Tu-199/Yak 131 and Other Fixed Winged Possibilities

[Largos. 10]

(To-199 Neophron)

As some of you may have noticed in the recent let's play video with Eurogamer they introduced a new fixed wing fighter for CSAT that will debut in the third campaign. This thread is designed to spark discussion on the new plane and other possible planes in the release.

First the Yak-131

The Yak 131 is an armed single seater aircraft from the Yak 130 family which includes the Yak 130(Training) Yak 133 (Recon) and Yak 135 (VIP Transport). The Yak 131 was originally planned to replace the Su-25 Frogfoot but ended being scrapped due to lack of pilot protection.

So far BI has fitted it with a 30mm cannon, a "UAH" rocket pod, 2 "Soln-9s" or possibly "Solar 9s" (The video compression was screwed up and made it very difficult to read) Which appear to be sidewinder missiles possibly related or counterpart to the AIM-9X as there are no current air-air missile systems I know of that relate to those names. There also appears to be 4 air-ground missiles which I won't even attempt to try to read.

http://defesaglobal.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/yak-130.jpg

Some discussion topics I want to bring up about this is if BI is concentrating on a CAS Jet for Opfor do you guys think they'll just add a variant for air-air which while we are moving towards more multirole types of jets like the F-35 the Yak 131 is a little bit "chunky" or "unathletic" for dogfighting. I would be thoroughly surprised if BI actually did make another fixed wing besides the confirmed Yak 131 and the unavoidable(as close to confirmed as it gets) F-35. There is no evidence of another CSAT jet or leaked photos like the other fixed winged aircraft but I was pleasantly surprised by the new CSAT trucks so it could be possible. The T-50 golden eagle would be a perfect candidate for this role.

http://www.aviationtrivia.info/Sukhoi-T-50.php

Also what so you guys think of the advanced technologies that could be added with these fixed wing aircrafts. The F-35 boasted it's remarkable HMDS (helmet) on "60Minutes" that can "see through" the plane using cameras mounted on the plane. This would be a pretty cool vision mode and doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to include. It would also be pretty cool to have working cockpit radars and factor in stealth technology which might result in shaky or delayed locking and decreased radar detection.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg

By the way this is my first thread start, tell me how I did please.

The final products from BI (Planned release for March 20)

To-199 Neophron

A-164 Wipeout (Future A-10)

With these confirmed what will become of this texture?

http://www.rapidfiregames.com/sites/default/files/pics/arma3/ss-024.jpg

Edited March 12, 2014 by Largos.
Jets Confirmed

[squirrel0311 16]

Your thread start is fine but for future referrence there are several threads already up that have to do with fixed wing CAS aircraft so next time try to post in one of those instead. They don't like it when people start new threads on topics that have already been opened.

I like the Yak 130, I think it would be a good choice.

Another option would be the excercise of that "artistic freedom" with the creation of something like this... The Qaher -313 http://mod.ir/sites/default/files/images/f313.16.jpg

It could act as Iran's multi-role answer to the JSF. (Yes I know that the plane doesn't really exist or at least that it's a model, hence why I say use the artistic freedom.)

As for the helmet, I'm pretty sure that's already in the game although I don't know if they are planning on making it function like the real one.

[Yairweinberg 1]

The Yak-130 might fit but the PAK-FA wont.

The qaher 313 isnt real as you mentioned but just a Propaganda tool of Iran. I dont think it belong but there is another one Iran made I dont remember the name but it kinda reminds me of the F-18 or at least an early prototype of it.

The Pak fa or T-50 is just too high tech for what is in the game to handle. Anything which isnt like the real thing will only do injustice to it.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Su-27 or Su-35 maybe?

[chortles 263]

The Yak-130 might fit but the PAK-FA wont.

More to the point, going through the history of what BI has done for fixed-wing, no air superiority fighter fits... it's no coincidence that the devs are so specific about talking the fixed-wing up as "close air support", and the only other even hinted at throughout this game's history is a transport.

