Bomber and AI UCAV Commander

[last shore]

DB-32 Foreman/Bosun. This aircraft would have 2-3 seats, 1 for pilot, 2 for Co-pilot/EWO (Optional), 3 for Swarm commander
Swarm commander would command a loitering variant of the AIM-120D, as well as giving orders to / controlling nearby MQ-68 Stalkers (see below). the DB-32 will look like a B-21, and not very maneuverable/unable to climb rapidly. Wingspan would be 115 feet, in order for it to have enough space to land on a carrier reliably. Moderate stealth levels, around that of a clean T-55. 1 Player would operate the bombing equipment and flying the aircraft, a 2nd player would be seated at the drone control screen, and a 3rd player would be in the co-pilot position to alleviate workload from the other two operators. It will have F-45 style jamming with 2-4 transmitters.
Could have the feature in this post: https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1250165459404329020

MQ-68 Stalker: https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247636782443663410
the FB-32 would be able to command these with very specific commands, giving a higher level of control over where the drones go and what they do
Equipment spread across 4 weapons bays

possible weapons:
4x2 of both the weapons from https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1245504311618703493
4x4 ADM-160J
4x12 500lb bombs
4x3 AGM-161s
4x1 mini-drones with 2 missile each

This could also incorporate a version of the Gremlin UAV system which was able to launch and recover small UAVs which could be used for scouting and targeting, and then be recovered at the end of a mission. https://www.darpa.mil/program/gremlins
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1247299016396640257/1247302074966868220/image.png?ex=665f8814&is=665e3694&hm=55fc95dbca615f4f84fbb975e9bf7522f3b691be5e6ca0a5878dc72741394114&
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1247299016396640257/1247326891929636895/image.png?ex=665f9f31&is=665e4db1&hm=ea4f94263567a0ac128d3448a6a39b8bb54c87ef40044798c59cbf9711c0473d&

[gaunt sigil]

I think this could be a really cool addition!
Massive upvote on my end

[last shore]

possible FB-41 would be better

To clarify cause i ran out of text, the MQ-68s would NOT be deployed from the FB-32, only controlled

[zealous ember]

i was just about to ask about that, since this is “similar” to the other drone proposals, but i think those ones were all deployed from the bomber itself, which imo is somewhat unrealistic depending on context of said drone, out of them i personally like this “drone” implementation/new airframe the most, you have an upvote from me my friend

just for my own curiosity, how “op” would having the swarm commander being able to take control of one of the drones? i can think of a few reasons myself, but i’m more or less wondering about what someone else thinks, i just think it would be pretty badass to take control of a drone.

[last shore]

you wouldn't fully control the drone, just tell it where to go / what to attack

I think it would be fairly strong if the enemy team is unorganized and not planning to attack the mothership

[zealous ember]

yea, i know. i was more curious on the what if could yk

[last shore]

the MQ-68s would just loiter around their spawnpoint or something until they need to land or another FB-32 is able to command them

maybe you would be able to remote pilot one of the drones

but it would only be one at a time

carrier command

[zealous ember]

alright i’ll stray from the what if, would this plane be more for missions against like ai, or would it be possible to implement into a pvp server like chases(first one that came to mind), and if so for pvp how would the friend work for just getting into the game? like would they already be in the sky or take off after the FB-32 is in the air?

[last shore]

i dont think it would work well on something like chases server, but a scenario type thing with PVP could work with it

[zealous ember]

it would be really cool imo, but i don’t wanna stray from the main factors you proposed

[last shore]

the wingmen will be able to be controlled at any time, being commanded to take off, or being taken control once already in the air

[zealous ember]

yea i just realized i left that out

[last shore]

they would all be on a list to take ownership, as long as they're spawned in

[real oak]

Yeah I mean the entire gamemode would have to revolve around it

[last shore]

i dont even think so

it would be a way backline aircraft

[zealous ember]

i wouldn’t say revolve around, that’s probably the wrong word choice

[last shore]

you could have 1 FB-32 in the back and 12 other aircraft doing whatever

[real oak]

Honestly if this is gonna en added might aswell allow it to be a bomber too, my only problem with bombers is that they’re boring and 1 dimensional

[last shore]

and it all scales with the amount of drones you have

[real oak]

This would fix that

[zealous ember]

it’s similar in the fact if EF-24g was only focusing EW and staying the back lines

[last shore]

SLAM-ER was added in for that

you could just swap out all the missiles for SDBs

though its payload would be fairly low, especially if it needs to land on a carrier

still 16 upgraded aim-7s would be pretty heavy

[zealous ember]

how big is the FB-32? would it be possibly for carrier landing/takeoff

[real oak]

And ya know not everything HAS to be carrier capable

[last shore]

the B-21 is 132 feet, which is the same as the C-130

[last shore]

i know, but bonus points

[last shore]

BUT

in game it would probably end up with a slightly shorter wingspan, and lower payload, if it were to be carrier capable

this graphic was made for the bomber proposal, which wouldv'e been smaller

115 feet can fit on a deck with plenty of room to spare

[zealous ember]

It would be cool to have it be capable of both, but only one or the other, you have to either be loaded for bombing or drones

unless i just stated the obvious… lmao

[last shore]

Bombing would crank the weight way up, probably too much for a catapult

but still, thats cool

the VTOL catapults give plenty of energy to spare

[zealous ember]

yea it would be cool to have an option when your in the equipment menu to have an option “bomber” or “drone”, and if you choose bomber you get spawned at an airbase, and if you choose drone it could be airbase or carrier

[last shore]

the 115ft wingspan would be able to carry 32 500lb bombs

which would be fine for a catapult

[zealous ember]

but then if you want bomber you can only play maps with airbases, which 9/10 isn’t an issue

[real oak]

It would certainly be new but that’s what baha is looking for is suppose

[last shore]

i think bomber config would still work for carrier

[real oak]

It need microwave tho, hot pocket

[last shore]

my thoughts as well

[last shore]

triple bunker + a toilet

[zealous ember]

it would be badass seeing this thing taxiing to the catapult and taking off

[last shore]

yes

the carrier runway is ~150 feet wide

[zealous ember]

would take up the whole deck when moving😂

[last shore]

115/150 gives 35 ft wiggle room for landing

• low maneuverable

[zealous ember]

little margin for error when landing (atleast for me)

[last shore]

but we'll get TACAN which would help

[zealous ember]

yea i forgot that was in progress

idk this is on the realistic side of possible additions imo

[last shore]

i think it brings in a lot of new features, and would really add a lot of variety to combat, as it would be the first airliner esque thing

you would need instrument guided landings

and if you get intercepted, kill them or die

player bomber escort as well

[zealous ember]

it adds a lot “technical” things to the game, which would be really cool to interact whether it’s being in it/working with it/going against it, it just adds a lot of gameplay opportunities

[frank ibex]

This is easily the most well thought-out implementation of Loyal Wingmen for VTOL that I've seen. Thumbs up from me.

[last shore]

Drone mothership/bomber and AI UCAV

[sullen tusk]

i would prefer the drones being parasite fighters/glorified missile carriers more than standalone UCAVs -- makes mission setup and actual implementation of this idea easier to set up

also when they're standalone drones you run into the problem of predictability -- one mission could have 10x UCAVs and another has zero. and what would happen if the UCAVs get shot down -- do they respawn or are they out of the match completely?

And the idea of the disposable UCAVs having 6x loitering, datalinked fox-3's as well would not be fun to go up against at all.
i'd be fine with a drone having 1-2 fox-3s maximum, anything more is bordering on full-blown AI fighter territory

[last shore]

you misunderstand some of the stuff

the wingmen aren't expendable

they're essentially dumbed down AI F-45s

and the Fox-3s they have arent loitering

the amount they carry can change

i think 6 might be too many

also the number and respawning of the wingmen drones is entirely up to the mission editor

side note

cockpit layout

@sullen tusk i made the FB-32 have 8 loitering AtA missiles, and the MQ-68s have 4 AIM-120Ds

It would be a potent, but fairly vulnerable aircraft

[last shore]

@gaunt sigil

[sullen tusk]

why would a drone carrier have loitering A2A missiles? If this is a vulnerable aircraft, it wants to be far away from the fight.
Also, loitering fox-3's would pretty much have the same function as a drone equipped with 120s

[last shore]

It's really there so that if there aren't any drones, it will still be able to defend itself

they are pretty crap without a guiding radar

maybe 20%PK

it would primarily be a bomber in terms of weaponry

hence the "B"

[sullen tusk]

how do the drones work? if they're separate units that aren't parasite fighters, do they take up a separate unit slot on spawn? do they respawn?

