
Mitrail edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
Mitrail set Category to Feature Request.
Mitrail set Reproducibility to Have Not Tried.
Mitrail set Severity to None.
Mitrail set Resolution to Open.
Mitrail set Legacy ID to 1401418319.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM
gutsnav added a subscriber: gutsnav.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

I believe that they are working on one, the "C-192 Samson." From the wreck model of the aircraft,
I can kind of see the A400M shape... Could just be another C-130 though.

Katane added a subscriber: Katane.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

Really good Idea !
I can't wait for it !

AD2001 added a subscriber: AD2001.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

Don't use "we", use "me".

And even YOU don't need it, you just want it.

Mitrail added a subscriber: Mitrail.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

AD2001 : absolutly not. Here, it seems that there are 22 other people who want it, and when I am with other people I use "we". And we NEED it for a lot of missions/scenarios that we can't make without a transport aircraft.

Very good idea !

Screw the C-130! Go for the C-5 Galaxy!

The V-22 Osprey was suppose to be integrated into ARMA 3, but looks like it was dropped sometime shortly after ARMA 3 Alpha. Now the Osprey looks like a faded memory.

This Bug is really a duplicate of older Bug #0010139, "Large transport aircraft for airdropping vehicles, troops". The older Bug #0010139 should be augmented to include the majority of this Bug's better description, including the attached photos.

With the C-5, the server administrators could program/script the C-5's for allowing air drops of approximately 30 Virtual Ammo crates over the AO, or unload approximately five vehicles at an airfield including troops.

While we're at it, anybody have a status on the ICBM's or incorporating girls? ;-) Another neat idea with the larger air transport vehicles, building supplies can be more easily & quickly transported, simulating building a city?

Should add, we had a somewhat good time attempting to parachute into the area of operations yesterday on Anzu's server, which is heavily fortified by infantry. However, if one can get into the inside of the area of operations (by parachute), the experience can be quite bountiful!

Here's a tip, flying above 1,500 meters one can successfully evade AAA and drop paratroops into the area. I would suggest not opening the parachute until just above 100 meters (or to be safer 110 meters), and no later than 90 or 95 meters. If opened too soon, you can push the forward button to attempt to get down faster.

The old helicopter drops one to two clicks outside the area of operations, and then the long jog is getting quiet old! (Thank God for TF1776 servers with flag pole parachute insertions, and reloading of original backpacks!)

NOTE: C5 Galaxy is now retired per Wikipedia, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is the successor. Payload is slightly less then FRED, or the C5.
tommack added a subscriber: tommack.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

Certainly not the place for this sort of thing. Take it to the devs on Twitter or on the forums. This site is for bugs not requests.

@tommack I don't see why there is a "Feature Request" category if the feedback tracker is only for bugs...

Ditto. I don't know why Bohemia Interactive initially called this "Feature Request", as it's going to spur quite a bit of response and cause confusion between Bugs and Feature Requests!

If you noticed, "Bug #{number}" and "Issue #{number}" and "Feature #{number}" all tend to be synonymous! (I need to double check these.) I tend to just use Bug #{number} myself.

Interesting. It would appear the embedded URL references for Feature/Issue/Bug issues do not work for bugs that are not present (ie. Bug # 1), or when referencing the same bug number the post is being made to. And furthermore, the embedded URL seems to happen only after the "#" symbol, with no bearing as to what the previous word is prior to the "#" symbol.

Wouldn't this be better off in an addon request thread?

rogerx added a comment.Mar 8 2015, 8:24 PM

FYI: There is a working Boeing C-17 module. I just tested this C-17 module recently within the past month or so, and found the C-17 module most functional having only two issues noted further below.

ie. Armaholic > Downloads / Arma 3 / Addons / Vehicles / Planes / Boeing C-17 or http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=25090

Cargo bay has a glitch with cargo falling through and something is wrong with the co-pilot seat. Other then these two issues and once fixed, the C-17 will be on par with the status of the other already included aircraft or helicopters within vanilla ARMA 3. With the added benefit of having a bay door which actually does something useful!

It would be really nice to have immersive airdrops. We already have working cargo chutes, but nothing to really drop cargo from

gibonez added a subscriber: gibonez.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

Would be a monumental waste of time and resources when you consider how small scale Arma really is.

This would be great maybe in Arma 4 or 5 if the scale increases substancially but for arma 3 it would be a huge waste of time.