As far as "plausibility" though, the Yak-130 is reported to have gotten several orders outside of Russia, so it would stand to reason that in the Arma 3 timeline a CSAT member air force was one such customer or otherwise got their hands on a Yak-130/131, with the Arma 3 name as either its name in that air force (i.e. in the way that the German Type 212 submarine is in Italian service as the Todaro-class) or that of a 'domestic' derivative/successor... after all, the "successor"/"descendant" explanation is already used for a bunch of A3 hardware! :p

[das attorney 858]

More to the point, going through the history of what BI has done for fixed-wing, no air superiority fighter fits... it's no coincidence that the devs are so specific about talking the fixed-wing up as "close air support", and the only other even hinted at throughout this game's history is a transport.

Hello,

Yes totally agreed. Given the nature of the sim and the tolerances it is capable of, it's quite clear that Arma is only capable of simulating aircraft with a relative low top speed (reasonably accurately). It's not a problem in my eyes, just a limitation that needs to be considered.

Any talk of having supersonic fighters in the game is fair enough, but one should always remember that the game can't simulate those kind of speeds accurately - the faster the aircraft, the bigger the approximation.

If they put some low speed ground attack aircraft in the game and some transports, then cool, I can dig that. Anything faster (like tier whatever air superiority planes) then there's going to be increased sync issues in MP.

This isn't an attack on fast airplanes as I applaud the efforts that people like RKSL Rock and John Spartan/Saul are doing, but just more of a nod to Arma playing at it's strengths (and not it's weaknesses).

Personally, after playing the WW2 mods available; it does seem to me that Arma is an engine more suited to that time period:

• Less high speed projectiles (less guys with auto-guns spamming bullets everywhere)
  
• Slower planes (easier on CPU to calculate)
  
• Shame there wasn't any decent choppers in WW2 though ;)
  

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

As some of you may have noticed in the recent let's play video with Eurogamer they introduced a new fixed wing fighter for CSAT that will debut in the third campaign. This thread is designed to spark discussion on the new plane and other possible planes in the release.

First the Yak-131

The Yak 131 is an armed single seater aircraft from the Yak 130 family which includes the Yak 130(Training) Yak 133 (Recon) and Yak 135 (VIP Transport). The Yak 131 was originally planned to replace the Su-25 Frogfoot but ended being scrapped due to lack of pilot protection.

So far BI has fitted it with a 30mm cannon, a "UAH" rocket pod, 2 "Soln-9s" or possibly "Solar 9s" (The video compression was screwed up and made it very difficult to read) Which appear to be sidewinder missiles possibly related or counterpart to the AIM-9X as there are no current air-air missile systems I know of that relate to those names. There also appears to be 4 air-ground missiles which I won't even attempt to try to read.

http://defesaglobal.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/yak-130.jpg

Some discussion topics I want to bring up about this is if BI is concentrating on a CAS Jet for Opfor do you guys think they'll just add a variant for air-air which while we are moving towards more multirole types of jets like the F-35 the Yak 131 is a little bit "chunky" or "unathletic" for dogfighting. I would be thoroughly surprised if BI actually did make another fixed wing besides the confirmed Yak 131 and the unavoidable(as close to confirmed as it gets) F-35. There is no evidence of another CSAT jet or leaked photos like the other fixed winged aircraft but I was pleasantly surprised by the new CSAT trucks so it could be possible. The T-50 golden eagle would be a perfect candidate for this role.

http://www.aviationtrivia.info/Sukhoi-T-50.php

Also what so you guys think of the advanced technologies that could be added with these fixed wing aircrafts. The F-35 boasted it's remarkable HMDS (helmet) on "60Minutes" that can "see through" the plane using cameras mounted on the plane. This would be a pretty cool vision mode and doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to include. It would also be pretty cool to have working cockpit radars and factor in stealth technology which might result in shaky or delayed locking and decreased radar detection.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg

By the way this is my first thread start, tell me how I did please.

First off, you mentioned the Yak-131 being Chunky. The Original Yak-130 was also designed Originally as an Air to Air Fighter Trainer to replace the L- Class Fixed wing, such as the L-39 Albatros, and superior to the Super Albatros (ALCA), and they came up with the Yak-131 to be fitted with a CAS capable loadout.. You'd be dead wrong to believe the Yak cannot dogfight, as it would probably swat an F-35 out of the sky with a skilled pilot. Second, I do believe most of these subjects have been touched on in an already existing Forum topic, if im not wrong, by older post along the lines of "2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Remain, What if?". Might want to do some reading in that post.