[last shore]

they're not attached to the players at all

its just like an AI unit

that the player can take "command" of and order around

by default they wouldn't respawn, but if the mission maker wants them to it would be an option

[sullen tusk]

how are they split if there are two drone carriers on the team?

[last shore]

thats a good question

i'd say just whoever takes control first

you can also pass on control to another FB-32

in a MILSIM there would be some level of organization for it

[last shore]

there could be a leveling, similar to when you select teams

where if you have a whole lot of them, you have to give some to the other FB-32s before getting more

or a flat 8 drone cap

the mission would decide how many there are, so im hesitant to add a flat limit

it could be group based, where if they are in the same group as the bomber they can be controlled, otherwise not

[sullen tusk]

I don't really like the idea the idea of the drones being standalone AI aircraft, there are too many considerations to be made per mission.

for example, what happens if the loyal wingmen are all shot down along with the plane, and there's either an extended respawn time or none at all because of the mission? the drone controller slot loses its purpose on top of the plane losing a lot of it's functionality.
if there is a respawn on them, then the plane has to wait on the tarmac until the drones respawn?

it would be inconsistent per mission for both the crew and those going up against it

[last shore]

it's inherently dependent on the drones, i feel like if they are all shot down than the FB-32 should be out of luck

it could be made so that when the FB-32 spawns in, it respawns all drones

but that can just be done in the mission editor

thats also why i wanted to give it some of its own missiles, just so in case there are no drones, the #3 man can still have some way to defend the plane

I think whatever worries you have can be fixed by the mission maker

im making the drones be standalone so that theres some kind of networking, with shared resources

[sullen tusk]

i'd imagine that's a bit of unneeded extra effort for something that should be consistent and directly tied to the plane

[last shore]

its not that hard to do

if its consistent across missions, i dont think the option would be respawning them, it would just be that they permanently die

[patent sierra]

Weird to do

[last shore]

are you saying that when the bomber dies, the drones should die too

[sullen tusk]

then your drone carrier is no longer a drone carrier for the mission?

[patent sierra]

^

Keep the drones internal

[sullen tusk]

yes, something along these lines

[patent sierra]

MALDs!

ADM160 form factor
#1245657308017594399
#1245504311618703493

combined these drones are enough to make this idea work

but big manta sized ucavs with an hourlong flight time and fighting abilities doesnt work imho

launching them is awkward for mission creators / player expectations

[last shore]

@sullen tusk if there was an option to have them constantly respawn, would you support that

like if it was a checkbox instead of logic stuff

[last shore]

i dont really agree

they take off on their own

[patent sierra]

feels icky

[last shore]

and the thing would also have non-combat drones available

[patent sierra]

players often take off super fast. the need to loiter and await wingmen, i mean, sure, I guess it works

[patent sierra]

but feels unnecessary compared to ^

[last shore]

the bomber would be slow to climb, so i dont think waiting for them would be a problem

[last shore]

my proposal already has both of those

[patent sierra]

yep

hence why im pushing for them

[patent sierra]

🤷‍♂️ okay yeah, that works

[last shore]

its a very different plane, so it would take some getting used to, but it would still be complex enough to give everyone something to do in the downtime

[last shore]

thinking about this more makes a lot of sense

if the drones were able to respawn as soon as they die, and take off again it would really smooth things out

but as an optional feature, which can be toggled in the editor

[sullen tusk]

I think the drones should be some kind of small parasitic missile carrier that allows the carrier to reach out and touch things while staying out of the fight. I don't think they should be actual "fighters" and more of just a glorified ADM-160 with sensors and an option to mount a small amount of various munitions

[last shore]

i dont think thats really that interesting though

loyal wingmen is like, its selling point

and the fighters wont be very strong offensively

they dont carry very many missiles

i'd be fine reducing the payload even further

although it could be turned into wing mounted fighters with 2 aim-120s each

i just dont want them to be expendable, thats what the loitering munitions are for

[last shore]

would the parasite fighters be expendable

[sullen tusk]

anything with 120Ds is strong offensively, especially when fired from odd angles and caught off guard, which i imagine would be a huge deal with these. if the drone controller has direct control over what they fire at it would make for some very interesting plays

[last shore]

true yeah

the wingmen would be stealthy

[last shore]

ignore this

would the modified MALDs have AIM-120Ds or Cs

at that point i think it sort of becomes like the loitering AtA missiles, but they have sensors with them

[sullen tusk]

D's. I'm saying glorified ADM-160 just to get the idea across about them not being a full-blown fighter -- the automated drone behavior can still be there

[last shore]

hmm

im starting to see what you mean

I think that it should still have the wingmen, as well as these

and maybe limit the wingmen to 2 per plane

the wingmen wouldn't really be full blown fighters

i think when i compared them to F-45s i didnt go into enough detail

they would have redimentary missile evasion, but they're still VTOL AI so they'll be bad at it regardless

just pretty hard to find cause of low RCS, seeing how small they'll be, as well as not having a cockpit

which i think adds to the gameplay of the FB-32 having to pay attention to the positioning really well

[sullen tusk]

for the drones, would the drone controller have direct access to their sensors? or would this be completely automated

[last shore]

the process of getting a drone to attack something would be selecting the offending drone, and then the target, and selecting "Engage"

the drone controller wouldn't have any of the radar screen or TGP on it

idek if the MQ-68 should have an EOTS, it would only be used for buddy lasing and i dont think that's enough to justify the cost

[last shore]

someone suggested manual drone control, so im considering it as a topic for discussion

"possible drone piloting station"

also, thank you for listening, and not just downvoting this

[sullen tusk]

if it doesn't have sensors then the drones would either be dependent on ally datalink or the host plane's sensors for detection, which would pretty much kill the drone's ability to engage targets at standoff ranges, unless the drones have some auto-detect radius shenanigans like the 45
is the radar on the host plane forward facing?

[last shore]

the drones would have radars

i might've misunderstood you

[last shore]

the drone controller wouldn't have direct access to the sensors, but the drones do have a radar

ill make a full sheet for them probably

i ran out of characters for the original text

the drones have:
Togglable Radar
Two way Datalink
4 internal AIM-120s
Tiny RCS

[real oak]

the thing is why should it be able to defend itself without drones if drones is it thing

id recon it shouldn't be able to

i do really dig this idea tho

it may end up being too different for baha but still dope

[last shore]

its ability to defend itself is like, awful

it wont have a radar

so the loitering missiles will be really crap

[real oak]

id imagine a big ticket asset like this would have a tsd tho

also if it would be that crap why have em

[last shore]

Fox-1s have radar recievers, but no trasmitter, so when they only work on datalink without radar they suck ass

[last shore]

it would

the loitering AtA weapons would be Aim-7s with a loiter stage

[real oak]

interestign idea but like....why

seems different for the purpose of beign different

[last shore]

having a loiter stage and a radar transmitter would cost way too much, and be way too powerful for balancing reasons

if theres just the reciever, as in SARH missiles, it balances out

[real oak]

idk if your drones have 4 120d's i say let them doa ll the work

[last shore]

that was taken from michaels post

[last shore]

they will, but if they aren't there, you have a small backup

and if they are there, you can use the weapons to cover more area

[real oak]

I see no point to why you need to defend yourself if you'r oemhow caught with no team and no drones

and no drone wingman

[last shore]

if its just the FB-32, the loitering AtA weapons would only work on datalink, and so they wouldn't have a terminal phase

which makes them really easy to dodge

its really just for when there are radars to guide them

and secondarily for a last ditch effort

[patent sierra]

huh

[last shore]

you said no active radar seeker

[patent sierra]

oh uh

look not even the 120C on its own seeker can guide in until the terminal phase

[last shore]

you said no radar on board

[patent sierra]

so to be clear what I advocate for is a datalink ride out to long ranges, at which distance datalink usually doesnt even exist (no AWACS / limitations of teammate's radars)

and then pitbull with its own seeker

which occurs within a very small range

I advocate for 3 drones and 3 alone

1.) The current mald, which triangulates RWR contacts unto datalink

2.) A slow, loitering A2A "munition" that could be a missile if guided unto datalink but can otherwise be like the mald