@gibonez
Are you kidding me? They had a C-130 in Arma 2. Arma 2 maps dont even compare to the size of altis.

gibonez: I do not think so. I think the Atlis map as well as the Stratis maps are suitably large enough for larger transport aircraft. Granted they're short hops, similar in real life going from one local airport to another. Fixed wing aircraft being still far faster than using a helicopter, and can more easily remain within a holding pattern if need be.

Now that I've reasoned this, I likely see now why Bohemia Interactive has decided to remain only with helicopter transports versus incorporating larger fixed wing aircraft transports, likely to remain profitable alongside their other helicopter simulation software. And it's easy to workaround doing without, by simply scripting in a teleport or instant halo jump script.

This though inevitably leaves the airport taxi ways relatively unused as most servers I've seen only have one or two jets active, if any at all.

Really what we're looking at within the bigger picture is a calamity of finicky issues such as; AI too accurate, not enough trees on Altis for exiting choppers via ropes (versus Stratis have some really good spots), some servers have too many enemy vehicles making helicopters useless below 1500m, flares useless, etc...

I think that the idea is not bad, but not for the maps that we have in A3 today. Unfortunately even Altis is too small for this idea, and also we have only one airport was designed to accommodate such aircraft.
A3 needs more in the sea-transports, capable of transporting heavy armored vehicles and large infantry squads.

rogerx added a comment.Apr 8 2015, 6:16 PM

mickeymen: Might want to open a separate bug, and post the bug URL here for reference as I think many will want to subscribe/vote whom are already subscribed here!

ie. Title, "We need a military sea transports."

When you look at Altis's size, it takes quite a while to get a vehicle or a small amount of infantry to the far coastal regions of the map. Either by land or by sea would likely decrease the time for transporting.

Without the transports, area of operations are usually quickly completed by using scripted Halo jumps. Scripted Halo jumps would likely be removed if larger fixed-wing or sea transports were utilized.

Shields added a subscriber: Shields.May 7 2016, 6:12 PM

I can't see why anyone would vote down on this. This is perfect for the massive map of Altis.

"When you look at Altis's size, it takes quite a while to get a vehicle or a small amount of infantry to the far coastal regions of the map."

Where in the outer regions of the map, you are going to make the landing(for dislocation of vehicles) of such a large aircraft? If there is no Airfields!
As for paratroopers, so they can be landed by helicopter...

"This is perfect for the massive map of Altis"
Yes not bad idea, but only if the Altis has many large airfields in distant regions. Unfortunately there is no such.
I think for this idea, should be a flight from Stratis to Altis/

rogerx added a comment.Apr 8 2015, 7:06 PM

Helicopters can only transport a small amount of troops. Helicopters are significantly slower and less stable than fixed wing. Fixed wing transports also do not need to land, as they can air drop several cargo crates at once.

Many items can be air dropped, although there is a second air field on the east side of Altis. Several other smaller runways might support dropping cargo during touch and go landings.

(ie. We want more!)

Maybe you're right, but this transport is clearly not a priority task for A3. Sorry, but this is my opinion.

rogerx added a comment.Apr 9 2015, 4:10 AM

Ditto, but there are also some other map or 3D bugs also holding-up large ships and submarines.

With the new VTOLs filling this task, I assume that this ticket can be closed.

@Mitrail VTOL can not carry heavy vehicles, such as a trucks or mraps

arziben added a subscriber: arziben.EditedJun 20 2016, 12:51 AM

@mickeymen the V44 can transport a Hunter, strider, an HEMTT tractor or any Zamak.

Have a list: https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/4obd4e/vtols_viv_capacity_including_current_rhs_2/

@arziben you right, I am surprised/ thanks for info

Using and getting experienced with Tanoa/Apex here on developer snapshots, the VTOL (vortex) aircraft still do not transport vehicles larger than common ordinary vehicles. (With the possible exception the NATO VTOL can carry a Marshall vehicle.) As such, all heavy armored vehicles still need to be driven to area of operations. And as such, the heavy armored vehicles remain at the base or around the base. So with Tanoa, would be nice to have a hovercraft or other boating solution. Similar could be stated for Stratis & Altis islands, as they are surrounded by water, and with a faster boat, could be much faster than driving.

One interesting and surprising aspect of transporting the lighter vehicles utilizing the VTOL aircraft, the VTOL aircraft are not required to land to allow the vehicle to exit the VTOL aircraft, and are able to exit the VTOL aircraft using a parachute! Be aware when exiting the VTOL aircraft, the chute is instantaneous and acts readily when deploying at heights as low as 10-50 meters. (Currently no PhysX effects of parachutes being deployed.)