Edited February 27, 2014 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[Largos. 10]

First off, you mentioned the Yak-131 being Chunky. The Original Yak-130 was also designed Originally as an Air to Air Fighter Trainer to replace the L- Class Fixed wing, such as the L-39 Albatros, and superior to the Super Albatros (ALCA), and they came up with the Yak-131 to be fitted with a CAS capable loadout.. You'd be dead wrong to believe the Yak cannot dogfight, as it would probably swat an F-35 out of the sky with a skilled pilot. Second, I do believe most of these subjects have been touched on in an already existing Forum topic, if im not wrong, by older post along the lines of "2 Fixed Wing Aircraft Remain, What if?". Might want to do some reading in that post.

How do you figure a Yak-131 could "Swat" a F-35? The F-35 has a higher thrust to weight ration, nearly three times higher thrust output, an afterburner that puts it to over four times the thrust, higher max G, twice the top speed, and a higher max load weight, 360 degree HMDS vision and thrust vectoring. On top of all this I can almost guarantee it has several times the effective engagement range which doesn't do much in arma nor does the stealth body type but nonetheless it still has it.

Sure anything's possible, for God's sake a good pilot could shoot down an SU-35 with an A-10 but it's just impractical. CSAT could use a far more advanced air to air fighter, but as others pointed out arma isn't a dogfighting simulator and CAS is the major component of fixed wing in this game. That being said I could live with one CSAT jet but it'd be nice to have a T-50.

I did check out that (two and half months since last post) old thread by the way and it seems to have turned into a fight about the A-10 cannon again and was just about the two possible fixed wing CAS birds which left out tech/features and other fixed wing vehicles.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Largos.

[odie0351 67]

So...what are you guys guesses, hopes and dreams for the NATO bird? My money is on the F-35, I really truly hope BIS doesn't go the trainer turned CAS route with NATO. Also wouldn't mind seeing a fictional or prototype only aircraft like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_FB-22,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32 or, and this is reaching deep into my wish list vault, an A-10/YF-23 Hybrid. Don't mind it so much with the new CSAT aircraft cause I'm pretty fond of the Yak-131, mostly just because it looks kinda cool to me. That being said, like many others I too would have preferred something a little more badass like the PAK FA.

Also, do you guys think we will ever see functional versions of the C-192 and VSTOL? Cant help but wonder being as their wrecks are in game...then again so is the T-72 so this might be just wishful thinking:confused:

Edited February 27, 2014 by Odie0351

[chortles 263]

Yes totally agreed. Given the nature of the sim and the tolerances it is capable of, it's quite clear that Arma is only capable of simulating aircraft with a relative low top speed (reasonably accurately). It's not a problem in my eyes, just a limitation that needs to be considered.

Any talk of having supersonic fighters in the game is fair enough, but one should always remember that the game can't simulate those kind of speeds accurately - the faster the aircraft, the bigger the approximation.

If they put some low speed ground attack aircraft in the game and some transports, then cool, I can dig that. Anything faster (like tier whatever air superiority planes) then there's going to be increased sync issues in MP.

I'm also considering the "scale" factor -- in addition to fixed-wing aircraft airspeeds (and therefore "seeming" map sizes when in an aircraft), I'd keep in mind range: even 'point defense' SAMs have ranges that if authentically simulated could exceed entire Arma map lengths, to say nothing of "short-range" air-to-air missiles or of anti-ship missiles, or even authentic radar ranges... and at that point, well... yeah. :lol:

So...what are you guys guesses, hopes and dreams for the NATO bird? My money is on the F-35, I really truly hope BIS doesn't go the trainer turned CAS route with NATO.

Ehhh, the bigger issue for me is that all we got features-wise over A2 in the CSAT jet is "a MFD can display currently selected and already-expended weapons." Presumably the NATO jet will have that too, and it certainly benefits "game HUD off" players, but to date there's (admittedly as with the CSAT jet) no hints that the NATO jet will in turn include any exclusive features over A2.