2 requires 1 to work well

because datalink wont exist at range

[last shore]

you cant really guide a missile on datalink alone

[patent sierra]

no you cant

hence terminal seeker: pitbull

[last shore]

in your post it said no radar on board

i think it would be better that way

[patent sierra]

sigh yes, no radar in the "Im my own plane and can see far" sense

[last shore]

so its not just a buffed aim-120D

ah

[patent sierra]

but terminal stage pitbull, that makes technological sense

idk we can discuss that further

im sure we could come up with 3-4 different ways to implement and balance the terminal stage

but why discuss it other than to present options ot baha and the community

the core sentiment is: drone command, long range a2a drone/missile thats unable to detect its own contacts and isnt just an aim54, tgp a2g loitering munition / drone (literally SLAM-ER)

lets focus on that

[last shore]

the concept still works with fox-3 cruising

[patent sierra]

🤷‍♂️

[last shore]

also 3 seater

i made it so the co-pilot is not required for it

could be taken out of the plane, and made into a 2 seater

[patent sierra]

Given the hit-miss nature of other players in this game Id advocate for 2-seater

Its important to distill these suggestions as much as possible

[last shore]

I know

it would work perfectly fine with 2 people, but would provide a unique and cool experience with 3

having two pilots for such a big and unwieldy plane would be good to have, but not required

could be 2 seater side by side, with the left having radio/navigation controls on the side panel, and the right having the swarm command

[sullen tusk]

could also have AWACS-tier radar

to justify three seats, may be too many eggs in one basket though

[last shore]

i think adding an AWACS would mean taking away something else

like all its weapons

[thin plover]

I would nerf the drones. Six AMRAAM-Ds on each of them is super overpowered. Two would be much better for balance.

[last shore]

i wentb with 4

balance is up to the mission maker

although 2c might still be good

[frank ibex]

What other weapons do you think these Loyal Wingmen should be able to carry? Or are they A2A only with AIM-120D's? I wouldn't mind if they had some sort of ground attack variant.

Perhaps some loadout options for a mission designer to configure.

[last shore]

I've been debating giving them an EOTS to help with busy lasing, but I haven't thought of a strike loadout for them

[frank ibex]

I'm sure they could fit a few AGM-145's in their weapon bays if they have AIM-120D's by default.

[vast pewter]

I think it should also have a overhead panel that includes engines (how many engines does this have?) APU and main battery

[subtle blade]

Isn't this suggestion basically just asking for the AI wingmen we already have?

[last shore]

no?

it would work with the same AI foundation, but the proposal gives a way to control and manage them

and it adds a whole new UCAV to the game

[subtle blade]

From what im reading its extremely similar to what we have in game lol

• Engage - In game
• Form up / protect - In game
• Stalk (silently stay within 20 NM of the target, out of detection range) - Missing (and honestly, idk why - you even need/want)
• Pass command (give control to another FB-32 crew) - Missing
• RTB/Rearm - In game
• Loiter - In game, but only mission editor rn
• GPS path - In game, but only mission editor rn
• Refuel - In game
• Radar On/Off - In game

[last shore]

yeah, but that's a very small section of what the proposal is

and also, those don't work in multiplayer

[subtle blade]

Right but like it can be fixed lol

[last shore]

and what's already in game is telling all of them, not specific ones

[last shore]

still, I'm trying to add more than just wingmen commands

[subtle blade]

Such as?

[subtle blade]

That's a very small change to add

[last shore]

a whole ass bomber, and a team A UCAV

and the ownership system, where you can reserve the ucavs to be commanded by yourself, or give it to someone else

and it brings 2 new weapon types from Michaels post

[subtle blade]

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1243595148823363704

Do not request multiple features in the same post.

New weapons or new AI units aside, im specifically talking about the wingman system and that we already have it lol

And iv made my opinion against bombers in vtol clear before, they'd be a bad idea for a lot of reasons

[last shore]

like what

cause I'm pretty sure I addressed most of the reasons in this post

also, a new aircraft proposal needs multiple features in the same post to be fleshed out

like if I just put the bomber, it would be boring and have no use

[subtle blade]

As TLDR as I can get bombers are bad because:

• They don't introduce new mechanics. Dropping "more" bomb's isnt a mechanic, and the above suggestion for AI control and what not isn't new, its already in vtol
• Most bomber suggestions (such as this one) make them overly multicrew. One person is plenty for a bomber, three as suggested here, there's simply not enough to do
• Bombers do not fit well in with VTOL. Something that cannot get shot at is not fun. By "cannot get shot at" I mean that an aircraft unable to defend itself from missiles won't play nice. A slow bomber cannot do BVR, BFM, SEAD, DEAD, or any other mission that involves being shot at. All it can do is basic strike after SAMs are disabled

[last shore]

all the features put together make it more than a bomber, and it's more than just dropping more bombs

it would work perfectly fine with 2 players

and it would be stealthy with some EW ability, but the main offensive part is the UCAVs that it commands

if you were commanding 6 wingmen, there would be plenty to do for a second seater

[subtle blade]

Such as?
All I read was

• AI control, which is already in vtol on all the aircraft
• a few new weapons, that are better suited for other aircraft anyways

[subtle blade]

I disagree. What is the pilot so busy doing? They're flying a

• Slow
• Non-manuverable
• Not-being-shot-at
  aircraft, what are they busy with?

[last shore]

commanding drone wingmen to attack shit, and loitering munitions, which all take constant micromanaging

[last shore]

managing the jamming, and also flying a big slow maneuvering plane without a vertical stabilizer is more demand than normal

[subtle blade]

is more demand than normal
No its not

[last shore]

and it would be getting shot at

[subtle blade]

Unless you're removing FBW from the game

[last shore]

I'm not saying that

[subtle blade]

Then its not more demanding

[last shore]

in vtol you can just crank the throttle on and not stall at all, this you would need to carefully manage speed and coordinate turns and rate of climb

at the risk of losing airspeed and stalling, or spinning out in a turn

cause you put left rudder in a right turn or some shit

[subtle blade]

huh..? Just like, turn normally?

A Cessna has way less power than any of these aircraft but you aren't having to "carefully manage speed and coordinate turns" anytime you want to turn

[subtle blade]

FBW already manages rudder for us in vtol

[last shore]

you do though

[subtle blade]

roll 90 deg and look at your tail, you'll see the AC automatically using the rudder

[last shore]

not really

[sullen tusk]

i imagine flying wing would have some interesting flight characteristics

[subtle blade]

????????????

[last shore]

it doesn't fully coordinate it

it does a little

[subtle blade]

No????????

[last shore]

but you're still side slipping in every turn

[mild elm]

That’s to be expected in flight tbh

Adverse yaw and allat

[subtle blade]

That's just because of the low-yaw authority of the rudder and the extreme turns we're normally doing

[last shore]

which is why you need to coordinate them

[subtle blade]

it maxes out the rudder

[last shore]

no it does not

[subtle blade]

You putting in more rudder isn't going to magically change it

[subtle blade]

brother I have the data

[last shore]

In a 60 degree bank you can still give more than enough rudder to fully coordinate the turn

vtol just doesn't put in the full amount

anyways, a flying wing would be extra unstable, and require more focus to not accidentally yaw way too much and lost control

[subtle blade]

Yea that's just not true

[last shore]

it wouldn't be going all over the place e

sure

[last shore]

what do you think I'm talking about

[subtle blade]

97% rudder, I think that's pretty close to maxed out

[subtle blade]

oh actually goes to 100% here

[last shore]

how far are you banked there

also, the roll is fully to the right

so like, thats not what im talking about

even if it was automatically coordinated, the pilot would still be finding targets for the bomber's payload, and doing big radius turns in order to properly set stuff up, which is objectively harder than pulling 9 Gs to turn in at an angle

the plane could be flown alone, but a second person would be really helpful to manage commands to not piloted aircraft

[subtle blade]

which is objectively harder than pulling 9 Gs to turn in at an angle
No..? Autopilot can do it for you lol

[last shore]

also not what im talking about

if you need to fly over something at a certain direction, its way easier in a more maneuverable plane

and especially in a bomber, it would be important to do so

regardless, the pilot would be hung up with weapons as well

so having a second person would be good anyways, especially considering it would be a DLC

the third person is entirely optional, so if baha striked that out i wouldnt even blink at it

[subtle blade]

Even if we think two people is the correct number, its still not a good fit for vtol and isnt bringing any new mechanics

[last shore]

be fr

what did the ef-24 bring

[subtle blade]

EW???

