Arma 3 is not going far enough with Technology

[instagoat 133]

One thing has been overlooked though, the financial side of all these upcomming technologies.

Will they be deemed cost effective?

That is why most of the prototypes BIS are using in A3 are still just that in the first place.

In wartime, cost considerations usually go out of the window. Plus, many of these technologies entail improvements in production technology too, making it cheaper to produce equipment that would be top-notch today. For example, the housebound production automaton like I mentioned would enable common rebels to produce cheap-end factory quality rifles (your budget wal-mart AR-15, basically.) from template. It would probably be very slow, and some dedicated machinery would still be needed for some parts such as the bolt and barrel, but it would still increase the capacity of a rebel force to supply itself massively.

Another thing to note is that the tech we see on the blufor side is -massively- outdated, which indicates that economically, the NATO countries and particularily the US are seriously on their back foot. Research by large military think-tanks indicates that the F-35 even today will fail to deliver on pretty much any promise it is making, and using that kind of underperformer in 2030 tells me a lot. So, whatever technology we will see, it will probably be seen on the opfor side and not Nato, apart from special forces who have the kind of budget allowance to purchase the good stuff.

It is difficult to evaluate cost, but there are mathematical solutions to at least approximate what a given item will cost then, compared to now. That doesn´t account for economic developments, obviously.

[-Snafu- 77]

In wartime, cost considerations usually go out of the window. Plus, many of these technologies entail improvements in production technology too, making it cheaper to produce equipment that would be top-notch today. For example, the housebound production automaton like I mentioned would enable common rebels to produce cheap-end factory quality rifles (your budget wal-mart AR-15, basically.) from template. It would probably be very slow, and some dedicated machinery would still be needed for some parts such as the bolt and barrel, but it would still increase the capacity of a rebel force to supply itself massively.

Another thing to note is that the tech we see on the blufor side is -massively- outdated, which indicates that economically, the NATO countries and particularily the US are seriously on their back foot. Research by large military think-tanks indicates that the F-35 even today will fail to deliver on pretty much any promise it is making, and using that kind of underperformer in 2030 tells me a lot. So, whatever technology we will see, it will probably be seen on the opfor side and not Nato, apart from special forces who have the kind of budget allowance to purchase the good stuff.

It is difficult to evaluate cost, but there are mathematical solutions to at least approximate what a given item will cost then, compared to now. That doesn´t account for economic developments, obviously.

If there was to be a world war today (or in the immediate future) it would not go like WW1 or WW2 but it would rather be a "fight with what you have" war. Since the 1960s military platforms have grown increasingly in terms of technology and cost making them unsuitable for mass production like in WW2. We seem to have come full circle from specialised workshops to factories mass producing armaments and back to specialised factories producing weapons that are again expensive, complex and resource intensive. If the Cold War had went hot it would not have developed like WW2 but most likely would have been relatively quick due to the aforementioned reasons. Defeat or stalemate would have resulted with a nuclear exchange highly likely - there would be no WW2 style mobilisation. Cost considerations do not go out the window either.

Arma III is just a game of course so there's no need to have a very detailed history as long as it's reasonably plausible. Just enjoy it!

[liquidpinky 11]

In wartime, cost considerations usually go out of the window. Plus, many of these technologies entail improvements in production technology too, making it cheaper to produce equipment that would be top-notch today. For example, the housebound production automaton like I mentioned would enable common rebels to produce cheap-end factory quality rifles (your budget wal-mart AR-15, basically.) from template. It would probably be very slow, and some dedicated machinery would still be needed for some parts such as the bolt and barrel, but it would still increase the capacity of a rebel force to supply itself massively.

Indeed, but development pre-war will be hampered by financial constaraints and the real devopment won't kick in till the war is well established and the governments realise that drastic measures are required.

Look at the weapon development throughout the recent deployment in Afganistan for example, where whole new transport platforms have been developed to counter IEDs.

As for home made weapons, the tech is there but are the raw materials to actually make anything?

Deos Limnos produce it's own plastics? It's own metal ore facilities?

The logistical side has to be explored too.

[rohan11221 1]

I'm not looking to play some star trek simulator and unless everything in the world changes (literally everything) none of this technology will be available for a long time, Keep it simple aka guns planes helicopters and boats, None of this space travel and self healing stuff, Plus I think they are going for a sort of 'What would happen if a war between 2 modern military countries but with cool rail guns and advanced stuff' kind of game instead of a game that would show what it would actually be like... Plus nor you or me have any idea how technology will progress who knows it might come to a grinding halt for 20 years.