Don't mind it so much with the new CSAT aircraft cause I'm pretty fond of the Yak-131, mostly just because it looks kinda cool to me. That being said, like many others I too would have preferred something a little more badass like the PAK FA.

The problem here is that, as discussed, what you consider to be "a little more badass" is exactly not what BI is interested in, nor has ever been.

Also, do you guys think we will ever see functional versions of the C-192 and VSTOL? Cant help but wonder being as their wrecks are in game...then again so is the T-72 so this might be just wishful thinking:confused:

There was a recent mention of a "pilot_transport_01" RTM in someone's screenshot of their RPT (along with "plane_fighter_01") as part of a not-yet-deployed "air_f_delta" PBO, but otherwise BI hasn't hinted at anything else.

[slatts 1978]

This is probably for another topic. But what if BIS went down the road of NATO's CAS aircraft being a UCAV and not a manned fighter? Since that's how some people see the future going.

[odie0351 67]

Ehhh, the bigger issue for me is that all we got features-wise over A2 in the CSAT jet is "a MFD can display currently selected and already-expended weapons." Presumably the NATO jet will have that too, and it certainly benefits "game HUD off" players, but to date there's (admittedly as with the CSAT jet) no hints that the NATO jet will in turn include any exclusive features over A2.

Definitely can go along with that, the biggest thing I would like to see as far as features go is a functioning CCIP. And Anti Radiation missiles that can only lock on active AA units, but that is almost definitely wishful thinking:(

The problem here is that, as discussed, what you consider to be "a little more badass" is exactly not what BI is interested in, nor has ever been.

Hence why I am perfectly happy with YAK-131. Was just saying that even though it certainly happens in the real world, its still kind of a let down seeing trainer aircraft being brought in as front line CAS aircraft instead of "proper" CAS/Tactical Bomber type aircraft, or at least when the faction getting said aircraft is kinda being portrayed as superior. Not to say the PAK-FA would be a better choice for CAS than the YAK-131, just that it doesn't feel quite right it being used by the "All Mighty" CSAT.

[chortles 263]

This is probably for another topic. But what if BIS went down the road of NATO's CAS aircraft being a UCAV and not a manned fighter? Since that's how some people see the future going.

... it's called the MQ4A Greyhawk/K40 Ababil-3.

Interestingly enough, the Greyhawk/Ababil includes a pair of pylons with triple ejector racks, one per wing -- the "(CAS)" loadout has a GBU-12 floating underneath each TER, but on the 'regular' loadout the six Skalpels are small enough to fill up both TERs; size-wise it looks like the ASRAAMs are similar enough in dimensions that you could do up a "(SRAA)" loadout with six ASRAAMs! Zephyrs are noticeably longer and wider so "three to a TER" isn't as plausible, so I can see a hypothetical Greyhawk (LRAA) loadout with two Zephyrs (one weapon per TER/pylon/wing like the "Greyhawk (CAS)")... but the problem with that as an exclusive solution is that even a Buzzard (AA) could 'overmatch' such a Greyhawk simply by having twice as many long-range weapons...

Definitely can go along with that, the biggest thing I would like to see as far as features go is a functioning CCIP. And Anti Radiation missiles that can only lock on active AA units, but that is almost definitely wishful thinking:(

Unfortunately I agree -- though while I'd go further in wanting CCIP/CCRP and GPS/INS support, the anti-radiation missile (ARM) idea would require "active AA" simulation to be relevant, whereas what vanilla Arma has always presented (for both detection and acquisition/lock-on) has been "everything's passive", so we'd need a bunch of other stuff to be simulated for the idea of an ARM (as a distinct weapon type) to make sense. Otherwise -- as in, within the current simulation level of Arma -- a 'basic' AGM should suffice.

Hence why I am perfectly happy with YAK-131. Was just saying that even though it certainly happens in the real world, its still kind of a let down seeing trainer aircraft being brought in as front line CAS aircraft instead of "proper" CAS/Tactical Bomber type aircraft, or at least when the faction getting said aircraft is kinda being portrayed as superior. Not to say the PAK-FA would be a better choice for CAS than the YAK-131, just that it doesn't feel quite right it being used by the "All Mighty" CSAT.