[last shore]

yeah, and this brings in loyal wingmen

[subtle blade]

No thats in vtol rn lol

[last shore]

what we had in vtol was actual fighters

not even actual drones

and also not in multiplayer

[subtle blade]

1.8 completely changed the game, this is totally uncomparable to that given its already in the game lol

[last shore]

this would also bring loitering monitions

[subtle blade]

What's the difference other than what they look like?

[last shore]

the ah-94 didn't entirely change the game, it was a new vehicle type other than fighter jet

[subtle blade]

? So? Its just bugged

[last shore]

i should amend this to T-55

that brought 2 seats

my point being that not every new plane has to entirely change the game

just bring some new features, or characteristics that we didnt have in any planes before

[subtle blade]

"The goal is to bring in at least a few completely new gameplay mechanics with each vehicle"

If you really think the 94 is exactly like the other AC you'll never understand my point

T55 was an obvious exception to be a trainer, that was made clear

[last shore]

but this would bring in a lot of new things that you are just completely ignoring

A bomber, UCAVs, Loitering munitions, something to help with buddy lasing, and actual swarm decoys, not just the 6 on an ef-24

it would play around low band jamming really interestingly too

[subtle blade]

A bomber
The 26b is a bomber
UCAVs
We have these in vtol already, and AI units aren't a reason to add a new player vehicle
Loitering munitions
We more or less have this already, between MALDs and the various cruise missiles. Besides, a single new weapon isn't "a few completely new gameplay mechanics"
something to help with buddy lasing
Huh?? Baha's already stated the AI aircraft will be able to buddy lase for you, why do we need "help" doing it from a bomber?
actual swarm decoys, not just the 6 on an ef-24
"More" isn't "new gameplay mechanics"

[last shore]

the 26B is a fighter bomber than can pull 11Gs and still have it's payload, it's not a strategic bomber

we dont have any UCAVs on team A

this would add 2 actually loitering munitions, not something that just goes really far like a cruise missile

[subtle blade]

But surely you understand my point that "a copy of an AI unit we already have but on another team" is totally irellevent to the statment "we should have a bomber in vtol"

[last shore]

and i'd argue that using 16 decoys at once is an entirely different thing than a few

[subtle blade]

So it'd just be worse? that's not new gameplay

[last shore]

its not even a copy though

[last shore]

it would have more bombs, and a better way to command wingmen

[last shore]

which is why im saying this post as a whole synergizes with itself and you cant just single out a single feature

which is what you're doing

strategic bomber is a whole new classification of aircraft

the only thing the EF-24 had was swing wings, jammers (which the others also have), and decoys

its still different enough

[half estuary]

being able to just command AI to attack a player with 120Ds while out of range scares me

[last shore]

you would still need datalink and a clear connection to do that

besides, the AI in vtol suck, which would also apply to the ucavs

[subtle blade]

One that wouldn't fit into vtol

[last shore]

why though

cause i adressed all the problems you said earlier

you just single out features to nitpick

[subtle blade]

If you think vtol 1.7 and vtol 1.8 are only seperated by "swing wings, jammers and decoys" then you should revert back to 1.7 and see what it really was like lol

[subtle blade]

No you didn't?? For all of them you just say "nah"

[last shore]

i did not do that

[half estuary]

being able to 3rd party multiple fights with a 120D while the enemy is at a low energy state sounds really frusterating to play against

or do you not have control over when the 120D is deployed

[last shore]

if you tell a drone to shoot at something, it does it, you dont have much control after that

[half estuary]

but you would be able to trail multiple teammates with a drone with datalink

I feel like it would be more fair with 2-4 heaters instead of 120Ds - maybe IRIS-Ts and allow for drones to missile intercept?

[subtle blade]

On top of all the things iv said that you've ignored:

[last shore]

i expanded on the stuff i said

you did too

[last shore]

that's a fair suggestion

[subtle blade]

And then I posted the data lol

[last shore]

i did too man

the rudder thing we were just talking about different things

[subtle blade]

you drew a picture and gave an opinion

you also keep ignore what I say:

Over and over again

[half estuary]

I'm just concerned about drones as an offensive weapon, I feel like AI drones deployed by the bomber should be defense oriented

I assume it would feel like bs just getting spammed by someone with nuisance drones

[subtle blade]

Over and over again

[last shore]

oh my god

im saying that you have to look at the post as a whole and not just go after each feature alone, and you keep saying "more bombs isnt a new feature" which i agree with, but thats not it

and you're still flat wrong with the vtol rudder thing

[half estuary]

The ability to pick up incoming missiles, datalink them so the bomber is aware of the location and potentially instruct a drone to intercept (no auto interception)?

[last shore]

idk if you're thinking of something else

[half estuary]

seems like a more fair gameplay loop with drones

[last shore]

sounds interesting

so the drones are just there to defend the bomber

not to hit other players

[half estuary]

yeah, and it would give it more chance to actually go into the heat

I didn't read it all but saw that not getting shot at was a criticism

[subtle blade]

Im looking at the post as a whole, it reads to me like:

• An aircraft only able to fly slow gentle flights that can't defend itself from missiles (this is somehow new gameplay! Defiantly can't do it in the game already!)
• That can tell AI what to do (this is somehow new gameplay! Defiantly can't do it in the game already!)
• That has a few new missiles that are just slightly different than what we have (this is somehow new gameplay! Defiantly can't do it in the game already!)

I do not see how the parts complement the whole here

[last shore]

then move on and stop talking about how it has more bombs

[subtle blade]

The only part that seems compelling are the few new weapons, but even those feel better suited for existing aircraft

[last shore]

idk what you want

you dont see the vision

[subtle blade]

But you brought it up! Twice!

[last shore]

dude

you said the F/A-26 is a bomber

bomer

[subtle blade]

Which it is yeah

[half estuary]

if you strap bombs to anything technically it's a bomber i guess

[last shore]

cool, its entirely different

less bombs more maneuverability, more bombs less maneuverability

[subtle blade]

Its "entirely different" because its slower and less manuverable?

[last shore]

no

[subtle blade]

So what is different then

[last shore]

cause it maxes out the control on AI aircraft and can carry a higher payload than everything else

in a similar way to how the ef-24 has more jamming than the other planes

but that doesn't mean theres no point in it existing

[subtle blade]

if all the ef24 had was more powerful jamming it would not be unique

[last shore]

this too

but it does have more

as in being a whole new aircraft type

[subtle blade]

The ef24 has entirely new mechanics/types of jamming that don't exist anywhere else

[last shore]

and a dedicated drone command screen

[subtle blade]

this convo is going in circles lol

[last shore]

you arent listening

[subtle blade]

In a few minutes all of my replies will be pictures and I won't have to type anymore

[last shore]

im saying it would specialize in drone command, in a similar way to how the EF-24 specialized in electronic warfare

[last shore]

then go spend your time elsewhere

[subtle blade]

drone command
Iv asked like 6 times, but you've yet to explain how drone command is any different than what we have rn. Other than "works in mp"

[last shore]

you're just being a contrarian for no reason

[last shore]

okay ill elaborate

[subtle blade]

Last I checked fixing a bug didn't require a new player aircraft ot be created

[last shore]

you get more specific control over which allied AI attacks which Enemy, as well as giving it commands to fly to certain parts of the map, as well as being able to command multiple loitering munitions at once, as opposed to just one

the wingmen command we have in game is just "attack my target" and all the wingmen go do that

its really dumb

and you can't tell them to wait in an area

or "stalk" which is a new one i added

and you'd be able to tell them to form up on any allied aircraft, not just yourself

which would work really well for team play

its different enough to merrit it's own player and control station

and the other aircraft would keep the current version, which is more limited but works fine for them

also, a strategic bomber is backed up by community demand, ive talked to a bunch of people and most people really want it

[subtle blade]

you get more specific control over which allied AI attacks which Enemy
This litterly exists in game already, only difference being you currently tell "any" and the best option is used, rather than a "specific" drone, its a tiny change
all the wingmen go do that
No only one
you can tell them to wait in an area
This sounds like a very simple addition to the existing commands we have. Just one new command to go/follow a GPS point. Hell we already have it for MALDs, its not new and its a tiny change
form up on any allied aircraft, not just yourself
Again, this is a very small change.