[Maio 293]

I like to take 2014 ( Armaverse) as a reference point. All most all of the equipment seen so far is "new".

Let's say that 2015 is the year when the US started a major overhaul of it's assets. Not taking off the shelf tech into consideration, I'd say it would take at least 5 years before the US can fully field a piece of equipment and to that add X nr. of years of development and testing. So let's say that by 2025, the US is rockin v 1.1 or 1.2 of some of the gear we have seen so far. Add to that incremental improvements and the fielding and you get v1.3/4 by 2030... because it's peace time and the US has no need to equip it's entire force with the latest and greatest.

The war breaks and the US panics and starts fielding prototypes and equipment that was mothballed in order to keep up with Iran.

If I were to have beef with any piece of equipment, it would be the AX-9. Where is the glass cockpit BI :D ? It's teh future! The ToH cockpit looks great, but teh future BI, teh future! I hope the "regular" heli pilot helmets have integrated HUD's like the RAH-66 ones do, cause you know... teh future and all that.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Maio

[jacknorrisuk 146]

I do think this is set ambitiously far in the future, but I am very appreciative of the modest technology. Just look at Blops 2: set much nearer the present day and with totally stupid AT-AT Walkers plodding around town. Seeing as the game is set in a fairly degraded and isolated location, there should only be hints of the latest technology. Just go visit some little mountain village and tell me that augmented reality and 3D printers are just spewing out of the windows! BI don't even need to design a futuristic civilian car...if they just take a 2012 design and make it look old and rusty, i'd believe it would be parked outside a farmhouse in 20 years time.

And who knows, BI have probably added lots of new technologies that they don't want to reveal yet. Probably things that won't even be revealed until halfway through the game.

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA3 is going far enough with technology as it is.

The technological leaps, just like Cold War, are a thing of the past.

If it's being tested right now - it still will not go anywhere much in 20 years.

There's no tech race so BIS is doing it right.

[scrim 1]

Research by large military think-tanks indicates that the F-35 even today will fail to deliver on pretty much any promise it is making, and using that kind of underperformer in 2030 tells me a lot.

Think tanks are just think tanks, many of them disagree with each other, and the whole concept has generally speaking been tainted by political bias from day one, so maybe think tanks aren't that big a deal.

The F-35 pretty much started with the Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF Program) back in '96. The plans are for it to be the primary fighter plane second to the F-22 until at least 2040. Combine that with the traditional mess ups, military burocracy, delays regarding the next plane, etc, and 2040 looks a lot more like 2060 or even 2080. Aircraft have become so advanced that the good old days of "you need a plane? Well, we can get you the P-39 all ready to go in about 90 days" are long gone. The M16 was designed in the '60s, and with the budget cuts that are imminent after the war in Afghanistan has ended, odds are the the replacement program is deemed to be too expensive in relation to any possible advantages it may provide.

Add to that a general institionalised corruption in the form of political campaign money from big military industries that further slow down the progress. The Abrams tank for an example has managed to push some modernization package or something down the Pentagon's throat despite the latter saying it doesn't want it because it isn't needed. Apparently some senator/congressman who's received campaign donations from the guys producing the tank thinks differently, so the Abrams is further away from being replaced.

A lot of new technologies, if not most of them end up turning out to be completely unpractical IRL, because they don't work as well as it was claimed, because they weren't really needed in the first place, because they only provide small improvements over existing technologies but at crazy high prices, because they are about doing things ridicolously complicated when the same thing can be done better with a piece of paper, etc.

Generally speaking, rail guns and new assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, etc would be as far as I'd stretch for 2035. Honestly though, I'd really take a good look at the rail guns, and I would probably consider using an existing assault rifle (think maybe the H&K416, named M416 to reflect it being the new standard issue in place of the M16/M4) instead of a brand new design that doesn't exist today.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Interesting stuff, although IRL I'm more inclined to agree with the post above, it could be interesting to see how some the technologies mentioned in the first post might be combined.

ie; meshing together Self healing materials, meta materials, liquid body armour and powered exoskeltons ...........

[Kamov 1]

Compare early 90's jets with jets of today, alot can change in a short period of peace time. Don't be fooled, alot of developments are dual use.

[instagoat 133]

Think tanks are just think tanks, many of them disagree with each other, and the whole concept has generally speaking been tainted by political bias from day one, so maybe think tanks aren't that big a deal.