What is there in the way of new ""proper" CAS/Tactical Bomber type aircraft", much less with the glass cockpit-from-the-get-go look? I ask this because as iconic as the A-10/Su-25 are, I distinctly recall them being the last (most recent) of the "armored/dedicated ground attack aircraft" breed... and instead of successors in that vein there's just been upgrading thereof, whereas all the "glass cockpit" action has been on the fighter end (be it air superiority, multirole, strike)... so unless you're cool with BI flat-out ripping off a Su-35 cockpit and sticking it onto a "2035 Su-25"... :p

(I'd thought about "BI ripping off a Su-35 and sticking it onto a '2035 Su-34'" instead, but then I remembered that the Su-34 is an outright anomaly among Arma jets -- it's the only time that BI has done a two-seater combat jet, since the C-130J and the MV-22 are neither -- and the only reason I even thought of it was due to the Su-34 combining a sleek 'fighter' shape with a lot of weapons in Arma 2.)

[roshnak 41]

This is probably for another topic. But what if BIS went down the road of NATO's CAS aircraft being a UCAV and not a manned fighter? Since that's how some people see the future going.

Pilots everywhere will be sad.

More seriously, from a game perspective, I feel like it could cause some balance issues (please don't yell at me) since it removes any real danger to the pilot.

From a realism standpoint, barring some pretty huge advances in situational awareness for UAV pilots, I don't see UAVs being a viable option in anything but completely uncontested skies.

..Unfortunately I agree -- though while I'd go further in wanting CCIP/CCRP and GPS/INS support, the anti-radiation missile (ARM) idea would require "active AA" simulation to be relevant, whereas what vanilla Arma has always presented (for both detection and acquisition/lock-on) has been "everything's passive", so we'd need a bunch of other stuff to be simulated for the idea of an ARM (as a distinct weapon type) to make sense.

Honestly, CCIP would be enough of an advance for me. It would be a huge game changer as far as utilizing weapons from aircraft goes. A working CCIP system wouldn't have to just apply to bombs, it could be applied to guns and rockets as well.

CCRP and GPS guided weapons would be nice, I guess, but I'm not sure how practical those systems would be at the ranges that aircraft engage in Arma. Units don't even typically render at the distances that CCRP and GPS munitions would normally be used. Basically, most attack profiles that you'd normally be running in Arma would call for CCIP bombing, anyway. Plus, from a gameplay standpoint, CCIP is way more fun and engaging than CCRP, and GPS guided munitions are just plain boring.

And yeah, ARMs would be pretty much useless since there aren't any active AA systems in the game, really.

Edited March 2, 2014 by roshnak

[odie0351 67]

What is there in the way of new ""proper" CAS/Tactical Bomber type aircraft", much less with the glass cockpit-from-the-get-go look? I ask this because as iconic as the A-10/Su-25 are, I distinctly recall them being the last (most recent) of the "armored/dedicated ground attack aircraft" breed... and instead of successors in that vein there's just been upgrading thereof, whereas all the "glass cockpit" action has been on the fighter end (be it air superiority, multirole, strike)... so unless you're cool with BI flat-out ripping off a Su-35 cockpit and sticking it onto a "2035 Su-25"... :p

(I'd thought about "BI ripping off a Su-35 and sticking it onto a '2035 Su-34'" instead, but then I remembered that the Su-34 is an outright anomaly among Arma jets -- it's the only time that BI has done a two-seater combat jet, since the C-130J and the MV-22 are neither -- and the only reason I even thought of it was due to the Su-34 combining a sleek 'fighter' shape with a lot of weapons in Arma 2.)

You do have a pretty good point there:) Still I would have preferred something different, and to be honest I would not have been heart broken if they had done something along the lines of porting the SU-34. Or going the hybrid route the way they did with the MI-48, although I would imagine that would be a very unpopular choice with those who aren't onboard with the futuristic setting to begin with. Or they could just take one of Iran's "prototype" not so currently functional:p jets and modify the design to better suit the CAS role, being as Iran is supposed to be the main member of CSAT in game anyways. But then again, like I've said before I do like the YAK-131, and it will very likely end up as a CAS bird for many nations, hell who's to say it might not even end up being used by Russia themselves as a frontline aircraft someday. Not that my griping matters anyway on this particular subject since we already know what we're getting:o

By the way has there been any kind of clue as to what the NATO bird will be? I know I said earlier that I believe it will be the F-35 but thinking more about it I can't help but feel a bit skeptical now, being as it was what they had been showing in game before they released the beta, and had said that it was just there as a placeholder to test fixed wing flight models or something like that.