My point is the overarching concept and 98% of the utility/gameplay already exists, you're asking for minor tweaks and saying it justifies a new aircraft

[subtle blade]

Community demand also wants an a10 lol

Community demand is a pretty awful metric

[last shore]

thats a very small very vocal group of crabs

[half estuary]

yeah but what about infant-

[subtle blade]

Its way more popular than a bomber lol

Given that iv had to delete the suggestion reposted like 6 times already

[last shore]

but those aren't just small changes, and the thing i'm proposing gives you more control over more of them, as well as loitering munitions, and a whole new aircraft dedicated to it

[subtle blade]

Both are tiny changes, saying "X drone do Y" rather than "one drone do Y", and saying "form up on X" rather than "form up on me"

[last shore]

it would be enough to set it apart from the other planes

[last shore]

i guess that's a difference of opinions then

[subtle blade]

Both are good changes, but are tiny, and locking those changes to a specific aircraft also makes no sense

[last shore]

cause that is a big difference

especially when theres a bunch of drones

its a small section of the proposition as a whole anyways

if we got wingmen command in multiplayer it wouldn't matter either way

i would still want this purely for the change of playstyle

especially considering we currently have no new ideas other than ASW or a Blackhawk, both of which are nothing like this

[subtle blade]

Who's "we" lol

I think there's a ton of other options before a bomber that lets you control AI a bit better is the go to

[last shore]

then go promote those, and dont come here and start nitpicking the stuff im saying

[zealous ember]

"we" is referring to the community is it not...

don't see how there's a miss understanding there, lmao

[subtle blade]

Am I not a part of the community..?

Saying "the entire community is out of ideas except this one" is a massive stretch

[last shore]

sure, but they have hardly been proposed

the other ones are like fighter bombers and thrust vectoring

which we already have a fighter bomber, and thrust vectoring isnt enouogh

[subtle blade]

In just the last day or so:
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247572220037959790
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247569978152980500
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1244402448899117117
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1246991726711672943
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1246521925811961877
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247257916059422841
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247032613667864586
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1246631311976693811
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1246938957787303976
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1246340580427169814

[zealous ember]

i don't see why the community wouldn't include you? i was just pointing out what was inferred by "we", and anything added to the game for "us"

[subtle blade]

My point was that if "we" meant "the community" then

we currently have no new ideas
Is false

[last shore]

this one is good, but its not a proposition for a whole new plane

nearly all of those follow the same trend

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1246340580427169814
and
https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1244402448899117117
are the only ones that actually make sense

[zealous ember]

i haven't been caught up in this chat, so i was specifically referring to the "we" i don't know the context

[last shore]

im just saying the only plausible ideas for entirely new aircraft are a streategic bomber, a new fighter, ASW aircraft (not elaborate at all), and a blackhawk type aircraft

there's jsut not much

[subtle blade]

So what you're really saying is no one is suggesting ideas you like and therefor the entire community is out of ideas??

[last shore]

no???

im saying there's not many places we can go with vtol, and there's a small number of new aircraft that could be added under the current constraints

ASW is a whole new regime of flying, and so is what i made

and there's not much else

the AV-42 should get reworked, and thats a good idea, but it's not a whole new plane

it stays as the support/strike plane it was meant to be, but updated to be more in line with the current game

[sand helm]

i think what Loloris means is that, as you have already stated in the past, the community usually just says they want the aircraft they personally favor irl, without thought of how it impacts the gameplay itself, and if it will be a good fit, and because of that, most of the suggestions aren't very good

that said i havent read the entire 500 message coversation so i dont know for sure

[mild elm]

You’re a part of it for sure

As much as anyone here

[sand helm]

and because of that, we are out of ideas (somewhat) because the ideas are all bad

its hard to create a good idea. 90% of what is human made is garbage

[last shore]

theres just not many new ideas that could be reasonably implemented

[zealous ember]

the way i see it (might get some "hate") is this would add that "niche"/gameplay a good amount of people would like to see, just how in a similar way the EF-24G did with EW

[sand helm]

exactly

and as Baha has stated, he's only going to be adding aircraft that add a valuable game mechanic to vtol vr

such as EW

[last shore]

and so the list of planes that bring new features, that people want, that aren't unrealistic, is very limited

[sand helm]

and "hurr durr pwease make a-10, i want mig, blah blah blah" isnt very helpful. Most of the suggestions can be boiled down to "i want 26 but different"

[last shore]

there's no swarm control, or true loyal wingmen in the game

you can propose abstract variants of them, but they aren't truly the same

we have components for a swarm, but not enough units to make it matter

[zealous ember]

i like this idea, idk if its still inline with that drone/bomber, but if that's the case you get one plane that's capable of doing 2 very different things which is dope. you could have one FB-32 be a bomber and then another that has drones protecting the bomber during its run and whatever else yk ect ect

[sand helm]

being able to use something like the drone fighters would be cool. link up with them as they launch off a drone ship

gives more usage to the drone fighters and adds some interconnection between sea and air

[last shore]

and wingmen "like" mechanics, but they are actual fighters, not a smaller thing dedicated to it

[sand helm]

ah

[last shore]

if we just got loyal wingmen, i would still be satisfied

[zealous ember]

if this were to be added, it could possibly add a lot more, main example is the loyal wingmen in multiplayer

[last shore]

a stealthy drone capable of holdign 4 aim-120s and attack a target at your request

but the bomber is there as a platform for higher levels of control over more of them, as well as bringing the niche of a bomber to vtol

also

i think hes done, but theres still a thumbs down

[zealous ember]

probably

side not though, its pretty funny to watch the "debates" happen in these posts

whether or not somethings a good or bad thing

https://tenor.com/view/debate2016-debate-night-excuse-me-my-turn-donald-trump-gif-6196243

[last shore]

I'll make a separate post for the MQ-68

but i still want both these planes to be put together, they synergize really well

[zealous ember]

thats the drone aircraft... right?

[last shore]

yeah

[zealous ember]

just out of curiosity, i dont know if you already put one, but do you know how big those are?

[last shore]

wdym

i do know

[zealous ember]

like how you gave a size comparison for the bomber's size

[last shore]

they would be about a fifth of the wingspan

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247636782443663410

[mild elm]

Additionally, the F-45 could also be able to control a single drone, a la the Su-57/Okhotnik system

[cinder sparrow]

I like this idea

[subtle blade]

[mild elm]

I was about to say, when was that asked lol

Also where

[subtle blade]

I posted mine in caw

He posted his in emp

My point is polls are not how to develop a game lmao

Especially not within niche private servers

[vast pewter]

After looking through the 100+ messages I think it looks like your opposing the idea just to oppose it, it seems you aren't providing a good reason that this is a bad idea except for saying that you don't like it

[last shore]

his reasoning is that it's not different enough and that it doesn't bring enough new content

I just don't agree

and I think 95% of people would take my side

[last shore]

the only criticism i see as being valid is that there needs to be some specific balance changes

[last shore]

where did you even post thay

also, I'm not saying bomber vs a-10

im saying that the reasonings you give are just opinions

[vast pewter]

An A-10 would be slower than the bomber anyway, your complaining about the bomber being slow and not as engaging but an A-10 is slower

[subtle blade]

Im not sure how you came to that conclusion, I gave many reasons, the biggest being it does not introduce new compelling gameplay. And I agree with some of the suggestions:

[subtle blade]

My point isn't a10 vs bomber my point is using polls/popular opinion to prove a point is horrible

Specifically in regards to this

[last shore]

okay, I'll give you that then

[vast pewter]

How does drone mothership not count as a new gameplay idea, not only that but there are other ideas that @last shore has talked about

[last shore]

chase doesn't think it's different enough, most people think it is

that's what I meant by people would take my side

not in the polls

[vast pewter]

Ahhh ok

[subtle blade]

I agree that an improved AI command system would be good, and that the new weapon or two would be good, but improved AI commands should be for all aircraft, having to pay to play single player effectivly would be awful. And the new weapons while fun, don't really cahnge that much, and I think they'd fit better on other aircraft anyway

[last shore]

my proposal would give wingman command to everyone, and more specific and diverse commands to the fb-32

same with the weapons

in a similar way to the ef-24 and jamming pods

[vast pewter]