The F-35 pretty much started with the Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF Program) back in '96. The plans are for it to be the primary fighter plane second to the F-22 until at least 2040. Combine that with the traditional mess ups, military burocracy, delays regarding the next plane, etc, and 2040 looks a lot more like 2060 or even 2080. Aircraft have become so advanced that the good old days of "you need a plane? Well, we can get you the P-39 all ready to go in about 90 days" are long gone. The M16 was designed in the '60s, and with the budget cuts that are imminent after the war in Afghanistan has ended, odds are the the replacement program is deemed to be too expensive in relation to any possible advantages it may provide.

Add to that a general institionalised corruption in the form of political campaign money from big military industries that further slow down the progress. The Abrams tank for an example has managed to push some modernization package or something down the Pentagon's throat despite the latter saying it doesn't want it because it isn't needed. Apparently some senator/congressman who's received campaign donations from the guys producing the tank thinks differently, so the Abrams is further away from being replaced.

A lot of new technologies, if not most of them end up turning out to be completely unpractical IRL, because they don't work as well as it was claimed, because they weren't really needed in the first place, because they only provide small improvements over existing technologies but at crazy high prices, because they are about doing things ridicolously complicated when the same thing can be done better with a piece of paper, etc.

Generally speaking, rail guns and new assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, etc would be as far as I'd stretch for 2035. Honestly though, I'd really take a good look at the rail guns, and I would probably consider using an existing assault rifle (think maybe the H&K416, named M416 to reflect it being the new standard issue in place of the M16/M4) instead of a brand new design that doesn't exist today.

The F-35 program's problems are too numerous to be discussed here, and some of the problems are so glaring that in a time of war the program would`ve been cancelled already in favor of a more workable solution. But to name a few things, the aircraft is grossly overweight, underpowered, overengineered, the sensor and weapons solutions have not been tested yet at all, many key weapons platforms have been removed from the support suite, the aircraft has neglible space for weapons, and due to airframe bloating to accomodate the weight increase has lost stealthyness from almost every aspect but the front. It is unable to supercruise, or even sustain meaningful times supersonic on afterburner to escape pursuing supercruising next-gen Flankers or PAK-FAs, it doesn´t have the airframe space to mount powerful AA radars comparable to those in the pipeline for the SU-27 series or the PAK-FA, or indeed the F-22, and to add to all these problems the development program is so troubled that the new leader has smashed Lockheed over their inabillity to deliver on time and on target.

The progress in modern technology, especially electronics technology, sensors and weapons is extremely fast nowadays, so I think the 2020 ish line I drew on the chart pushed forward to 2030 is still realistic. Again, bar the geoengineering, possibly, as well as some more complex meta-material solutions and super-fancy camo technology. But I believe -many- things will be employed that people are only dreaming of now, because we are entering an age where we are finally able to actually design solutions for our ideas, instead of fumbling around in the dark like it was done in the 60s, where things like this were the realm of science fiction.

Flying cars are not a matter of impossibillity today, but simple matters of practicality, for example.

As such, I´m going to continue looking, I hope to make the first update to the first post on the weekend, or at the latest by the middle of next week.

Cheerio

Insta

[NoRailgunner 0]

Dreams are fine and dandy but with decreasing ressources, low budgets, lobbyism/nepotism and some political stunts/decisions - no one can predict how the future will be. Guess we will see some of the current stuff still fielded in 2035 - just with upgrades/modernizations (packs). Just keep in mind there is a difference between "prototype", "demonstrator" and "combat ready/proven", "fielded (in active use)". + Soldiers need to get familiar and effective with all those things, train hard.... Or do you think its like in the Matrix - just connect and know how to fly a helicopter within 3-5 seconds? ;)

[Kamov 1]

I hope they add some some sort of map integration since countries are developing future soldier kits that track soldiers via GLONASS, GPS or Galileo.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I hope they add some some sort of map integration since countries are developing future soldier kits that track soldiers via GLONASS, GPS or Galileo.

hmm-player markers less a question of difficuly setting and more a question of available electronic warfare and countermeasures.

[Beagle 684]

If ArmA III would do it right it would depict future Warfare in a EMP weapon use zone with most sophisticated systems unfunctional for both sides and armoured units in emergency operation mode without much electronics and an Infantry heavy fight that would be very close to WWII. because thats exactly what is to expect in a war with both sides at comparaböe tech level in 2035...evey side would deny the use of advanced technology by EMP....so ArmA III must be the most modern Looking WWII fight Style game on the market.

[dysta 10]

I hope they add some some sort of map integration since countries are developing future soldier kits that track soldiers via GLONASS, GPS or Galileo.

And don't forget Beidou, too.