[chortles 263]

Incidental thinking: even before the A-10/Su-25 the trend for dedicated ground attack aircraft was more in the vein of aircraft like early MiGs, the Corsair II, the Q-5 ("Fantan"), the Phantom II, the Skyhawk, and the Harrier... so the evolution to the "trainer with weapons" trend doesn't seem too far off. :lol:

Pilots everywhere will be sad.

More seriously, from a game perspective, I feel like it could cause some balance issues (please don't yell at me) since it removes any real danger to the pilot.

In the context of Arma a lost UCAV still means that its side is out an aircraft (and its weapons if they weren't already expended), while the cost of the pilot's training is irrelevant in vanilla Arma but a UCAV pilot without a UCAV is, well... yeah. (Same goes for pilots and manned aircraft in Arma though.)

Honestly, CCIP would be enough of an advance for me. It would be a huge game changer as far as utilizing weapons from aircraft goes. A working CCIP system wouldn't have to just apply to bombs, it could be applied to bombs and rockets as well.

Unguided bombs anyway -- though I've seen some interesting reading over in some threads such as the John_Spartan/Saul combined Super Hornet/Su-35S thread about performing guided bomb runs within the limitations of the the current "TAB lock" system (how to fly in such a way as to get that diamond lock).

Oh, and whadya know... :D

CCRP and GPS guided weapons would be nice, I guess, but I'm not sure how practical those systems would be at the ranges that aircraft engage in Arma. Units don't even typically render at the distances that CCRP and GPS munitions would normally be used. Basically, most attack profiles that you'd normally be running in Arma would call for CCIP bombing, anyway. Plus, from a gameplay standpoint, CCIP is way more fun and engaging than CCRP, and GPS guided munitions are just plain boring.

I think for me it's less a 'realism' thing and more that without simulating the guidance method -- however unrealistically -- it's just missing the point to simulate ARMs or JDAMs as a separate, specific variety of weapon... as opposed to LGBs, which seem not-coincidentally to be the only such guided bomb ever in any vanilla Arma game.

Then again, what I'd want out of simulating CCRP and GPS/INS would be more of "set target position/'waypoint x' on map -> fly from current position to 'waypoint y' to release!" Nevertheless, I am curious about what you mean re: "most attack profiles that you'd normally be running in Arma"...

[roshnak 41]

In the context of Arma a lost UCAV still means that its side is out an aircraft (and its weapons if they weren't already expended), while the cost of the pilot's training is irrelevant in vanilla Arma but a UCAV pilot without a UCAV is, well... yeah. (Same goes for pilots and manned aircraft in Arma though.)

I was thinking more from the pilot's perspective of "oh man I don't want to get shot down here." In my opinion, it just generally makes the game less interesting and removes one more element of risk to the player.

Nevertheless, I am curious about what you mean re: "most attack profiles that you'd normally be running in Arma"...

Low level, aggressive bombing runs as opposed to the traditional straight and level delivery from 15-20,000 feet that you would get with CCRP.

And, it's just my opinion, but clicking on the map, flying over the point and dropping bombs is a lot less interesting than CCIP delivery. GPS weapons are boring in flight sims; I can't imagine they would be more entertaining in Arma. LGBs are kind of a different story since they should theoretically require teamwork between players to be effective.

Oh, and it's worth noting that we kind of have CCRP now -- for guided munitions, at least -- we just don't have very usable symbology. Lock a target and fly at the box; when the diamond appears, pickle.

[squirrel0311 16]

I wasn’t aware that the engine doesn’t like to play with fast moving jets…

In that case, I think it makes it an even better idea to keep jets to a minimum.