Seems like an extreme workload if it's for 26 or 45 with more than one, you only got two hands to control a drone that uses munitions and a plane with them, not only that but if direct control is possible(which if is should only be locked to the FB-32) then that's an even higher one and it would become a wasted game idea

[last shore]

I think it would be fine if it was just the current system

that too, the fb-32 could give direct command to the drones

[subtle blade]

Seems like an extreme workload if it's for 26 or 45 with more than one
But, its fine already? I have no problems giving commands to AI aircraft rn. And also the t55, ah94, and ef24 all have two seats

if direct control is possible
Direct control goes down an even weirder rabbit hole, I don't think it fits in game at all. I already felt like the person in the back seat had no real reason to even be in the aircraft, and that makes it even more so. If you're going to be controlling the drones anyways, why not just be the drone, aka fly an aircraft

[vast pewter]

Still it's very taxing for one pilot and even one can be a bit much if the 45 can use one drone

[last shore]

direct control wouldnt stop you from commanding the others, if it were implemented

[last shore]

have you messed with wingman commands?

it's pretty easy

you can also just verbally tell them what to do

[subtle blade]

I didn't say that

[last shore]

true, but it means that it is different from just flying a plane

[subtle blade]

Is it?

I "just flying" a 26b can give commands to AI

Someone "just flying" a drone can give commands to AI

[last shore]

you're missing the part where it's expanded ai commands, and that you would be able to jump command between multiple drones in different places

rough draft of what that would look like

[subtle blade]

At that point why are you even in the aircraft? If you're flying drones and controlling drones why even be in the plane in the first place? Seems more like a ground job

And at that point I think its a huge step away from what vtol vr is

[last shore]

that's a good point that I'll actually think about, but off the top of my head, you will have loitering decoys which are launched from the bomber, and you will have to escort yourself to whatever target your pilot wants to hit

• whatever tasks the new weapons bring

it wouldnt just be parallel to a ground command station

[mild elm]

Except in MultiPlayer, but I think that’s a glitch IIRC

[subtle blade]

yea

But that could/should be fixed

[mild elm]

Would be a good reason for an AI overhaul tho

Being able to command two wings, one manned, one unmanned

People like the idea of an AWACS anyhow

[last shore]

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247620771539325031

[cinder sparrow]

would there be enough space for us in the cockpit for us to walk around 👉 👈 🥺

[frank ibex]

VTOL VR; Standing Desk edition.

[last shore]

someone asked that, there would be enough room if its made for 3 seats, but there wouldnt be much integration to walk around in a plane

[cinder sparrow]

I just wanna walk to another person just to disturb them

[mild elm]

Hey how’s it- *snaps neck from hitting head on roof *

[last shore]

add JBR clapping, and go clap in your pilots ear

[cinder sparrow]

And if we get the 3 person seats can we get the microwave, toilet, and bed in the back

Usually found on stealth bombers

[last shore]

in the red circle

the red is the bunkbed

[cinder sparrow]

Oh did notice that

But you forgot the microwave

Can't forget it

[last shore]

true

added

fore of the beds

triple bunk bed

[fierce sapphire]

hell yeah

+that

would be fun

just 3 of your buddies

you could make it 4, one pilot, one co pilot, one EWO and one dronemaster

to get a big group aircraft that also doesn't need everyone to be effective

[cinder sparrow]

Heck why not just add a fifth guy as a flight attendant

[last shore]

player passengers

seriously though, the bomber part would work with one person, Mothership with two, and a third would just be there to help takeoff workload

[fierce sapphire]

One bomber, one pilot, one drone commander, one copilot that can do a bit of everything to lighten to workload for everyone

You don’t need the copilot but it’s there

[last shore]

thats what im imagining

[fierce sapphire]

Man that’d be great

[last shore]

if you dont have a drone commander, you'd still be able to do a bit with them, but not manually control or precisely command them

[fierce sapphire]

The f14 with it’s EWO is nice and all but it just doesn’t feel right

[fierce sapphire]

Yep

And you don’t need a copilot

You could have 3 people and leave the copilot a lot open

[lime quarry]

This kinda gives me Carrier Command 2 Vibes, I feel like this would be fun to play. Kind of gives the vibes of the decoy missles but actually doing damage. I would buy this. Three member crews would be awsome

I think the wingman / drone thing could use some work.

I feel like a better idea where the plane would drop the UAV's midair you tell it to go do stuff and then it returns

Would be cool if there were multiple operators and a operator and specifcly take control of the UAV just incase the AI is doing a dumb. This would just be video feed link then a joystick, The UAV's would need limited range and limited capacity.

[last shore]

I made a screen for full manual drone control

if it gets struck out of the plane in the case baha adds it, then whatever

[vast pewter]

what did you use to make these?

[lime quarry]

Prob paint or something

[last shore]

Microsoft paint 3d

[lusty valve]

bump

[last shore]

i updated the proposition

[last shore]

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1250165459404329020

[last shore]

Bomber and AI UCAV Commander

[last shore]

Coming back to this, many people have posted about a "bomber" and many of the responses end up being "just a bomber isn't enough", and i believe this post has completely mitigated that by it being not just a bomber. It has the capability to be a bomber with lots of systems to support it such as the specialized targeting system in https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1250165459404329020, as well as a large payload and low manueverable design, which would satisfy the group that wants a strategic bomber in vtol. It also satisfies those who want loyal wingmen and direct drone control, which is a smaller but very passionate group. It ALSO comes with some new loitering weapons, which would be available to everyone in smaller capacities, and it would network really well with buddy lasing. Overall, its immune to people saying that a bomber is special or useful enough to being put into VTOL, and its also immune to people saying it doesn't bring enough features.

I think it's a really great contender to be at least considered as a new aircraft, even if it doesn't end up being anywhere close to a B-21

i think it fills all the criteria for a design, and I'm willing to defend that position

[dark anchor]

What I’d love to see is a compact version similar size to a C2 Greyhound with drones that you deploy out the back,

Maybe two to four drones

And I’d make the “bombing” into only long range guided munitions like 161s and 89s?

[last shore]

i was hesitant to make an actual drone deployment/recovery, especially cause it hasnt worked in real life

and then i saw the gremlin program, which is like, exactly that

though i think its only targeting / Datalink stuff, no weapons

[last shore]

it would definitely hold a lot of those, but i think keeping a high capacity for normal bombs really opens it up to clearing mass units really quickly when theres not much to contest it, which is sorta unique to this plane

the ef-24 can get a bunch of targets and drop GBU-39s, but thats only 16 and it takes half the pylons

[dark anchor]

(4/10ths)

[last shore]

yeah

[dark anchor]

but it can carry 22 gps bombs total

[last shore]

i just mean like, in terms of payload

[dark anchor]

yeah

But then again the 26 can carry 30+

[last shore]

but it cant really get all the targets quicklly

which is one of the niches this would fill

is just passing over something and dropping one bomb on literally everything

but its not limited to that, its just something it can do

[real oak]

thats entirely dependant on how good the pilot is

and conditions like clouds in the pbt

[last shore]

i mean like if theres 20 units on the ground that you have to find on TGP

[real oak]

you can find those if you know where to look

[last shore]

the bomber would just be able to see anything on the TSD, and filter out whichever ones they need quickly

[last shore]

yeah, im just saying the bomber with the specialized tsd would be able to do it quicker

and more selectively

[real oak]

so everythign would just be automatic very fun

[last shore]

noo, you would still need to find them

the TSD doesn't just highlight literally everything

also, its already pretty automatic, just in the 26 you have to manually lase everything yourself or have someone send you the gps points

and it wouldn't be the only thing it does anyways

[real oak]

you can pretty quickly get all the gps points you need via the tgp

[dark anchor]

Ef24 as well kinda

Only the F45 has DAS which finds targets automatically

iirc at least

[last shore]

it does

[dark anchor]

that or the ef24s DAS sucks

[last shore]

the difference is that the bomber would be able to fly over with 48 GPS bombs and pull the trigger on whatever units they decide to hit, with the tradeoff of being hard to maneuver and low climb rate

• it has other things to do, that wouldn't be all it can do

48 might be excessive, but its alright if that gets nerfed

[solid mica]

The 24G has it in a 2nm radius I think

Either 1 or 2

[subtle blade]

1

[dusk bobcat]

don't forget the 1930s airborne aircraft carrier in USN service

it does work

[last shore]

can you refer that here?

i have no clue what that means

[harsh jolt]

USS Akron was a zepplin that carried 5 F9C SparrowHawk's that could only be deployed and recovered while airborne

https://youtu.be/DTGBFY82Gik

[last shore]

i see

its similar to the gremlin system i referenced in the post

[pulsar ferry]

boost

[last shore]

threat rings would be great for avoiding radars in a strategic bomber

kinda relevant

[last shore]

sonar made these

[dusk bobcat]

who knew you could make a cockpit even more oversized tha the 42

[last shore]

it's missing a lot of panels and stuff, this is just a rough design from someone who felt like making something

[fierce sapphire]

honestly

hell yeah

but

it'd be hard bc that is HUGE

as in an entire hangar for one plane

[last shore]

I dont think it is huge

it's 115 feet across

[fierce sapphire]

soooooo no banking at 15 feet

[last shore]

which is a lot, but the wings would fold over completely

i think the player models in that blender model are undersized

[fierce sapphire]

looks fine, it's just a really empty cockpit

so they look undersized

[pulsar ferry]

Boost

[vapid jackal]

Please do not bump requests.