---------------

Why nobody ever mention about the human singularity upon the future in this thread? It's been decades later and lots of advanced technologies upon human body and such are already took quite a concept and development into it, and doubtlessly will be happen in the future as well. If you know about Dmitry Itskov's 2045 project, you will get what I mean:

[instagoat 133]

And don't forget Beidou, too.

---------------

Why nobody ever mention about the human singularity upon the future in this thread? It's been decades later and lots of advanced technologies upon human body and such are already took quite a concept and development into it, and doubtlessly will be happen in the future as well. If you know about Dmitry Itskov's 2045 project, you will get what I mean:

Mostly, because of the difficulty of predicting things. I have been looking around on youtube and the wikis for panels by professionals and experts, as well as documents, on how reliably you can predict the future, and these guys make a good point here:

Basically, the summary is that you can´t estimate the impact of the things you´re able to predict, and you´ll always miss the interesting developments. Case in point: no science fiction up to the development of the internet predicted the development of an equivalent.

Makes me wonder if a more conservative outlook isn´t warranted. Basically, in the short term, we will always expect too much, and in the long term, too little.

So I think it may after all be realistic for evolved 2012ish gear to be used in the timeframe. However, I still believe that certain key technologies will be developed far enough to become public mainstream, ie, production facilities at home, power production and storage developments, etc.

[Harzach 2507]

All I know is, WE WERE PROMISED JET PACKS.

[metalcraze 290]

Again dreams dreams dreams.

The reality is that there's no Cold War anymore.

Look how during CW era tanks and choppers were switched every 10 years to new ones - and today everybody uses weapons from 50 years ago. There's no point in advancing the technology. US and UK are just way too far in tech development to bother.

Railguns certainly will not be tank-mountable in 20 years so BIS is already taking too much artistic freedom there compared to reality.

But you can dream. It won't change anything.

[dysta 10]

Mostly, because of the difficulty of predicting things.

For something we have to predict which most of the people believe so, and really taking effort to develop that way, I don't see any difficulty to believe it'd be real, though.

The reality is that there's no Cold War anymore.

I don't believe the cold war is "ACTUALLY" ended. The world still had several superior orders and strategies that many counties taking their own way to go on. If Soviet-US is a part of the CW, which is Old Cold War, then I say the future involved with technology and global value/issue would give many appropriate reasons to expand and continue to develop advance warfares, thus that's a New Cold War (Or Neo-Cold War, Cold War 2).

Edited November 6, 2012 by Dysta

[metalcraze 290]

For there to be a Cold War there should be some real competition. But alas it's not how it is. All new tech is built around safely killing rookie goat herders with AKs from 70 years ago.

The only closest competition for the most advanced block (US and closest allies) - Russia's army is in a very sad state.

And BIS has Iran of all countries in ArmA3. Iran. Their army is so ancient, their budget is so low, they are so anti-science and as a result - anti-development - it's not even funny.

[kireta21 13]

That's why Iranians don't even use Iranian tech in ArmA3.

Probably because lining Cobras, T-72s and Chieftains aganist Commanches and Merkava IV tanks looks silly.

But if that's the case, why use Iran anyway???

[dysta 10]

And BIS has Iran of all countries in ArmA3. Iran. Their army is so ancient, their budget is so low, they are so anti-science and as a result - anti-development - it's not even funny.

Pretend that's how they get their military development that far, IF they could turn the entire Israel and Turkey over by her own.

[Alpha-Kilo 36]

I see ArmA3 as a game, not as a scientific prediction of the future. The year 2035 simply means "not now" and gives the producers some artistic freedom. If the technology depicted in the game is more like 2020 than 2035, so be it.

Another thing: The ArmA series mainly concentrates on infantry. Will the warfare of the future really rely on infantry or will the wars be fought by drones after the batttlefield has been destroyed by bombers and long-range artillery? It is speculation, but I can imagine that human soldiers will focus on special operations and maybe police duty in potentially dangerous territory. But this would probably make very dull gaming.

An ArmA3 which provides Cold War tactics and futuristic gadgets may not be realistic, but (hopefully) fun. Mission makers can always decide not to use something they consider "unrealistic". Others may decide to add even more stuff. The sugggested "Real 2035" mod is a good example.

[PuFu 4591]

one thing most seem to forget is that it is indeed year 2035, but in armaverse. as previously stated, the future setting allows bis some creative licenses, allowing them to distant themselves from the reacuuring stories, parties and weapons and gadgets.

that said, most striving for nowadays gameplay scenarious will most likely have the content to create those based on community made content together with bis content (and the possibility of a mass bis mlod release)

that said, i find this thread entertaining from a prediction pov ;)

Edited November 6, 2012 by PuFu