Personally I see ArmA as more of a Ground Combat sandbox, and while I’m not opposed to aircraft by any means, I just don’t see a need in spending Vanilla resources on a vast variety…especially if they won’t respond correctly.

So with subsonic jets in mind, my vote goes for…

NATO: Textron Scorpion (2 seater, 25mm caseless :D) - http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2013/12/13/06/46/30Aim.SlMa.80.jpeg

CSAT: YAK – 130 (2 seater)

AAF: L-159 Alca (A-143 Buzzard)

Perhaps if the FIA ever stole, laundered, or raised enough money they could purchase a Burt Rutan ARES Mudfighter. - http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/4825L-1.jpg -

And if Private Military Contractors are allowed in, perhaps they could bring an upgraded OV-10 Nog with them. - http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/32823d1366907106-what-up-f-35-part-ii-ov-10-nog.jpg

I’ve always wanted to see and OV-10 nog with contra rotating propfans and targeting array domes near each wingtip that allow the gun underneath to swing to the side and fire from an orbit pattern.

[drebin052 324]

The other CAS jet is going to be based on the A-10, if the armoury description is anything to go by.

A-164 Wipeout is a single-seat aircraft used for close air support and air interdiction. The life-cycle of it's predecessor, A-10, ended in 2030 and the need for replacement grew more important with the rising tension in Pacific. A limited development budget did not allow for a fresh start, instead the concept of A-10 was improved with better shape, engines and armaments.

Interesting choice, but no mention of VTOL capabilities so far.

[chortles 263]

And just where did you find that, considering that Arma 3 has no Armory?

[byku 13]

That would be cool ^^.

[drebin052 324]

Open up Language_f_epc.pbo to find the descriptions.

Also the CSAT jet's called the To-199 Neophron. I'm guessing both jets won't have AA versions like the Buzzard either, since there's no label for them.

[Largos. 10]

^He's right, good find I must admit though I'm a little bummed that the F-35 isn't coming. I was kinda looking forward to doing some VTOL hovering on multiplayer severs...then again I could still get my VTOL

Some other cool possibilities

http://www.rolanddynamics.com/media/vipera12.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2pRkkhj9an8/T3iUaQ-KUfI/AAAAAAAABGY/Spof69-EOnU/s1600/Blockout1.png -I actually think this is what we will get.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ED6GNDNkIBQ/UQAjdqG6E-I/AAAAAAAABAE/nGl_i4OsJXk/s1600/DropShipSketch8_Web.jpg- Perhaps a little too futuristic but hey look where we were 20 years ago, who knows where we'll be in the next 20.

https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1368/12/1368123534735.jpg

Edited March 6, 2014 by Largos.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I really hope they add an F-35/F-22 so we can atleast combat aerial targets as NATO.

[the_demongod 31]

^He's right, good find I must admit though I'm a little bummed that the F-35 isn't coming. I was kinda looking forward to doing some VTOL hovering on multiplayer severs...then again I could still get my VTOL

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/321/a/8/vtol_a_10_by_heckthor-d4ggy3v.jpg

Some other cool possibilities

http://www.rolanddynamics.com/media/vipera12.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2pRkkhj9an8/T3iUaQ-KUfI/AAAAAAAABGY/Spof69-EOnU/s1600/Blockout1.png -I actually think this is what we will get.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ED6GNDNkIBQ/UQAjdqG6E-I/AAAAAAAABAE/nGl_i4OsJXk/s1600/DropShipSketch8_Web.jpg- Perhaps a little too futuristic but hey look where we were 20 years ago, who knows where we'll be in the next 20.

https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1368/12/1368123534735.jpg

That's actually a good point to make, we should look at the speed at which aviation advances have been made. 30 years after WWII (1975), we had the Grumman F-14 Tomcat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat

20 years later, in 1997, we had the first prototype of the F-22 Raptor.

just 9 years later, in 2006, we had the F-35 Lightening II. My point is, who knows where we might be by 2040. We might just be flying something that looks like this. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ED6GNDNkIBQ/UQAjdqG6E-I/AAAAAAAABAE/nGl_i4OsJXk/s1600/DropShipSketch8_Web.jpg-

Just saying we should stay open to futuristic and traditional aircraft designs alike.