[last shore]

im gonna see if i can get sonar to flesh out the cockpit a bit more

i really wanna see what the upper panel looks like

[safe garden]

Would be cool if instead of missiles/bombs, it has a drone capable aircraft being deployed like the ADM but obviously larger and can carry a missile or two

[last shore]

im not super comfortable with drone launch/recovery, just cause it hasnt really worked in real life on anything larger than the gremlin, which cant carry weapons

[safe garden]

Doesn’t have to be recovery

As long as it could glide down onto and land on a carrier/field, it would save tremendous money

[last shore]

the alternative is having 2 missile just in the bay, instead of something to carry it

[safe garden]

And obviously increase flight time drastically considering drones don’t have much lifetime in thr air

Yes

Alternative of missiles would be cool

[last shore]

the UCAV would have enough fuel and climb rate to keep up

UCAV are pretty lightweight cause they dont need a cockpit or human or oxygen and whatnot

so they're pretty fuel efficient

and stealthy

and you can command them to refuel off a tanker

the MQ-31 would be great for that, as its a drone as well

but its not autonomous, it is piloted

[safe garden]

Maybe if it’s something of the RQ 170 sentinel

[last shore]

ooh, another one to consider

[safe garden]

The only thing im trying to keep in mind for this is cost effectiveness, 1 drone costs like millions, in game probably more than 100k so that means more than what you could probably spawn with yk

[last shore]

MQ-28, XQ-58, RQ-170, X-47B

[safe garden]

Would be cool to keep in in a payload and extend its range by flying with you

[last shore]

the drones arent part of the loadout

[safe garden]

Doesn’t need to rendezvous eith you directly, so long your co pilot can fly it back

[last shore]

they are spawned in like AI aircraft

[safe garden]

I dont see how that would work then

[last shore]

and then commanded by the UCAV commander

[safe garden]

Is it like adapt a pet drone? Lol

Adopt

[last shore]

pretty much

you can tell them to lan/rearm, refuel, attack, form up, stalk, whatever else

[safe garden]

Rhey cant just “spawn in” tho, theyll cost a lot of money and whatnot

[last shore]

lase / loiter

the mission editor lets you put AI units down wherever

[safe garden]

Maybe seperately from the craft, but definitely within a loadout screen

[last shore]

its part of what makes it balanced, is that the mission maker chooses how many drones there are, and where they are placed

[safe garden]

well yeah.. but if it gets shot down ur kinda screwed on getting it back (realistically without it respawning)

[last shore]

then the mission maker can choose to have them automatically respawn

or just make them single use

or respawn when the bomber spawns

[safe garden]

Mission editor could also just yk, take off the “pylon” of drones from spawning

[last shore]

its just not really possible to have the UCAV be attached to the plane, payload wise

they are supposed to be fully seperate airframes

that are just used to defend/assist

if it could, i think it would make it overpowered

[safe garden]

Well are you imagining a small, medium, or large framed drone?

[last shore]

medium

basically the same internal payload as an F-45

[safe garden]

With a proper fuselage, it could definitely be carried

Ohhh then no

[last shore]

only AIM-120s and AGM-145s

[safe garden]

I see

If the plane was bigger yes

[last shore]

yeah, but if it was bigger than it couldnt land on a carrier

[safe garden]

I see why you want 2 different air frames

[last shore]

• team A has no UCAV, so its two birds one stone

[safe garden]

But, it not spawning in when you spawn in from the mission editor makes it weird

[last shore]

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1247636782443663410

[last shore]

wdym

[safe garden]

It should spawn in when you spawn in on the carrier

In mission loadout

Not just “adopt a drone” kinda thing

[last shore]

i think that would be problematic cause then the player can choose to take up more spots than what is available

its self limiting, cause the mission editor chooses how many there are

[safe garden]

Hence why it i was thinking it would be cool for it to be able to fit in the weapon bay

[last shore]

and if theres multiple FB-32s then they can split the ones already there

[safe garden]

Obviously with anything bigger than a medium/large frame it won’t be capable of doing so

[last shore]

so if the mission is designed to use two, then one person would be given the bonus of having both the sets of drones

[safe garden]

2 drones from 1 plane idk

[last shore]

i would consider the loitering munitions as drones in their own way

[safe garden]

I like the idea of a plane controlling drones

[last shore]

they have a longer range, and are carried along with the bomber

[safe garden]

But the way they spawn needs to be teeaked

[last shore]

there could just be a two missile mini drone that is recoverable, that you can hold one per bomb bay

so you have 4 mini drones

that wouldn't require fully changing the post, just adding another weapon to the list

[last shore]

@safe garden

[safe garden]

I love it

16 mini adm’s, make it look like a whole air force

DRFM jamming has nothing on that

[last shore]

thanks for reasoning that out

it makes a lot of sense to have both options Imo

the on board drones probably would not be direct control

[last shore]

false targets? no, they are very real

[dark anchor]

DRFM multiplies the more transmitters you use

If all 8 transmitters are on DRFM

On a single guy

It’ll be completely unintelligible

[obsidian onyx]

what would happen to the drones in the event the parent is destroyed?

[last shore]

they would revert to their default behavior set by the mission maker, which could be to orbit a point, or land, or follow a path

until an existing or new parent commands it

they can also serve as normal loyal wingmen for the other aircraft, just with limited functionality

[obsidian onyx]

this is a very solid idea for a larger aircraft that can still contribute meaningfully to combat

[last shore]

thank you

it got some shaky reception early on, but as more people give feedback i keep changing it to better fit demands

people really want big plane

[obsidian onyx]

do we already have OPFOR UCAV?

[last shore]

yeah, but it wouldnt really fit the requirements for this

[chilly olive]

I saw this concept the other day and this could be a semi stealth aircraft but keeping the VTOL theme of the game

[last shore]

maybe, could look into it

taking off vertically would wreck the Bombing payload of it, making it just a drone networking station / decoy launcher

it wouldn't really be able to lift any full explosive weapons

not that it's a bad idea, I think that's a good way to balance it

I don't think there's any real life equivalent to that though, which would make adding it kinda cumbersome

it would suit the theme of an evolved B-21 though

[chilly olive]

I saw this concept the other day and this could be a semi stealth aircraft but keeping the VTOL theme of the game

True it could be something like how the F-45 where you can choose your payload and that would determine if your performance.

[vale plover]

It would only be useful when carrying supplies: troops

[last shore]

carry a whole FARP in one payload

it would also be useful for carrying lightweight payloads like decoys or lasing drones

and commanding already present drones

I think if anyone should be VTOL it should be the UCAVs

#1247636782443663410 message

[gusty slate]

you’ve invented noise jamming

[dark anchor]

HAHHAA

YOU JUST MADE ME SPIT MY FUCKING DRINK

IM FUCKING CHOKING

[pulsar ferry]

Idk if this has been said because I'm not gonna read 1,000 replies but the reason why I think an aircraft like this is different from the AV42 and F45 is because for example, the b-2 can carry 80 500lb JDAMs or 16 2,600lb class bombs and no air-air missiles.

An aircraft like this would add a ton more dynamic gameplay and probably a really good campaign

[subtle blade]

I find it hard to believe there’s new dynamic gameplay to be found just by increasing weapon count. The 26b can carry 31 JDAMs, what gameplay exists that 80 covers, but 31 does not

[last shore]

the amount of bombs is like, the least important feature

[pulsar ferry]

The aircraft would most likely need wingmen for defense. The higher count of bombs could influence more objectives in pvp multiplayer and larger scale campaigns

[subtle blade]

Wingman for defense you can already achieve by removing weapons from the 26b, and there’s no PvP mission design where 31 bombs vs 80 bombs makes a difference in gameplay

[last shore]

the main features are a new type of airframe, drone control, swarm commanding, and then a big payload

[pulsar ferry]

Fair point

[last shore]

yeah, I don't want people to think that I just want this for more bombw

that's not really the point

you can have 2 players in single seaters that carry more

it feeds the demand for a heavy/large airframe, as well as drone controls, as well as bombers

though tbh I think ASW should have priority over anything else, that would be dope

[pulsar ferry]

Yeah the 2 or 3 seat design is probably the best part of it

[last shore]

3 seats would also be pretty cool, but it would still operate like 80% as well with 2 seats, so Im not hard pushing 3 seats

I do think it would help the operation of it though

[pulsar ferry]

Yes agreed

[last shore]

having one person in the plane would make it legit just a stealth bomber though, which would still be great

2 people can launch 32 AGM-161s instead of 14

or 2 people can launch 16 agm-161s, and then also control UCAVs very precisely

[dusk bobcat]

i think that have 3 seats, even if 1 of them is almost always empty is fair
It’s not that big a deal, there are unoccupied seats on plenty of planes IRL like the EX

[pulsar ferry]

Maybe the 2 seater on a bomber could influence the addition of the ai pilot in the other seat to do something

[dusk bobcat]

a good pilot can always multitask, that’s true for all the 2 seaters, it would be true for 3

[subtle blade]

The EX is like the only example irl lol

[last shore]

idk about an AI pilot, the game is already very automated

[last shore]

yeah, that's why I'm hesitant for it

it would genuinely be needed if someone is running 16 decoys or something

but not much else

[dusk bobcat]

there are larger planes where crews go away over time thanks to automatisation, like engineers and navigators. I think the air force wants to start trying tankers with 1 pilot

[last shore]

automatisation

[last shore]

yuck

1 pilot is nasty

when there's so many people that want to fly

paying pilots is like, a very small fraction of the costs

especially on the bigger planes

[dusk bobcat]

well not so many want to fly tankers in the air force, and most importantly, it’s expansive as fuck

but anyways they will experiment with it

[keen rivet]

This suggestion seems like "big EF-24G"

[last shore]

I mean, it shares a few aspects, but it does have a set of unique features

just like everything else

[dusk bobcat]

more so the F-111 lol

[sullen tusk]

i still don't understand how the standalone UCAV is supposed to work. not having it be integral to the mothership aircraft introduces a ton of balancing challenges. your aircraft's capabilities would be limited by how many UCAVs the mission maker puts in

not to mention if the UCAVs are completely standalone vehicles, it would functionally be just having existing AI wingmen that you can give commands with a TSD rather than your voice

[last shore]

i changed it to include carried drones

[sullen tusk]

so it does both carried drones and controls other AI vehicles?

[last shore]

thats kinda the point, the other planes will be able to command them, but this would be able to give more specific and direct commands, as well as remotely operate them individually

[last shore]

yeah, that can be an option

it would be possible to jame the controls of the plane, as well as the mission maker can decide the effective power of the platform by adding / removing drones

it has a higher level of wingman control over the other planes, in a similar way to the EF-24 having a higher control of electronic warfare

as well as unique weapons to help aid that style of combat

the onboard drones would have like, 2 missiles, so it wouldnt be super powerful

just to help defend itself, since there are concerns of it being too vulnerable

[solid mica]

What role would this thing fill? A weird combination of BARCAP, large payload, and EW?

[last shore]

like

BARCAP/Bomber

it does have decoys, but those can be removed/reduced if it were ever added

[solid mica]

How would it defend from enemy missiles if the decoys are unsuccessful

[last shore]

someone brought up having the decoys help with interception, but my thought was that its a stealth bomber, which would help avoid being fired at in the first place

i think interception is wack

[solid mica]

I mean the 45A gets fired at decently often

[last shore]

you would have to keep up a frontline in order to avoid being shot at, and positioning is pretty important

• DRFM jamming would be an option i think

[solid mica]

I dig the concept of a stealth bomber that can maybe do stand-in jamming, but I think that role would be better delegated to an AI unit

[last shore]

i would love an AI stealth bomber too

but there is enough extra features to merrit players having it imo

[solid mica]

Maybe

I’m curious how a singleplayer campaign with this thing would go lol

[last shore]

also, it can be vulnerable, you dont need a great fighter to make it a vtol aircraft

the ah-94 is vulnerable as hell, given the enemy can get to you

you avoid death by being protected

which the fb-32 would be able to protect itself remotely

[last shore]

honestly, theres a lot of ways it could go, i think it would be pretty awesome

[last shore]

true

[solid mica]

me attempting to control UCAVs, get GPS points for my 52 JDAMs, and launch 120Ds at bandits all at once

[last shore]

single player would be really tough to balance everything

a singleplayer campaign would focus more on doing one thing at a time, but two seat campaign would be really great

[solid mica]

I suppose a good addition to go with that would be an AI backseater/crew member

[last shore]

yeah, if theres any place to do it i think it would be there

only in singleplayer though

[solid mica]

It’s nowhere near as effective as a player should be but it can do the basic functions

[last shore]

i agree

also a TSD auto GPS system could be implemented

like "GPS for all of X type of unit"

though it might make it too streamlined

[solid mica]

I feel like that would trivialize that part of the game for the advanced planes with TSDs

Because if that’s a thing you’d get all the 45A/24G nerds asking for it in their plane

[last shore]

yeah

[solid mica]

I’m a believer in "big aircraft bad because big target" so I don’t really agree with this being added to the game but I do think it’s one of the more fleshed out and well made suggestions

[dark anchor]

(I also believe in such)

[last shore]

honestly, id say its more medium sized, and it does have a lot of systems to protect itself

the original bomber post i made suffered from being way too vulnerable

[solid mica]

Yeah it’d just be a matter of balancing those systems so they’re not too weak but also not too strong

[last shore]

people asking for the B-52 will have that problem

[last shore]

exactly, its really hard to do that without having it in game to tweak payloads/performances

[solid mica]

I’d love a B-52 AI unit that’d be a platform for long range standoff munitions like a shit ton of AGM-161s

[last shore]

yes, absolutely

[solid mica]

or bigger cruise missiles

[last shore]

the B-11 with AGM-161s would be great

[solid mica]

It already has them

[last shore]

https://discord.com/channels/319915885575798785/1258942745641484429

[last shore]

it doesnt

it as AGM-89s

and it cant shoot on a GPS path group

[solid mica]

Oh I forgor

[last shore]

just individual waypoints

which makes programming them all so hard

• it can only carry 8 missiles, which is also super low

[solid mica]

Yeah that’s silly

[vast pewter]

I don't see the issue with it being a big target as I can get within 10-15nm reliably to a mad-4 in a 45 and if your that close then your doing something wrong

[last shore]

I think the concern mostly lies with aircraft, which is very fair

the stealth would open up pathways between radars, which is also helpful

[vast pewter]

would it have sam threat rings on it's TSD or whatever it will get?

[dark anchor]

I can get within 1 mile in the 24 using noise jamming

[vast pewter]

and?

[dark anchor]

if you combine jamming and the nose on stealth of the F45 you'll get even closer

so ykyk

jamming = super op

I feel giving it basic jammers would be better than trying to make it stealthy imo

or similar jammers to the F45

so that you have to be nose on

just my opinion though

[vast pewter]

yeah I know how noise jam works but I rarely use it as noise jam+HOJ=fox-3 in your plane

[dark anchor]

just learn to cut jamming every now and then..

😭

I hit MRAD relatively often in the EF24..

that's just something you need to grow a habit of

[last shore]

it would be cool if it did

[last shore]

it would have F-45 jammers

and a similar stealth level

especially from below

pop quiz, does HOJ still try to pitbull

not cause i dont know, of course